(1.) CR . Misc. No. 28907 of 2005 and Cr. Misc. No. 28909 of 2005 have been taken up together as they involve the same issue of law and having been heard together are being disposed off by this common order.
(2.) IN Cr. Misc. No. 28907 of 2007 order dated 7.6.2002 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram in Official Case No. 51 of 2002, whereby he has taken cognizance of offence under Sections 40 and 41 of the Mining Act and Section 379, IPC is sought to be challenged whereas in Cr Misc. No. 28909 of 2005 order dated 6.6.2002 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram in Official Case No. 33 of 2002, wherein cognizance has been taken under similar provisions is sought to be impugned. It appears that in both the cases the Assistant Mining Officer, Rohtas at Sasaram filed the aforesaid complaint petitions, inter alia, stating that Sri Sachidanand Singh, Departmental Mining Inspector having inspected the sites of the field of operation of the two petitioners found that the petitioner of both the cases had stored mining stones and sold the same after curshing it without having a valid permit as required under Rule 49 of the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "the Concession Rules") and thereby had contravened the provisions of the rules and were liable for prosecution under Sections 40 and 41 of the Concession Rules and Section 379, IPC.
(3.) A similar matter came for consideration by a Bench of this Court in Cr Misc. No. 21512 of 2002 which was disposed of on 3.3.2005. As observed in that case the allegation of the accused persons illegally storing the minerals without taking license in Form 'L ' under Rule 49 of the Concession Rules appears to be purely based on the report of Mining Inspector. It was further observed that according to the complainant the accused petitioners were mere offenders under the aforementioned provisions and by their said acts have caused revenue loss to the State Exchequer.