MMDR Act. Offences causing serious ecological imbalance must be met with stringent actions. Mere compounding not enough. Supreme Court.

Jayant Etc. vs The State of Madhya Pradesh. Criminal Appeal 824-825/2020 decided on 3 December 2020.

Judgment Link: https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2020/12111/12111_2020_34_1502_24918_Judgement_03-Dec-2020.pdf

Relevant Paragraphs: 11. Now so far as the submission on behalf of the private appellants ­violators that in view of the fact that violators were penalty determined by the appropriate authority for
compounding the offences/violations, there cannot be any
further criminal proceedings for the offences under Sections 379
and 414 IPC and Sections 4/21 of the MMDR Act and the
reliance placed on Section 23A of the MMDR Act is concerned, it
is true that in the present case the appropriate authority
determined the penalty under Rule 53 of the 1996 Rules/Rule 18
of the 2006 Rules, which the private appellants ­violators paid
and therefore the bar contained in sub­section 2 of Section 23A
of the MMDR Act will be attracted. Section 23A as it stands
today has been brought on the Statute in the year 1972 on the
recommendations of the Mineral Advisory Board which provides
that any offence punishable under the MMDR Act or any rule
made thereunder may, either before or after the institution of the
prosecution, be compounded by the person authorised under
section 22 to make a complaint to the court with respect to that
offence, on payment to that person, for credit to the Government,
of such sum as that person may specify. Sub­section 2 of
Section 23A further provides that where an offence is
compounded under sub­section (1), no proceeding or further
proceeding, as the case may be, shall be taken against the permitted to compound the violation in exercise of powers under Rule 53 of the 1996 Rules or Rule 18 of the 2006 Rules and the violators accepted the decision and deposited the amount of penalty determined by the appropriate authority for compounding the offences/violations, there cannot be any
further criminal proceedings for the offences under Sections 379
and 414 IPC and Sections 4/21 of the MMDR Act and the
reliance placed on Section 23A of the MMDR Act is concerned, it
is true that in the present case the appropriate authority
determined the penalty under Rule 53 of the 1996 Rules/Rule 18
of the 2006 Rules, which the private appellants­violators paid
and therefore the bar contained in sub­section 2 of Section 23A
of the MMDR Act will be attracted.

However, our above conclusions are considering the
provisions of Section 23A of the MMDR Act, as it stands today. It
might be true that by permitting the violators to compound the
offences under the MMDR Act or the rules made thereunder, the
State may get the revenue and the same shall be on the principle
of person who causes the damage shall have to compensate the
damage and shall have to pay the penalty like the principle of
polluters to pay in case of damage to the environment. However,
in view of the large scale damages being caused to the nature and
as observed and held by this Court in the case of Sanjay (supra),
the policy and object of MMDR Act and Rules are the result of an
increasing awareness of the compelling need to restore the
serious ecological imbalance and to stop the damages being caused to the nature and considering the observations made by
this Court in the aforesaid decision, reproduced hereinabove, and
when the violations like this are increasing and the serious
damage is caused to the nature and the earth and it also affects
the ground water levels etc. and it causes severe damage as
observed by this Court in the case of Sanjay (supra), reproduced
hereinabove, we are of the opinion that the violators cannot be
permitted to go scot free on payment of penalty only. There must
be some stringent provisions which may have deterrent effect so
that the violators may think twice before committing such
offences and before causing damage to the earth and the nature.

It is the duty cast upon the State to restore the ecological
imbalance and to stop damages being caused to the nature. As
observed by this Court in the case of Sanjay (supra), excessive instream sand ­and ­gravel mining from river beds and like resources
causes the degradation of rivers. It is further observed that apart
from threatening bridges, sand mining transforms the riverbeds
into large and deep pits, as a result, the groundwater table drops
leaving the drinking water wells on the embankments of these
rivers dry. Even otherwise, sand/mines is a public property and the State is the custodian of the said public property and
therefore the State should be more sensitive to protect the
environment and ecological balance and to protect the public
property the State should always be in favour of taking very stern
action against the violators who are creating serious ecological
imbalance and causing damages to the nature in any form. As
the provisions of Section 23A are not under challenge and Section
23A of the MMDR Act so long as it stands, we leave the matter
there and leave it to the wisdom of the legislatures and the
concerned States.

Compiled by S. Basavaraj, Advocate, Daksha Legal, Bengaluru