Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh Single Bench of Justice Dr. Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa quashed proceedings against a third accused in a sand-theft case, holding that theft of property valued under ₹5,000 is non-cognizable and police cannot register an FIR or investigate without a Magistrate’s order. The charges stemmed from seizure of sand said to be worth ₹1,500. Justice Pratapa stated, “There is no doubt that the offence under Section 303(2) BNS is a non-cognizable offence. In such circumstances, the police shall follow procedure laid down under Section 174 of Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, which mandates the police to obtain appropriate direction from the concerned Magistrate, to proceed with investigation.” The Court left open action by the competent mining authority under the MMDR Act.

The criminal petition arose from an allegation of illegal sand transportation and theft, in which the petitioner was arrayed as Accused No.3. The prosecution case was that sand was seized from a trailer attached to a tractor, while another tractor was found empty. Proceedings were initiated for offences punishable under Section 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 21(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.

Also Read: Remand Leaves Undecided Issue Open; Adjudicating Authority Applies Binding Law As On Decision Date : Supreme Court

The petitioner sought quashing of the criminal case pending before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-Special Mobile Court, Kurnool, contending that the alleged offence was non-cognizable, as the value of the seized sand was below ₹5,000. It was further contended that the police registered the FIR and conducted investigation without obtaining prior permission from the jurisdictional Magistrate. It was also argued that cognizance under the MMDR Act was impermissible in the absence of a written complaint by an authorised officer of the Mining Department.

On behalf of the State, it was conceded that the value of the seized sand, as per the Tahsildar’s report, was ₹1,500 and that no permission of the Magistrate had been obtained prior to investigation.

The Court examined the scope of Section 303 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and recorded that “under Section 303(2) of BNS, when the value of stolen property does not exceed Rs.5,000/- and where such property is restored or returned, and if it is the first conviction, the punishment prescribed is only community service.”

It further noted that “there is no doubt that the offence under Section 303(2) BNS is a non-cognizable offence.” The Court observed that in such circumstances, “the police shall follow procedure laid down under Section 174 of Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhitha, which mandates the police to obtain appropriate direction from the concerned Magistrate, to proceed with investigation.”

With respect to the offence under the MMDR Act, the Court recorded that “the Trial Court is barred under Section 22 of the MMDR Act, from taking cognizance of the offences under the MMDR Act, except on written complaint by the authority notified by the government.”

Applying these principles to the facts of the case, the Court recorded the State’s concession and observed that “the value of stolen sand is Rs.1,500/- and it is a non-cognizable offence.” It further stated that “the police mechanically registered the FIR against the petitioner without obtaining appropriate direction from the concerned Magistrate and proceeded with investigation and filed chargesheet.”

Also Read: Right To Health And Medical Care Is A Fundamental Right For Serving And Retired Employees Under Article 21: AP High Court Directs Medical Reimbursement To Ex-Revenue Officer For Deceased Wife’s Treatment

The Court concluded that “the said action is a clear abuse of process of law.”

The Court ordered that “this Criminal Petition is allowed.” and “the case against the petitioner/accused No.3 in C.C.No.720 of 2025 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-Special Mobile Court, Kurnool, for the offences punishable under Sections 303(2) of BNS and Section 21(1) of MMDR Act (Sand Theft), is hereby quashed.”

The Court clarified that “however, it does not preclude the competent authority under the MMDR Act to take further course of action according to law, if so advised. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri K. V. Raghuveer

For the Respondents: Ms. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, Assistant Public Prosecutor

Case Title: P. Rashidulla v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Another
Neutral Citation: APHC010537532025
Case Number: Criminal Petition No.10465 of 2025
Bench: Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa