NAND KISHORE SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State. At the very outset it be stated that counter affidavit as has been directed has not been filed. This application has been filed for quashing of the F.I.R of Sahibganj (M) P.S case no.89 of 2012 registered under Sections 414 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 54 of the Jharkhand Mines Mineral Concessions Rules, 2004. It is the case of the prosecution that while the truck bearing registration no.BR-01GB-2319 was carrying stone chips, it was intercepted by the A.S.I, Sahibganj (M) police station, who asked the driver to produce document relating to transportation of the stone chips but the driver failed to produce any such document and as as such, stone chip was taken to be a stolen property and on such premise, a case was registered under Sections 414 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 54 of the Jharkhand Mines Mineral Concessions Rules, 2004.

(2.) MR .R.S.Majumdar, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation of illegal extraction of stone from a mine does constitute an offence under Section 54 of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, a Special Legislation, which speaks that if anyone, in contravention of the provisions of the said Rules, extracts or transports the minerals, it would be punishable under Section 54 of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules and under this situation, offence under Sections 414 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code does not get attracted and, therefore, if the offence is there under the provisions of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rule, it can be instituted in terms of Rule 57 of the said Rules, only at the instance of the competent Officer, i.e, the Deputy Director,Miners, Additional Director, Mines or the Director, Mines or the Mines Collector or by an officer, duly authorized by the Government and only then, on the basis of the FIR, cognizance of the offence can be taken.

(3.) IN this regard, I may refer to the provision as contained in Section 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which does stipulate that if any offence is committed under any of the law, other than I.P.C, it shall be investigated, inquired into or tried, according to the provisions, as contained in that enactment, in force. Here, in the instant case, as noted above, Rule 57 of the aforesaid Rules, does prescribe that FIR can be lodged at the instance of the persons mentioned above wherein it has never been mentioned that the ASI of any Police Station is competent to lodge the case. Therefore, lodgment of the instant case, at the instance of the ASI, is quite illegal. That apart, offences under the aforesaid Rules, seems tobe non-cognizable, as maximum sentence prescribed is six months or with fine.