SAJAL KR. DAS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the petitioner with the prayer for quashing the proceeding Case No. G. R. 27/98 arising out of Kalna Police Station Case No. 13/98 under Sec. 30 of the Minor Minerals Act, 1973, read with Sec. 21(2) of the Minor Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 and Sec. 379 of the Indian Penal Code pending before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kalna, Burdwan. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the complaint was lodged by Block Land and Land Reforms Officer but in view of the definition contained in Rule 3 sub rule (b) of the Minor Minerals Rules, 1973, there is no mentioning of the Block Lend and Land Reforms Officer Rule 3(b) contain of the definition of the District Authorities, it does not show that such District Authorities are the complaint authorities to lodge complaint for violation of any provision of the Minot Minerals Act. This power is conferred by Sec. 26 read with Sec. 22 of the Act. Sec. 22 imposes a bar on the Court to take congnizance unless the complaint is filed by the proper authority or an Officer to whom the power has been delegated. Similarly, on reading of the Sec. 26 I find, that power of delegation has been given under sub-section (I) of the Sec. to the Central Government and sub-section (2)of the said Sec. confers such power to the State Government. Now the learned Advocate on behalf of the State has produced xerox copy of the Gazette Notification No. 89-CI/Cr D/4M-30/88 dated Calcutta, the 24th Jan., 1991 issued by the Commerce and Industries Department, Government of West Bengal. This notification shows that under subsection (2) of Sec. 26 of the Act the Governor of West Bengal was pleased to delegate the power as contemplated by Sec. 22 of the Act also amongst other to all Block Land and Land Reforms Officers. Therefore, it is clear that the power to lodge complaint for violation of any provision of the Minor and Minerals Act has been delegated to Block Land and Land Reforms Officers too.

(2.) Therefore, in the instant case, no illegality has been committed by the Block Land and Land Reforms Officers by lodging the complaint. The Judgment referred to me of this Court is a later Judgment of 1994 wherein it has been held that the Block Land and Land Reforms Officers has got no authority to lodge a complaint as contemplated by Sec. 22 of the Minors and Minerals Acts. However, this delegation of power took place longer before passing of the judgment, but unfortunately, this particular notification was not brought to the notice of the Honourable Court at the time of passing that decision. Therefore, that decision is not correct in view of the delegation power conferred by the Governor vide notification as above, issued on 24.1.91.

(3.) Accordingly, in the above circumstances, there is no illegality in lodging the complaint by the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer. The contention of the learned Advocate on behalf of the petitioner, as such, is not maintainable in law and accordingly, the petition under Sec. 482 of the Code Criminal Procedure stands dismissed on contest.