NAGENDRA NATH MAITY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Cr. Revision is directed against the order impugned dated 3-3-2009 passed by the S.D.J.M., Ghatsila by which the petition filed on behalf of the petitioners for their discharge for the alleged offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4/54 of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 arising out of Baharagora P.S. Case No. 61 of 2007 corresponding to G.R. No. 305 of 2007 was rejected and the petitioners were called upon to stand charged for the alleged offence.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the petitioner No. 1 Nagendra Nath Maity was the lease-holder of stone quarry situated in plot No. 1463/p, 1638/p for an area of 7.50 acres, at village Jharia within Ghatsila police station under a lease agreement with the Mining Department on payment of royalty and the lease was still valid. The Investigating Officer after investigation of the case submitted charge-sheet against the petitioners for the alleged offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code as also under Rule 4/54 of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004. Accordingly, cognizance of the offence was taken for the alleged offence.

(3.) ADVANCING his argument, learned Counsel Mr. Nanda submitted that no details of the plot or Khata number have been given in the written report presented by the Mines Inspector before the police from where the petitioners had been extracting minerals or were allegedly found doing illegal mining and that nothing much less any quantity of minerals were seized from the possession of any of the petitioners. The Investigating Officer purposely concealed that the petitioner was a bona fide lessee to whom the lease was granted by the appropriate Government for extracting stones from the defined area and it was not the allegation that he extracted beyond his lease hold limit. As regards petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, the Counsel submits that they were not engaged in mining work rather they were the local business man having no concern with the mining work upon the area alleged by the informant in the written report. Even the Investigating Officer did not care to record the statements of the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 to find out their explanation to the allegations. The learned Judicial Magistrate without appreciating these aspects rejected the discharge petition of the petitioners which cannot be sustained under law.