MD. ABRAR ALAM Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By Court.--Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The petitioners have challenged even registration of the First Information Report of Markaccho PS Case No. 20 of 2010, which was lodged against the petitioners and other 28 accused persons for the offence under Sections 379. 413 and 340 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Rule 67(1) of the Jharkhand Mines and Mineral Concession Rules. 2004.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the said FIR has been registered on the information furnished by an unauthorized person and in view of Section 22 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. no Court can take cognizance of any offence punishable under the Act of 1957 or any Rules made thereunder, except upon complaint in writing made by a person authorized in this behalf by the Central Government or the State Government. It is submitted that not only this, in the Jharkhand Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2004 specific provision has been made for unauthorized excavation of mines, providing for imposition of penalty as also providing for punishment and. therefore, in view of those provisions, action under Section 379, 413 and 340 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be taken. Learned counsel for the petitioners also relied upon Section 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. which is a saving clause, which says that nothing contained in this Code shall, in the absence of a specific provision to the contrary, affect any special or local law for the time being in force, or any special jurisdiction or power conferred, or any special form of procedure prescribed, by any other law for the time being in force.