Mere Violation Of Route Mentioned In Transit Pass Does Not Attract Section 303(2) BNS Or Section 21(5) MMDR Act: Madras High Court
The petitioner was transporting fencing stones in his tractor and was accompanied by a transit pass.
Justice R. Vijayakumar, Madras High Court, Madurai Bench
The Madras High Court has held that where a person is transporting minerals with a valid transit pass, mere violation of the route mentioned in the transit pass would not attract Section 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 or Section 21(5) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.
A Bench of Justice R. Vijayakumar found, “A perusal of the FIR clearly reveals that the petitioner was transporting fencing stones in his tractor, which is accompanied by a transit pass. The only allegation in the FIR is that the transit pass has been granted for carrying fencing stone from Melur to Alanganallur. However, the Tractor was found at Manikampatti which is not in route to Alanganallur from Melur.”
The Court thus held, “Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner is having a valid transit pass and he was transporting fencing stones through a different route. Hence, it is clear that there is only violation of the transit pass and there is no theft of fencing stones or any minerals belonging to the government.”
Advocate R.Karunanidhi appeared for the Petitioner and Advocate P.Samuel Gunasingh appeared for the Respondents.
As per the FIR, the petitioner was transporting fencing stones in his tractor and was accompanied by a transit pass. The transit pass had been granted for carrying fencing stones from Melur to Alanganallur. However, the tractor was found at Manickampatti, which was not in route to Alanganallur from Melur.
The only allegation in the FIR was that the petitioner had violated the route mentioned in the transit pass. The petitioner contended that Section 303(2) of BNS, 2023 and Section 21(5) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 would not get attracted even assuming that the route mentioned in the transit pass had been violated.
The Court observed that there was only violation of the transit pass and there was no theft of fencing stones or any minerals belonging to the Government.
The Court held that, in such circumstances, invoking Section 303(2) of BNS, 2023 or Section 21(5) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 would not be legally sustainable.
Holding that the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would be an abuse of process of law, the Court quashed the FIR in Crime No.21 of 2025 and allowed the Criminal Original Petition.
Cause Title: Asaithambi v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Anr.
