ANUP KUMAR AGRAWAL Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the order dated 16.1.2003 as well as the entire prosecution in connection with Chainpur P.S. Case No. 88/2002 corresponding, to G.R. No. 1200/2003 whereby the learned C.J.M., Palamau at Daltonganj took Cognizance of an offence under Section 379, IPC and 4(1)/21 of the Mines Minerals Regulations Act, 1957 (hereinafter to be referred as MMR Act).

(2.) FACTS giving rise to the filing of such application are that the petitioner has been granted mines lease under the lease in the village of Khambhi, Circle -Chainpur, District Palamau and near this place, petitioner is extracting minerals. It is alleged by the prosecution that the petitioner was extracting minerals illegally in the area of the informant for which, he had informed the District Mining Officer vide letter No. 633 dated 23.8.2002. and thereafter a demarcation was done by the District Mining Officer on 18.9.2000 in between the informant and the petitioner. It is also alleged that in due course the informant inspected the area and found that the petitioner has encroached his mining area and as per report of departmental surveyor, an area of 20 meter x 15 meter x 6 meter has been encroached by the petitioner by which, 3,000 M.T. lime stone lump has been extracted value of which amounts to Rs. 5,25,000/ - besides the Government revenue of Rs. 1,20,000/ -.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that from the FIR and lease deed, annexed with petition, it will appear that the petitioner has got mines under lease near mines of the informant and there is a land dispute of area between the parties (Annexure -2). It was also pointed out that from the FIR no case under Section 379, IPC and 4(1)/21 of the MMR Act, 1957 is made out because the report does not show the name of Khata, plot and area and whether petitioner has said to have encroached the land of the BSMDC and done illegal mining by committing theft of time stone lume. It was also pointed out that the petitioner has got right, title and possessions over the lease plot from the Mining Inspector by the order of District Mining Officer, Palamau at Daltonganj wide letter dated 16.3.2000 in continuation of which it has been stated that after demarcation, 15 permanent demarcation tiller has been fixed and prior to this petition one Smt. Nivedita Devi was the lease holder of the said property and a ditch of 117 ft x 92 ft x 35 ft. has been found from the work done by her. In fact, that petitioner has not done anything and is being made responsible for the work done by her. A plea has also been taken that report does not show that when and in what manner land was encroached. It is also pointed out that when the petitioner took lease of the mines, Mining Inspector had already certified that there was a ditch measuring 107 ft x 92 ft x 35 ft at that time when the petitioner took lease of the mines. It was further pointed out that as per terms and condition of mining lease for mining minerals in Part -VII Clause 7, the informant is not entitled to inspect the area. The Deputy Commissioner, Palarnau is the only authorized persons or mining officer authorized by the Deputy Commissioner in his behalf to enter such premises including any building excavation or land comprised in the lease for the purpose of inspection, examining, measuring, surveying and making plans etc. and the informant of this case is officiating Mines Manager of BSMDC in a capacity of the corporation is another lessee of the State officer besides the petitioner of this case. It was also pointed out that there is no application of Section 379, IPC nor Section 4(1)/21 of the MMR Act, 1957 is applicable. It was also pointed out that the case is not maintainable as it has been filed by unauthorized person as authorized person is only Deputy Commission, Palamau or Mining Officer authorized by the Deputy Commissioner in his behalf to enter upon the said premises including any buildings excavation etc. It was also pointed out that allegation is vague.