TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 1305
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etitioners : Mr. R. John Sathyan Senior Advocate for Mr. R. Tamilvanan And Others For the Respondent : Mr. K.R. Laxman Standing Counsel for ED And Others COMMON ORDER K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN. J. Sl. no Petitioner name Rank Crime.No Spl.S.C.No Crl.OP.No Offences under sections 1 1.PRP Exports 2.PRP. Granites 3.PRP.Granite Exports 4.P.Palanisamy 5.P.Senthil Kumar 6.P.Suresh Kumar 7.P.Selvi 8.S.Chandralekha 9.A.Maharajan 1-9 C.C.No. 10 of 2018 ECIR/CEZ O/15/2013 174/2026 45(1) r/w Section 3, 4 and Section 8(5) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 2 1.P.Palanisamy 2.P.Senthilkumar 3.P.Sureshkumar 4.A.Maharajan 5.M/s.PRP.Granite 6.M/s.PRP Exports, 4-7 & 17, 18 C.C.No.5 of 2022 ECIR/CEZ O/4/2014 217/2026 45(1) r/w Section 3, 4 and Section 8(5) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 3 1.P.Palanisamy 2.P.Suresh kumar 3.P.Selvi 4.Chandralekha 5.P.Senthilkumar 6.M.Sivaranjani 7.A.Maharajan 2-8 192 of 2013 1/2021 16252/202 5 447, 434, 379, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 304 (ii) IPC r/w 511, 109,114 IPC and Sec 3(i) of TNP(PD&L) Act 1992....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5 447, 379, 434, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 304(ii) IPC r/w. 511, 109, 114 IPC and 3(i) & 4 of TNP(PD and L) Act 1992 & sec 6 r/w 3(a) 4(a) of Explosive Substances Act 1908 r/w 120-B IPC 11 1.P.Palanisamy 2.P.Senthilkumar 3.P.Suresh kumar 4.A.Maharajan 5.P.Selvi 6.Chandralekha 7.M.Sivaranjani 2-8 257/2012 12/2023 16471/202 5 447, 434, 379, 420, 430, 465, 467, 468, 471, 304(ii) IPC r/w 109, 114, 511 IPC and sec 3(i), 3(ii) & 4 of TNP(PD and L) Act 1992 & sec 3(a), 4(a) & 6 of Explosive Substances Act r/w 120-B IPC 12 1.P.Palanisamy 2.P.Senthilkumar 3.P.Suresh kumar 4.A.Maharajan 2, 4-6 225/2013 2/2021 16475/202 5 447, 379, 420, 430, 434, 465, 467, 468, 471, 304(ii) IPC r/w 511, 109 IPC and sec 3(i), 3(ii) of TNP(PD and L) Act 1992 & sec 3(a) & 4(a) & 6 of Explosive Substances Act 1908 r/w 109, 114 IPC r/w 120-B IPC 13 1.P.Palanisamy 2.P.Selvi 3.P.Senthilkumar 4.P.Suresh kumar 5.M.Sivaranjani 6..A.Maharajan 7.Chandralekha 2-8 415/2013 3/2021 16476/202 5 447, 379, 420, 430, 434, 465, 467, 468, 471, 304 (ii) r/w 511,109,114 IPC and Sec 3(i) & 3(ii) and 4 of TNP(PD&L) Act 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....468, 471, 304(ii) IPC r/w 511, 109, 114 IPC and sec 3(i), 3(ii), of TNPPDL) Act 1992 3(a), 4(a) & 6 of Explosive Substances Act r/w 120-B IPC 22 1.P.Palanisamy 2.P.Suresh kumar 3. P.Senthilkumar 4.A.Maharajan 9&13-1 5 411/2012 57/2021 18507/202 5 447, 201, 379, 420, 430, 434, 465, 467, 468, 471, 304(ii) IPC r/w 511, 109, 114 IPC and sec 3(i), 3(ii), 4 of TNPPDL) Act 1992 & 6 r/w 3(a), 4(a) of Explosive Substances Act 1908 r/w 120-B IPC 2. These petitions have been filed to call for the entire records relating to Crl.O.P. Nos. 174/2026, 217/2026, 16252/2025, 16459/2025, 16460/2025, 16461/2025, 16463/2025, 16466/2025, 16468/2025, 16470/2025, 16471/2025, 16475/2025, 16476/2025, 16480/2025, 16485/2025, 18501/2025, 18502/2025, 18503/2025, 18504/2025, 18505/2025 and 18506/2025, 18507/2025 and quash all further proceedings arising therefrom insofar as the petitioners are concerned. Sl. No. Petitioner name Crl.RC. No Crime.No Spl.S.C.No Crl.M.P.No 1 1.selvi 1115/25 .228/2012 .21/2021 2344/22 2 1.Selvi 2.Chandralekha 3..sivaranjani 1116/25 .221/2013 .47/2021 2312/22 3 1.Selvi 2.Chandralekha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ners and other accused and after completion of the investigation numerous final reports were filed for the offences punishable under sections 447, 434, 379,420, 430, 465, 467, 468, 471,304(ii) of IPC r/w.109, 114, 511 of IPC and Section 3(i) (ii) & 4 of TNPPDL Act, 1992 and Section 3(a) & 4(a) & 6 of Explosive Substance Act, 1908 r/w.120(b) of IPC and the same were taken on file in various Spl.Session Cases and some of the cases are yet to be taken on file. 3.1.3. Further they have laundered proceeds of crimes by acquiring a large number of immovable properties. Hence, the case was filed before the Court to proceed against the accused under the Prevention of Laundering Act, 2002 and the same were taken on file in various C.C on the file of Special Court for CBI Cases, Madurai. In the said proceedings, it is alleged that Rs.7,237 Crore of the properties are involved. 3.1.4 Pending trial, number of accused filed discharge petitions and the same were dismissed and challenging the same, number of revisions were filed before this Court and the number of accused filed quash petitions before this Court directly and the common submissions are made in these quash petitions and Crimina....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....osecution case is founded upon such mechanically recorded statements. 4.5. It was further argued that the inordinate delay in registration of the FIR, without any satisfactory explanation from the prosecution, itself demonstrates that the criminal case has been instituted with mala fide intention, without any incriminating material, and on the basis of statements of planted witnesses. On these grounds also, the learned Senior Counsel prayed for quashing of the proceedings. 5. Submission of the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor :- 5.1. