RAM BADAN CHOUBEY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three revisional applications under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 are for quashing the proceedings of investigation by the police in connection with Barabani P. S Case no. 8 dated 27. 5. 82, Barabani P. S. Case no. 3 dated 16. 6. 82 and Barabani P. S. Case No. 8 dated 17. 7. 82 each under section 30 (2) of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Amendment Act 1976 and section 379 of the Indian Penal Code arising out of as many F. I. Rs. lodged (by Sri J. S. Gill, Deputy C. M. E. /agent of Bhanora Colliery in the first case and by Sri S. K. Mukherji, Mining Adviser and Chief Mining Officer, Asansol in the other two cases alleging illegal extraction of coal from Joyramdanga colliery on different dates mentioned therein.

(2.) IT is not disputed that the petitioner Ram Badan Choubey was appointed Receiver in respect of Joyramoanga Colliery by the city Civil Court, Calcutta in Title Suit No. 436 of 1979 that as Receiver the petitioner moved an application under Article 226 of the constitution challenging the validity of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Amendment Act 1976 on 29. 2. 80 and obtained an interim order restraining the. Respondents from interfering with the work of the said colliery in any manner whatsoever including raising, sale, dispatch and movement of coal and fireclay, made by this Court in C. R. . no. 1444 (W) of 1980; that the petitioner also moved an application before this Court on 23. 5. 80 and the learned Single Judge appointed the petitioner as Special Officer directing also of coal which had already been raised and were lying at the pithead of the colliery in C. R, No. 5366 (W) of 1980; that the petitioner further moved another application before this Court and the learned Single judge was pleased to direct the respondents on 1. 10. 80 to return the seized coal and strictly obey the orders passed by this Court on 29. 2. 80 and 23. 5. 80 and that all the above mentioned orders are continuing. It is also not disputed that- the aforesaid orders were made in presence of the learned advocate appearing for the State of West Bengal and that no appeal was preferred against them.

(3.) THREE points common to all the three cases have been raised on behalf of the petitioner. It is submitted that no persecution can lie against the petitioner for his acts as Receiver appointed by the Court without leave of the Court appointing him, which has not been taken. Secondly the petitioner by extracting coal from the coal mine in question did note which were warranted by the orders of this Court passed in the aforesaid writ petitions which were in force on the material dates and are still in force and so the petitioner has not committed any offence as his case comes within the general exception to criminal liability mentioned in Section 78 of the Indian Penal Code. The third contention is that as the petitioner was in lawful possession of Joyramdanga Colliery extraction of coal there from by his men does not constitute an offence of theft punishable under Section 379 ipc as alleged in the F. I. Rs.