Each instance of unlicensed mining constitutes a fresh offence, defeating the double-jeopardy objection.

The petitioner, a pattadar of land in Balakundi Village, challenged the charge sheet and the order dated 14 September 2020 taking cognizance in Special C.C. No. 679/2020.

The prosecution alleged that he conducted ruby-red-granite quarrying without the required licence.

The petitioner argued, among other grounds, that the land was his own, that an earlier case concerning the alleged quarrying was already pending, and that the complainant lacked authority to initiate the proceedings.

The High Court rejected the petition but left the petitioner’s contentions open for the pending trial.

Whether the petitioner could rely on the Bombay Land Revenue Code to justify extracting granite from his land in the Bombay-Karnataka area.

Whether the SIT proceedings were barred as parallel proceedings or double jeopardy because an earlier case relating to the alleged quarrying was pending.

Whether the complaint was invalid because the complainant was not authorised to file it.

The Court applied Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which generally bars a second trial for the same offence where the accused has already been tried by a competent court and convicted or acquitted, subject to the provision’s stated exceptions.

It reasoned that repeated mining activity without permission could constitute a fresh offence on each occasion.

The Court also held that, following State reorganisation, the law applicable in Karnataka governed the petitioner’s activities, notwithstanding the area’s description as Bombay-Karnataka.

On authority to complain, it relied on the notification placed before it and considered the SIT Head entitled to act for the Government in relation to matters within the SIT’s remit.

The petitioner invoked Article 20(3), but the Court rejected that contention; it did not separately analyse the distinction between that provision and the constitutional protection against double jeopardy.

The Court rejected the Bombay Land Revenue Code argument because State reorganisation made Karnataka law applicable to the quarrying activity.

It found no bar under Section 300 CrPC because the earlier matter had not resulted in a conviction or acquittal after trial and because each instance of unlicensed mining could amount to a fresh offence.

It also accepted that the notification authorised the complainant and considered the SIT Head competent to file a complaint on the Government’s behalf.

The Court declined to decide the remaining merits so as not to prejudice the pending trial.

It expressly kept all contentions open for the petitioner to raise at trial in accordance with law.