UMESH PRASAD AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Umesh Prasad Agarwal by means of this criminal writ petition has prayed for quashing the order dated 10th December, 2003, passed in Senha P.S. Case No. 46 of 2003, corresponding to G.R. No. 267 of 2003, whereby and whereunder, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga, has taken cognizance of the offence under Sections 41/120 -B of the Indian Penal Code and 4/21 of the Mines Mineral and Development Act, 1957.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that after completing the investigation, the case was supervised by the higher police officials but no case was found against the petitioner Umesh Prasad Agarwal, including Abhishek Sharma and Binay Kumar Burman, showing therein that the Investigating Officer and the Supervising Authority found complicity of the staffs of HINDALCO, who along with the driver Bud -dhdeo Oraon, against whom charge -sheet was submitted, are indulged in the illegal mining of bauxite and selling the same to the HINDALCO, converting it to be legal one by issuing chalans from other owners. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred paragraph Nos. 35, 42, 62, 70 and 71 of the case diary and submitted that even if the entire paragraphs of the case diary in which the statements of the witnesses have been recorded under. Section 161, Cr PC, are admitted, no conviction can be made against this petitioner.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that there is special provision, provided under the Mines Mineral and Development Act, 1957. Section 22 of the said Act, which deals with the cognizance of the offence, has been quoted by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Lohardaga, in his order dated 15.10.2003, passed in ABP No. 46 of 2003, which reads as follows : ''