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the argument of the petitioner based on the High-Level Committee Report of 31.03.2021, is fundamentally misconceived. According to him, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had never directed constitution of any High-Level Committee. The Supreme Court had merely affirmed the order passed by this Court in proceedings relating to the challenge against the recovery proceedings initiated in respect of the alleged illegal mining. 5.2. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that the show cause notice issued by the District Collector for recovery of damages was ch....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... against them, and therefore the petitions deserve dismissal.Insofar as the contention regarding "parroted versions" is concerned, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. do not constitute substantive evidence. The observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding stereotyped or identical versions relate to the appreciation of evidence during trial, where the deposition of witnesses is critically examined to assess whether they have been tutored. Those principles have no application at the present stage of considering a petition for quashing. Finally, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that every contention advanced by the learned Senior Counsel raises disputed questions of fact, which can be adjudicated only upon appreciation of evidence during the course of trial. No case has been made out warranting the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, he prayed for dismissal of all the quash petitions. 6. This Court considered rival submission made on the either side and also perused the records and more particularly, typeset of papers furnished by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng, criminal conspiracy, forgery, fabrication of records, damage to public property and other allied offences. 7.4. The petitioners challenged the show cause notices before this Court by filing writ petitions primarily contending that the assessment of the loss was arbitrary, that the valuation was erroneous, and that the District Collector lacked jurisdiction to initiate the recovery proceedings. The writ petitions were dismissed. The writ appeals preferred thereagainst were also dismissed by the Hon'ble justice Sanjay kishan kaul (as He then was)and Justice M.M.Sundresh, on 16.03.2015 in W.A.(MD)Nos.1470 to 1473, 1476 to 1490, 1492 to 1496, 1505 to 1521 of 2014 and the relevant portion of the order is as follows:- "As rightly submitted by the learned Advocate General, the report of the Special Team is only a piece of evidence. In other words, it is not binding on the respondent. The respondent, after going through the report, merely initiated proceedings. It is only a prima facie view. It is not, as if, a decision has already been taken. A perusal of the orders impugned would show that the respondent has looked into the report and thereafter, called for explanatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r Article 226 of the Constitution of India is both extraordinary and discretionary. Such a power has to be exercised with circumspection while dealing with 9 a show cause notice. A show cause notice cannot be read on a technical ground, but on a reasonable one. The decisions relied upon by the learned counsels actually reiterated the settled position on the jurisdiction of this Court. Interference was made in those cases as final determination was made by the authority concerned even while issuing the show cause notice. Thus, those decisions are distinguishable on facts. 5.7. On a reading of the judgment, we find that the learned single Judge has dealt with all the aspects. Thus, we do not find any error warranting interference. 5.8. Though the show cause notices have been issued two years before, the appellants have been successful so far in dragging on without submitting their reply to the respondent. Thus, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it fit to impose costs. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed by imposing costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) each on the appellants payable to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Hi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arried out. It also specifically notes the presence of physical traces and indicators evidencing that quarrying activities had been undertaken in those locations. However, a subsequent inspection report has been produced taking a completely contrary stand and appears to ignore the factual position already documented and it appears to have been prepared in an irresponsible manner that suppresses or obscures the true state of affairs. Therefore, the the report dated 31.03.2021 has admittedly never been accepted by the Government and Government constituted a Committee under the chairmanship of Hon'ble Dr.Justice P.Jyothimani (Retired Judge of this Court) to examine the issues in detail and assess the extent of damage caused so as to facilitate determination of appropriate compensation and recovery I.e.the said Hon'ble Judge was appointed to finalize "show cause notices" The relevant portions of the Report of the said committee reads as follows: "3. In this regard, a meeting was held on 22.08.2022 headed by the Hon'ble Chief Minister to discuss the issues relating to the Granite quarries in Madurai. During the meeting among other things, it was decided to constitut....