PARMANAND PANDEY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHEN a truck bearing No. BRK -4085 was found carrying certain minerals under a permit which had been used earlier, a case was registered as Taljhari P.S. case No. 9 of 2010 under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Rule 54 of the Jharkhand Mines and Minerals Concession Rules, 2004 which appears to have wrongly been mentioned as Jharkhand Mines and Minerals Act. That FIR is being sought to be quashed in this application. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in view of the allegation, no case is made out under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and even under Rule 54 of the Jharkhand Mines and Minerals Concession Rules, 2004 and thereby the instant FIR is fit to be quashed.

(2.) AS against this, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that on the allegation offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code may not be attracted but since the allegation is that mines and minerals were being carried on a permit which has been re -used, it would amount that mines and minerals were being carried without there being any valid permit and thereby offence is certainly made out under Rule 54 of the Jharkhand Mines and Minerals Concession Rules and also under Rule 8 of the Jharkhand Mineral Dealers' Rules, 2007.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY , this application stands dismissed. However, the pleas which have been taken in this application shall be available to him at an appropriate stage.