GAJPAL BHATT Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record.

(2.) BY means of this application, the applicant has prayed to quash the order dated 1.6.2004 passed by the CJM, Rudraprayag in Criminal Case No. 644 of 2004, State v. Gajpal Bhatt and judgment and order dated 20.7.2004 passed by the Sessions Judge, Rudraprayag in Crl. Revision No. 21 of 2004, Gajpal Bhatt v. State.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that if the charge Under Section 3/57 of the Rules is framed, in that case, framing of charge Under Section 379/411 IPC is irrelevant. I do not find any force in this argument for the reason that on 8.11.2003 when the said Truck was caught by the police party, the sand was found being loaded in the said Truck for which the petitioner was having no valid mining lease or mining permit. Since this mining work has been performed on the government property, as such this act committed by the petitioner comes within the definition of Mining Operation. Thus, it is proved that the petitioner dishonestly committed theft of the sand after deriving it out from the government property and as such the offence punishable Under Section 379 IPC is proved. The mining work can only be permitted only after obtaining the prior mining lease or mining permit for the same and that too, after depositing the required royalty. The punishment for violation has been provided under Section 57 of the Rules i.e. taking out the mines and minerals from the riverbed without paying the prescribed royalty to the government. But so far as the question of recovery of mines and minerals is concerned, just after the minerals are taken away from the river, Section 411 IPC comes into picture. The nature of the offence on the one hand violates the provisions of the Rules of 1963 while on the other hand, it is the violation of provisions of Sections 379/411 IPC. In view of the above discussion, I find that the trial court has rightly rejected the objection filed by the petitioner and the revisional court, too was justified in affirming the order passed by the trial court.