3. There isn't any pricing on the Gold Alliance's site Though Gold Alliance is a reputable agency that provides a wide range of funding choices that include precious metals, one downside is the lack of pricing info of their web site. Howard Squadron and a number of other different partners invested with Bernard Madoff, and the agency's pension account, including about $19,000 belonging to Sorkin. The allegation made in opposition to the writ petitioner within the FIR was that they dedicated theft of sand from rivers and river-bed belonging to the federal government, which act also constitutes violation of the provisions of MMDR Act. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT M.Y.EQBAL, J. 1. The principal question which arises for consideration in these appeals is whether the provisions contained in Sections 21, 22 and other sections of Mines and Minerals (Improvement and Regulation) Act, 1957 operate as bar towards prosecution of a one that has been charged with allegation which constitutes offences beneath Part 379/114 and other provisions of the Indian Penal Code. 12. After contemplating numerous provisions of the Act, the Division Bench noticed:- 35. A cursory comparison of these two provisions with Part 378 of IPC would go to show that the elements are completely totally different. The contravention of the phrases and conditions of mining lease, and so forth. constitutes an offence punishable beneath Part 21 of the Mines and Minerals Act, whereas dishonestly taking any movable property out of the possession of a person with out his consent constitutes theft. Thus, it's undoubtedly clear that the elements of an offence of theft as defined in Part 378 of IPC are totally totally different from the ingredients of an offence punishable below Section 21(1) r/w Part 4(1) and 4(1A) of the Mines and Minerals Act. 13. The Calcutta High Court in the case of Smt. Quashing the complaint, the Calcutta High Court docket held as underneath:- 6. The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of. the offence on the idea of the cost-sheet as submitted by the Police underneath Section 21(2) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 and Part 379 of the Indian Penal Code. Cognizance may be taken below part 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Cognizance is one and it cannot be divided. Splitting of cognizance isn't permissible below the law. This is the admitted place that the complainant who lodged the complaint shouldn't be an authorized individual to make such complaint. So taking cognizance on the idea of the complaint by the discovered Magistrate for violation of the provision underneath Part 21(2) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Growth) Act, 1957 is unhealthy. The one question that's left open is whether or not taking cognizance itself is unhealthy or a partial cognizance can eleven be taken? In the peculiarity of the facts and circumstances of the case if the offence as alleged beneath Part 379 I.P.C. in opposition to the accused is dissociated from the allegation of excavation of earth without license constituting an offence under Section 21(2) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Growth) Act, 1957, then there isn't any ingredient for an offence below Section 379 I.P.C. towards the accused. Even whether it is assumed that there is such an ingredient then the order of taking cognizance is dangerous as a result of cognizance is one and it can't be made a cut up. If it is found that taking cognizance of an offence is bad the other part of the offence for which cognizance has been taken can't be sustained in law. 14. Since conflicting views have been taken by Gujarat High Court docket, Delhi Excessive Court docket, Kerala Excessive Court docket, Calcutta Excessive Courtroom, Madras Excessive Court docket and Jharkhand Excessive Court docket, and they are in numerous tones, it's necessary to settle the question involved in these appeals. 28. The coverage and object of Mines and Minerals Act and Rules have a long history and are the results of an growing consciousness of the compelling want to revive the serious ecological imbalance and to cease the damages being caused to the character. To such a state of affairs Part 537 Cr.Computer which is in the next phrases is attracted: `Subject to the provisions hereinbefore contained, no finding, sentence or order handed by a courtroom of competent jurisdiction shall be reversed or altered on appeal or revision on account of any error, omission or irregularity in the complaint, summons, warrant, charge, proclamation, order, judgment or other proceedings earlier than or during trial or in any inquiry or different proceedings under this Code, unless such error, omission or irregularity, has in truth occasioned a failure of justice.' If, therefore, cognizance is in fact taken, on a police report vitiated by the breach of a mandatory provision relating to investigation, there can be no doubt that the result of the trial which follows it cannot be put aside unless the illegality in the investigation can be proven to have introduced a couple of miscarriage of justice. 