SEEMA SARKAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused petitioner has challenged the proceeding in G.R. Case No. 664 of 1993 arising out of Bhatar Police Station Case No. 42 of 1993 dated 18th May, 1993 under section 21 (2) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 and section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. The said G. R. Case is pending before the court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Burdwan.

(2.) The short background of the case is that the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Bhatar, lodged a complaint with the Bhatar Police Station as the Authority under the West Bengal Minor Minerals Rules, 1973 alleging, inter alia, that the accused petitioner has unauthorisedly excavated the land amounting to 55.582 Cft. of ordinary clay for manufacturing brick without any authorised licence from the government and as such she has contravened section 21 (2) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 and section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, Bhatar Police Station registered the complaint treating it as an F. I. R. being Bhatar P. S. Case No. 42 of 1993 dated 18th May, 1993 and on the strength of the same G. R. Case as aforesaid was started before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Burdwan.

(3.) The learned Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Asoke Kumar Chakrabarty, challenged the order of taking cognizance and so also the complaint itself on twin grounds. According to Mr. Chakraborty, no court is competent and empowered to take cognizance of an offence under the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 unless the complaint is being lodged by a person authorised in this behalf either by the Central Government or by the State Government. He also referred to the definition clause under the West Bengal Minor Minerals Rules, 1973, being rule 3 of that Rule, where such authority has been mentioned as in sub-rule (b) of Rule 3. Mr. Chakraborty further submitted that the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer being not an authority within the meaning of the said rule, lodging of complaint by him has no legal sanctity and taking cognizance on that allegation and the complaint being treated as an F.I.R. is also illegal. He has not disputed the proportion of law that the West Bengal Minor Minerals Rules, 1973 has been framed according to the rule-making power that has been given by the Central Act being the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957. Mr. Chakraborty also contended that in case of a militancy or where the power has been given by the Central Act on the same subject the Central Act shall prevail and the State Act shall be ignored. That argument of Mr. Chakraborty need not be considered in this case because this case can be decided on some other points. The point that has been referred to by Mr. Chakraborty as has been indicated earlier regarding the two Acts, Central Act and the State Act, has no bearing on this case.