Bengaluru: The high court has ruled that a person cannot claim protection against double jeopardy under Article 20(3) of the Constitution or Section 300 of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) if they continue mining without permission, even on their own land, as each such instance may constitute a fresh offence.Justice V Srishananda made the observation while dismissing a petition filed by Bhadrappa Lamani, a resident of Ilkal in Bagalkot district, challenging proceedings initiated against him by Lokayukta police’s special investigation team (SIT) over alleged illegal mining of ruby red granite blocks at Balakundi village in Hungund taluk. The proceedings are pending before the special court for Lokayukta cases in Bengaluru.Lamani argued that mining department officials had already filed a complaint in 2013, which is pending. He contended that the fresh complaint by SIT amounted to double jeopardy, as it initiated a second case based on the same facts, in violation of constitutional protections.He also argued that, under Bombay Land Revenue Code, a pattadar in Bombay-Karnataka region is not required to obtain a licence to undertake mining on his land.Further, Lamani challenged the jurisdiction of the deputy superintendent of police heading Belagavi SIT to file the chargesheet, contending that only an inspector general of police was authorised to do so.Rejecting these arguments, Justice Srishananda observed that following the reorganisation of states, earlier regional nomenclatures had become insignificant in law even if some areas continued to be known by their historical names.On the plea of double jeopardy, the court clarified that protection would apply only after a person had been convicted or acquitted following a full-fledged trial for the same offence. Continued mining without the requisite permission, however, could amount to a fresh offence and would not automatically attract the bar under Article 20(3) or Section 300 of CrPC.The court also noted that Lokayukta had produced a notification authorising the complainant to initiate proceedings. Since SIT had been constituted pursuant to directions issued by Supreme Court, its head could be deemed competent to file a complaint on behalf of govt concerning offences within the team’s remit.Finding no merit in the petitioner’s contentions, HC dismissed the petition.