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ones stored in non-leased areas and have also admitted transportation of certain quantities of granite. Even in the disputed report relied upon by the defence, there is a categorical finding that the lessee had violated the conditions of the mining lease and had transported a substantial quantity of multi-coloured granite from the leasehold area without obtaining valid transport permits, thereby evading the payment of seigniorage fees and other statutory dues. According to the prosecution, the quantity so transported represents granite illegally quarried from non-leasehold Government land. The defence, however, contends, on the strength of a subsequent report, that the quarrying was confined to the leasehold area and did not extend into any non-leasehold land. Whether the alleged large-scale excavation of multi-coloured granite was carried out within the leasehold area and was transported without valid transport permit or from adjoining Government land is a matter requiring adjudication upon appreciation of evidence during trial and Such disputed factual issues cannot be adjudicated while exercising the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 9. Further, Ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....illegally quarried material or its monetary value may have relevance at the stage of assessment of damages or, while imposing appropriate punishment, but it does not affect the existence of a prima facie criminal case. At best, it may affect the quantum of damages recoverable from the accused. It does not exonerate the accused from criminal liability nor does it negate the allegations of illegal quarrying. 9.2. At this stage, this court has to accept the said contentions of the learned additional public prosecutor to dismiss these petitions without making any conclusive finding on the said submissions and accordingly, this Court is not inclined to accept the interpretation made by the learned Senior Counsel upon the Committee's report. The report itself stands disputed by the prosecution and, in any event, was prepared for a limited and specific purpose unconnected with the determination of criminal liability. Consequently, submissions based solely upon the said report can not be accepted at this stage. The evidentiary value, correctness, and legal effect of such reports are all matters to be decided only during the course of trial, upon appreciation of evidence by the Trial....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cted hereinbelow the relevant portions of the statements of certain witnesses, which, according to the prosecution, clearly indicate their participation in the alleged illegal activities. The learned trial judge also considered the same in one of the discharge petition in the following manner. This Court has extracted the statement of one of the witnesses relied upon by the learned trial judge while dismissing the discharge petition:- "25. In the case in Spl.S.C. 13/2021, six witnesses have been referred to as eye witnesses who would speak about the involvement of all the accused in the offences alleged by the prosecution. So far as the statements of the eye witnesses namely (L.W.10) Chellapandi S/o. Karuppaiah, (L.W.11) Maduraiveeran S/o. Ganesan, (L.W.12) Rathakrishnan S/o. Karuppaiah and (L.W.13) Shanmugam Pillai S/o. Nadarjan are concerned, the overt act against these petitioners-accused is as follows : petitioners-accused asked Thathuvaraj and Kambam Arumugam to remove the topsoil, the next two eye witnesses would state that the petitionersaccused had trespassed into the Government puramboke land situated in 226/1A and 226/1C. As per the statement of the subs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pation in the illegal quarrying operations during the relevant period, the subsequent transfer of the property or cessation of association cannot, by itself, constitute a ground to quash the criminal proceedings. The said principle squarely applies to the facts of the present case. The said decision is as follows: "Leave granted. We have heard the learned AAG appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the impugned order passed by the High Court. The respondent(s) were chargesheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 304-Part II, 379, 420, 439, 434, 447, 465, 467, 468 and 471 read with Sections 109, 114, 511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, (for short, the 'IPC'), Sections 3(i), (ii) and 4 of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 (for short, the 'TNPPDL Act'), Section 6 read with Sections 3(a), 4(a) of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 read with Section 120-B of the IPC and Section 3(1) of the TNPPDL Act read with Sections 4(1), 4(2) (A), 4(3) and 21(b) (5) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. By the impugned or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d thereafter attempting to screen the illegal activities through various subsequent acts. 12.2. The materials further indicate that these acts constituted a continuous course of conduct extending until this Court passed orders directing the stoppage of quarrying operations, and, according to the prosecution, certain illegal activities even continued after the registration of the FIR. 12.3. In view of the continuing nature of the alleged offences, the extent of participation of each accused can be conclusively determined only during a full-fledged trial. Such issues cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by conducting a mini-trial or by undertaking a meticulous appreciation of the voluminous records, which, in the present case, run into 1,200 pages of additional materials. 