3 3. The appellant challenged the registration of the case on the bottom inter alia that offence if in any respect committed, cognizance would have been taken underneath the provisions of MMDR Act, that too on the premise of complaint to be filed underneath Part 22 of the Act by an authorized officer. irasgold reads as beneath :- Penalties 21. (1) Whoever contravenes the provisions of sub-part (1) or sub-part (1A) of part 4 shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which can prolong to 2 years, or with fantastic which may prolong to twenty-five thousand rupees, or with both. (2) Any rule made below any provision of this Act could present that any contravention thereof shall be punishable with imprisonment for a time period which may lengthen to 1 year or with advantageous which can prolong to five thousand rupees, or with each, and in the case of a persevering with contravention, with an additional effective which can prolong to 5 hundred rupees for every single day during which such contravention continues after conviction for the primary such contravention. (3) The place any particular person trespasses into any land in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1) of 18 section 4, such trespasser may be served with an order of eviction by the State Government or any authority authorised in this behalf by that Authorities and the State Government or such authorised authority could, if mandatory, receive the help of the police to evict the trespasser from the land. (4) Each time any particular person raises, transports or causes to be raised or transported, with none lawful authority, any mineral from any land, and, for that objective, makes use of any tool, equipment, automobile or every other thing, such mineral, software, equipment, automobile or every other thing shall be liable to be seized by an officer or authority specifically empowered on this behalf. (4A) Any mineral, device, equipment, car or any other factor seized below sub-section (4), shall be liable to be confiscated by an order of the court docket competent to take cognizance of the offence beneath sub-section (1) and shall be disposed of in accordance with the instructions of such courtroom. (5) Every time any person raises, without any lawful authority, any mineral from any land, the State Authorities might get better from such individual the mineral so raised, or, where such mineral has already been disposed of, the worth thereof, and may also recuperate from such particular person, rent, royalty or tax, because the case may be, for the period throughout which the land was occupied by such individual with none lawful authority. (6) However something contained within the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, an offence under sub-part (1) shall be cognizable. 20. Section 21 is a penalty provision in case of contravention of Part 4(1A) of the Act and is punishable with imprisonment for a term which can lengthen to two years. Realized counsel contended that Section 21(6) of the Act makes the offence beneath sub-part 1 of Part 21 to be cognizable regardless of something contained to the opposite within the Code of Criminal Procedure. We are unable to see as to how the precept laid down by the Supreme Court docket on this case prevents the Excessive Courtroom from exercising the inherent power when an software is made under S. 482, Cr.P.C. His both being absent from Courtroom during the course of trial or withdrawing from the case abruptly, that too with out looking for go away of the Court docket, is highly objectionable and is against all the cannons of skilled discipline and conduct because in periods circumstances trial schedule would be given in well advance. Though the State apparently did protect public uses, no proof is out there that public rights could possibly be legally asserted in opposition to a recalcitrant government. 25. The public Trust Doctrine primarily rests on the precept that certain assets like air, sea, waters and the forests have such a fantastic significance to the folks as 33 a whole that it can be wholly unjustified to make them a subject of non-public possession. The said assets being a present of nature, they should be made freely accessible to everybody irrespective of the standing in life. The doctrine enjoins upon the federal government to protect the resources for the enjoyment of most people slightly than to permit their use for private ownership or industrial purposes. In response to Professor Sax the public Trust Doctrine imposes the following restrictions on governmental authority: Three forms of restrictions on governmental authority are sometimes thought to be imposed by the general public belief: first, the property subject to the trust should not solely be used for a public objective, nevertheless it have to be held out there for use by the general public; second, the property might not be offered, even for a fair cash equal; and third the property have to be maintained for particular kinds of makes use of. xxxxxxxxx 34. Our authorized system -- primarily based on English common legislation -- consists of the general public belief doctrine as part of its jurisprudence. The State is the trustee of all natural assets which are by nature meant for public use and enjoyment. Public at large is the beneficiary of the sea-shore, working waters, airs, forests and ecologically fragile lands. The State as a trustee is underneath a legal obligation to protect the natural assets. These sources meant for public use cannot be transformed into private ownership. 38. In the case of Intellectuals Discussion board vs.
irasgold
