The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court held that when a person transports minerals under a valid transit pass, mere violation of the route mentioned in the transit pass, will not attract offences under Section 303(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, or Section 21(5) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, which deal with punishment for theft and illegal mined minerals respectively.

The court was hearing the petition filed by Asaithambi of Madurai district. Palamedu police had registered an FIR against the petitioner for having committed an offence under Section 303(2) of BNS read with Section 21(5) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act.

The FIR revealed that he was transporting fencing stones in his tractor. The transit pass was granted to carry the fencing stones from Melur to Alanganallur. However, the vehicle was intercepted at Palamedu which was not en route to Alanganallur.

The petitioner’s counsel submitted Section 303(2) of BNS or Section 21(5) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act would not get attracted, even assuming that the route mentioned in the transit pass had been violated.

The State submitted the violation of the route mentioned in the transit pass would also attract Section 303(2) of BNS and Section 21(5) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act.

Justice R. Vijayakumar said the FIR revealed that the petitioner was transporting the fencing stones in his tractor with a transit pass. The only allegation in the FIR was that the transit pass had been granted for carrying fencing stones from Melur to Alanganallur. However, the tractor was found at Manickampatti which was not en route to Alanganallur from Melur.

The court said the petitioner was having a valid transit pass and was transporting the fencing stones through a different route. It was clear that there was only violation of the transit pass and there was no theft of fencing stones or any minerals belonging to the government.

In such circumstances, invoking Section 303(2) of BNS or Section 21(5) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act would not be legally sustainable, the court said.

The continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would be an abuse of the process of law, the court said and quashed the FIR.