KRISHNA NAND SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed against the order dated 4.4.2000 passed by the S.D.J.M., Lakhtsarai in Complaint Case No. 5C2/ 1997 whereby and where under the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 245(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been rejected.

(2.) While issuing notice to the opposite party No. 2, the complainant by the order dated 6.2.200 1 a Bench of this Court has stayed the further proceedings of the case and also asked the petitioner to file supplementary affidavit annexing the copy of the petition filed before the court below under Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The same has been complied with.

(3.) The petitioner along with another had made accused in the complaint petition filed by the opposite party No. 2, who happened to be the Deputy Director of Mines, Bhagalpur Division. Bhagalpur bringing allegation, The petitioner being the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of IDIO Constitution & Industries and the accused No. 2 being one of the Directors of the Company were responsible for the management of the said Company but they acted in violation of the provisions of Mines and Minerals (Regulation & Development) Act, 1957 and also under the Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1972 and as such they are liable for being proceeded under the penal provisions under those Acts and also under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code. The said Company was a lessee under the Act. As per the complaint petition, the petitioner had taken over possession of Plot Nos. 2604 and 2605 of Mauza Bishanpur within the District of Lakhisarai but started illegal mining over the said plots and in order to obtain the lease the petitioner had arrayed plot No. 2625 of the same Mauza in the record with dishonest and illegal intention and the map was forged done and illegal and wrong affidavits were sworn before the appropriate authority committing cheating. The period of lease was in respect of plot Nos. 2605 and 2625 for nine years from 20.2.1980 to 29.6.1989 for stone mining and after the period was over and the renewal application of lease was rejected by the. Collector, Monghyr, the petitioner moved in revision before the Mines Commissioner which was ultimately withdrawn but the accused persons, as have been stated, indulged in illegal mining even though their renewal petition was rejected. They also did not pay the dues as required under the Rules. It was further stated that by such illegal mining by violating the requirements of Rule 23 (1) of the Rules the petitioner has extracted winning materials to the loss to the Government of Bihar exchequer to the tune of Rupees Two Lacs Twenty Five Thousand. On the statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation and other three witnesses being examined cognizance was taken under Sections 420/417 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 468/465 of the Indian Penal Code together with other violative provisions under the Acts as mentioned above. There was also added penal Sections being Section 120-B read with Sections 177(8)/171 of the Indian Penal Code and such cognizance was taken on 1.2.1997. The main allegation was that in the initial application plot No. 2626 was not there but the same was subsequently being added with a view to making a chunk and when the application of the petitioner was not considered regarding renewal etc. Then the petitioner had filed a writ petition being CWJC No. 1288 of 1995 before this Court. The petitioner was directed to file revision petition before the Government of India, if so advised and a Civil Review was filed by the petitioner which had also been disposed of by giving direction to the authorities to take decision in the matter of renewal etc. But the Companys Petition was rejected by the authorities and then the petitioner again filed CWJC No. 10667 of 1996 before this Court and the Court vide the order dated 17.3.1997 quashed the order of rejection and the matter was remanded back for reconsideration and it was also held that the petitioner should be given an opportunity of hearing. The State Government moved in LPA but the same was also dismissed. Then a Contempt Petition was filed by the petitioner being MJC No. 1667 of 1998 but as there was already alternative remedy available such Contempt Petition was not. entertained. Again the petitioners petition was rejected and the petitioner then moved before the Tribunal and the Tribunal had setaside the order of rejection. Then after reconsideration of the entire matter, the Secretary, Mines Department recommended for grant of lease to the petitioner and the matter was placed before the Cabinet for approval and such matter was placed before the Government for approval long back in the year 1990 itself but because of the Government being busy otherwise in election matters and others, ultimately lease was granted in favour of the petitioners company, a copy of which has been sworn before this Court and the same had been registered by the Collector for and on behalf of the Government in the month of August, 2001. Practically after this there remained little scope for proceeding with the criminal case as it has been submitted that in the earlier writ petition, the authority to whom the application was submitted had sworn an affidavit to the effect that the application of the petitioner had contained three plots including plot No. 2626 by forging the application itself goes away on the face of it. It is also found that certificate proceeding is going on against the petitioner and the period for which certificate case was there for the dues had included the period for which illegal mining has been urged which also gives a deadset to the complaint case itself when such statement had been made by the witnesses during the course of enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the complaint petition, it was mentioned that the Labour Inspector had given a notice to the petitioners company regarding impalement of 17 persons as labourers during the period to substantiate the fact that illegal mining was being done. The statements of the witnesses are contradictory regarding the illegal mines during the period for which offences have been alleged. The petitioner was from the very beginning taking the plea that the whole allegations etc. are in the nature of civil litigation and practically the matter had already been fought in. writ petitions at various stages and when there was an attempt by the authority regarding the application being made in respect of three plots, the whole basis of the case had been shattered as cushion on cart. Moreover, when already the high officials upto the Government level had granted lease in favour of the petitioner then the whole intermediary allegations and counter allegations had been blown off and in that way the discharge petition was moved stating oral affidavit before the court below but the impugned order is a cryptic one without considering the materials as stated from the side of the petitioner but only denied on the statements being given by the witnesses before the court below during the course of enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.