'Melur court not taking illicit mining seriously’

MADURAI: Social activists said that while the higher judiciary like the Madras high court and the Supreme Court have been taking a very serious view of illegal mining of minerals, which are national assets, the subordinate judiciary and the officials seem to be having a lenient approach to the issue which involves larger public interest.
Two days ago, the Judicial Magistrate (Melur) K.V.Mahendra Boopathy returned the three final police reports in three different cases connected to illicit mining, stating that as per the Supreme Court directive dated September 4 this year in the ‘State of (NCT) Delhi versus Sanjay’, it could only take cognizance of the police reports after filing of the complaint by the authority under the mines and minerals (development and regulation) (MMDR) act .
The police had filed those reports after they conducted investigations into the illegal mining activities in and around Melur taluk for a year.
In the case, quoted by the Melur J M, the Supreme Court said that the officer empowered and authorized under the MMDR Act should exercise all the powers including making a complaint before the jurisdictional magistrate and that the magistrate should take cognizance on the basis of such officer’s complaint. Interestingly, it has also stressed that on receipt of the police report, the magistrate could take cognizance of the said offence without awaiting the receipt of complaint. Social activists said the action only deferred the case proceedings. “The police who normally delay the filing of final reports in many criminal cases, have done it in three cases in a year after they filed FIRs, which too, the JM court returned on technical grounds,” said P Somasundaram, member of Sahayam probe committee support movement.
So far, the police have registered FIRs in 90 cases. Out of these, they have filed final reports in just 17 cases and have completed investigation in about 50 cases. In this situation, the JM court’s action returning the final reports on technical grounds will be ultimately lead to the dragging of the cases.
The judicial magistrate’s court seems to be not viewing the matter seriously, said M Purushotaman, Supreme Court advocate. “The Apex court has held in many cases that courts should not hide behind technicalities in taking cognizance of the cases involving the larger public interest,” he said.
The case’s special public prosecutor (SPP) R. Sheela said the magistrate ought not to have returned the final reports. “It did wrong in returning the reports. We will prefer an appeal against it,” the SPP said.
Police have registered FIRs in 90 cases. Out of these, they have filed final reports in just 17 cases and have completed investigation in about 50 cases