KAILASH KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner is being prosecuted for the commission of the offence under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code and also for the offence punishable under Sections 21 and 6 of the Mines and Minerals ( Development and Regulation) Act as well as under Rule 8 of the Jharkhand Minerals Dealers' Rule, 2007 but the prosecution cannot maintain prosecution for the offence under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code in view of the Special Legislation covering the same field being there and furthermore, the petitioner cannot be prosecuted for the offence punishable under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act as the person, who has lodged the case was never authorized to lodge the case.

(2.) IN this regard, it was further pointed out that while hearing the case bearing Cr.M.P.No.477 of 2012, a counter affidavit had been filed wherein statement had been made that one Niranjan Prasad, Mining Inspector, who has lodged the case had been authorized to lodge the case, e.g. Parsudih (Sundernagar) P.S. Case no.175 of 2010 but that fact had not been placed correctly at the time as from perusal of that document which had been annexed as Annexure A to the counter affidavit, it would appear that the Niranjan Prasad had been authorized to store mineral iron ore and thereby it can be said that he had never been authorized to lodge the case for the offences punishable under the Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act.

(3.) HOWEVER , again one more opportunity, by way of last indulgence, is being given to the State for filing counter affidavit, failing which whatever fact has been placed on behalf of the petitioner which has been recorded herein above would be accepted to be true and the court will proceed accordingly with the case.