The Madras High Court Bench in Madurai on Friday pointed out that the Madurai district police had registered two cases against P. R. Palanichamy, his two sons P. Senthil Kumar and P. Suresh Kumar, son-in-law A. Maharajan and two other relatives under non-existing provisions of law.
Ahead of dismissing the anticipatory bail applications filed by the accused except Mr. Palanichamy who surrendered on August 8, Justice T. Mathivanan agreed with the petitioners’ counsel Veera Kathiravan that certain Sections under which the case had been registered were not there in the statute at all.
The First Information Report registered by the Keelavazhavu police near here had booked the accused under Sections 4 (1), 4 (2)(A), 4 (3) and 21(b) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act apart from provisions of the Indian Penal Code and Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act. Similarly, the FIR registered by the Othakadai police had booked the accused under Sections 4 (1), 4(2)(A), 4 (3) and 2(b)(5) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act though there were no provisions such as Section 4 (2)(A), 21 (b)(5) or 2 (b)(5) in the Act.
The judge pointed out that the police had wrongly mentioned Section 4 (2)(A) instead of Section 4(1A) which states that no person should transport or store or cause to be transported or stored any mineral otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the rules framed there under.
Further, Section 21 which lists down the penalties that could be imposed for violation of other provisions of the Act did not contain any clause and sub-clause such as (b)(5). The Section contained only clauses (1), (1A), (2), (3), (4), (4A), (5) and (6).
Nevertheless, he dismissed the plea for anticipatory bail on the basis of other charges such as Sections 379 (theft), 447 (criminal trespass) and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence of offence) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act.
After recording the submissions of Advocate General A. Navaneethakrishnan that a custodial interrogation was necessary to unearth many more details , the judge said that he was convinced that the prosecution had made out a prima facie case to reject the plea for advance bail.