13. Discussion on malafide: The submission of the learned Senior Counsel that the female family members of the principal accused have been falsely implicated out of mala fides is also essentially a disputed question of fact. This Court has already noticed from the materials available on record that serious allegations have been levelled against such accused persons and that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ds considerably diluted, as the cause of action is of a recurring nature. 14.5. Thirdly, upon perusal of the case records, including the statements recorded during investigation, it appears that the accused persons are stated to be influential individuals, and the prosecution case suggests that the registration of the FIR was stalled by intervention of certain officials. Whether such assertion is true or not is again a matter to be tested during trial, and cannot be conclusively adjudicated at this stage. 14.6.Having regard to the nature of the allegations, the magnitude of the alleged illegal activities, the continuing character of the offences and the involvement of multiple persons, including public officials, the mere delay in registration of the criminal case cannot, by itself, be treated as a circumstance vitiating the prosecution. Moreover, where the offences alleged are grave in nature and punishable with severe sentences, including imprisonment for life, the mere lapse of time in initiating criminal action does not ipso facto render the prosecution invalid. The principle that "crime does not die with time" underscores the position that delay cannot be a sole ground f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cessarily involves appreciation of evidence and evaluation of witness credibility, which can be undertaken only after the witnesses enter the witness box and are subjected to cross-examination. 15.4.Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. exhibit a degree of similarity, such circumstance, by itself, neither renders them inadmissible nor deprives them of all probative value at this preliminary stage. It is well settled that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court is not expected to conduct a meticulous examination of the evidence or adjudicate upon the reliability, truthfulness, or credibility of witness statements. Whether the witnesses have been tutored, whether their versions are exaggerated, or whether the similarities are so unnatural as to affect their credibility are matters falling exclusively within the domain of the trial Court during a fullfledged trial. 15.5.At the stage of considering a petition for quashing, the Court is only required to ascertain whether the allegations, if taken at their face value, disclose the commission of the alleged offences. Consequently, the plea that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ions are concerned, this Court finds that the prosecution has produced substantial materials, including eyewitness accounts and documentary evidence, alleging the involvement of the accused in illegal mining activities, forgery of records, cheating of the Government exchequer and causing damage to public property. The reliability, credibility and evidentiary value of such materials can be tested only during trial upon examination and cross-examination of witnesses. Similarly, the defence sought to be projected on the basis of disputed documents produced before this Court cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., as such an exercise would necessarily require appreciation of evidence. 16.6. This Court cannot, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., undertake a meticulous examination of the evidentiary value of the materials collected during investigation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that disputed questions of fact and issues requiring appreciation of evidence are matters falling within the domain of the Trial Court and not the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 16.7.Further, the submission that even grave suspicion ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....opting the arguments advanced by Mr.N.Anandapadmanaban, learned Senior Counsel, he contended that the said report clearly demonstrates that no predicate offence is made out and, therefore, the prosecution for the alleged offence under the PMLA, including the charge of conspiracy, is liable to be quashed. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Enforcement Directorate submitted that the offence under the PMLA is an independent and distinct offence. According to him, the materials collected during the investigation disclose the existence of proceeds of crime and, therefore, the Court need not undertake an examination of the merits of the predicate offence while considering the present proceedings. He further submitted that the report dated 31.03.2021 does not form part of the records in the present proceedings and has no legal sanctity or evidentiary value for the purpose of deciding the petition. 17.2. Thiru.K.R.Laxman,The learned Standing Counsel also pointed out that the petitioners had earlier filed a quash petition challenging the very same proceedings, which came to be dismissed about four months ago. According to him, the present petition is nothing but a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsel that the absence of a predicate offence completely ousts the Special Court of jurisdiction to proceed with the prosecution is equally misconceived. The offence of money laundering under the PMLA is a distinct and independent offence. The Act is a special legislation intended to prevent the laundering of proceeds of crime. Once the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 3 of the PMLA are prima facie disclosed, the prosecution cannot be interdicted merely on the basis of the submissions advanced by the accused regarding the merits of the scheduled offences. 