1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5410 OF 2010 Syed Idris s/o Syed Yusuf, Age 35 years, Occ. Business, r/o Georai, Tal. Georai, District Beed. ...PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra Through Police Inspector, Police Station, Chaklamba, Tal.Georai, District Beed. ...RESPONDENT ... Mr.S.S.Thombre, Adv., for the petitioner. Mr.V.H.Dighe, APP for respondent. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE:17/1/2011 *** PER COURT : 1. Heard learned Counsel for the accused/applicant. Application was moved on 28.12.2010 and after hearing both the Counsel, notices are issued. Learned A.P.P. had waived notice on that day and sought time to produce investigation papers. The papers are now made available by learned A.P.P. 2 2. Learned counsel for the accused/applicant submits that the permit for excavating sand from the river bed in the vicinity of Rakshas Bhuvan was subsisting and user of suction was also permitted for which he relies on panchnama carried by the Circle Inspector and also by the officers of Ground Survey Development Authorities. The second fold of submission is the activities of excavating sand, extracting the sand from the river bed by user of suction and using 19 boats was not done by the accused/applicant. He has no role in the matter. Counsel submits, if excess excavation of sand is noticed, the accused/applicant is ready to deposit requisite penalty to the Revenue Authorities. 3. The discreet information received by the Revenue Authorities made them to have a trap with L.C.B. Police of Georai at around 6 a.m. where 19 boats were activating with suction pipe, extracting the sand from river bed. On noticing Police authorities and the Revenue authorities, the persons carrying such activities ran away, however, the boats remained in the river bed and are under control of the authorities. 4. The two fold stand taken by the accused/applicant, prima facie, is difficult to 3 conceive. He has initially informed that under a valid permit he was required to extract the sand which was within the permissible limit of 3000 brass. He does not do so. The second aspect is, he submits, the extraction is not by him and, if it is excess, he will pay the penalty. There was no permission to the accused/applicant, apparently, to use Suction Pipes or requisite machinery to extract and remove the mineral item, a prohibited commodity in terms of Section 48 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. Consequently, registration of the offense under Section 379 or in breach of Section 48(7) or Section 48(8) of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, need not be questioned. Custodial interrogation is imperative as it would be the accused who would during fetters, could explain about boats or owners of those 19 boats, suction equipments, his associates who fled away at the material time. Interrogation would also unearth dubious role of Police and Revenue Authorities, who were also in league in ravaging of the minerals. In the result, application rejected. The observations are prima facie in nature. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE agp/5410-10crapl