17.9. In the present case, the petitioners themselves are arrayed as accused in the scheduled offences. Apart from the same, the Enforcement Directorate has collected substantial incriminating materials indicating that the petitioners were in possession of, and had dealt with, the proceeds generated from the alleged illegal quarrying operations. copious documents have been collected during the course of investigation, including records relating to acquisition of properties, financial transactions, and orders of provisional attachment passed under the provisions of the PMLA. 17.10.The investigation further di....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....:- "20.Coming to the case of Selvi (A7) and Chandraleka (A8), who were partners in some of the firms, the firms have also been shown as accused. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to extract paragraph 13.7 and 13.8 of the complaint (paragraph 13.8 has been wrongly typed as 13.7 at page 37) : "13.7. It is humbly submitted that Smt.P.Selvi (A7), W/o.Shri.P.Palanisamy knowingly assisted in the business as Partner of M/s.PRP Exports, PRP Granites and M/s.PRP Granite Exports to conduct the business and in the capacity of partner did not participate in the business of the companies. Smt.P.Selvi admitted in her statement recorded under Section 50(2) and 50(3) of PMLA that she was house wife and admitted that she was partner of M/s.PRP Exports and PRP Granites from 2003 to 2010. The offence cases are registered against the partners of M/s.PRP Exports, M/s.PRP Granite by Madurai District Crime Branch Police Department and the same are under investigation. She (A7) was the Partner of PRP Exports and PRP Granites holding PAN number and her income from granite business were assessed by income tax department periodically. She can read and write in English very well an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the above appears that, Selvi (A7) and Chandraleka (A8) knowingly assisted in the business of the partnership firms, but, did not participate in the business of the companies. 21. Mr.A.Ramesh vehemently stated that apart from the three 17/28 partnership firms which are accused in this case, there is no other entity registered under the Companies Act to be categorized as a company. 22. Be that as it may, a further reading of paragraphs 13.7 and 13.8 of the complaint extracted above show that, Selvi (A7) and Chandrelekha (A8) were income tax assessee's; they could read and write English very well; they were aware that they were partners in the granite business; that they had thorough knowledge about the movable and immovable properties acquired by the firms in which they were partners. Mr.A.Ramesh contended that mere knowledge of acquisition of properties is not tantamount to knowledge of commission of the offence under the PML Act. 23. Section 3 of the PML Act is indeed very wide. It begins with the expression "whosoever directly or indirectly attempts to indulge or knowingly assists or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in any process or act....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ving substantial ramifications on public interest and public revenue. Pursuant to the report submitted in the year 2012, the competent authority issued show-cause notices under the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, proposing recovery of the enormous loss of amount caused to the Government on account of the alleged illegal mining activities. 18.2. Despite the direction issued by the Hon'ble Division Bench of comprising the Hon'ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Kisan Kaul and M.M.Sundresh order dated 16.03.2015 to conclude the proceedings and pass final orders within a period of two months, the recovery proceedings have not reached their logical conclusion. The records placed before this Court prima facie disclose that, instead of expeditiously concluding the proceedings initiated in the year 2012 for recovery of the huge revenue loss caused by the illegal mining operations and the damage inflicted upon public properties, successive committees came to be constituted and no effective action appears to have been taken by the competent authority, namely, successive District Collectors, Madurai. 18.3. Without expressing any final opinion on th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by way of penalty and other recoverable amounts. 18.7. The appellants/petitioners are at liberty to raise all grounds available to them in law before the Trial Court and to rely upon such reports, documents, and materials as may be legally permissible, subject to their admissibility and proof in accordance with law. The learned Trial Judge shall independently assess the evidence and adjudicate the matter strictly on its own merits and in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observations made in the present proceedings, which are confined solely to the disposal of these petitions. This Court is constrained to observe that, almost on daily basis, it is confronted with cases relating to illegal mining and illegal quarrying. Such activities are not isolated incidents but appear to have continued unabated for several years, resulting in large-scale depletion of the State's natural resources. 19.Conclusion: 19.1. For all the aforesaid reasons, this Court finds no merit either in the Criminal Revision Petitions challenging the dismissal of the discharge petitions or in the petitions seeking quashment of the criminal proceedings. The learned Trial Judge was justified in c....