RANJIT NAYAK Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has invoked the extra -ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the entire criminal proceeding initiated against him in Palkot P.S. Case No.6 of 2007, corresponding to G.R. No.69 of 2007 for the offence under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 54 of the Jharkhand Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2004. 2. Prosecution story, in short, was that the informant Sub -Inspector of Police Ajay Prasad of Palkot Police Station intercepted a tractor on 15.1.2007 with trailer carrying stones and boulders thereon but no valid document was produced by the driver -petitioner Ranjit Nayak. However, it was disclosed by the driver of the tractor that on the instruction of his employer Jagannath Sahu, he was carrying the same to be unloaded at Kaurandbera Colony. Tractor and trailer loaded with stones and boulders were seized to which a seizure list was prepared in presence of the witnesses and the case was instituted under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code as also under Section 54 of the Jharkhand Minor Minerals Concession Rules as evident from the certified copy of Palkot P.S. Case No.6 of 2007 (Annexure -1). 3. Learned counsel Mr. Nilesh Kumar submitted that the petitioner was admittedly the driver of the tractor and trailer having nothing to do with the stones and boulders except that he was directed to carry it on the instruction of his employer from the place of quarrying to its destination. Complaint was lodged by the Police Officer of the rank of Sub -Inspector, who was not a competent Officer under the Jharkhand Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2004 to launch prosecution against the petitioner and that the Mining Department of the State Government did not make any complaint against the petitioner. Even search and seizure was made illegally by the informant Police Officer. Materials were loaded on the Tractor by the lessee Balmukund Mahto by issuing valid challan and this fact was communicated to the informant but the case was lodged mechanically without verifying the explanation and challan. 4. Learned counsel exhorted that Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is not attracted against the petitioner which is a general law when the provisions of special law vide the Jharkhand Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2004 is available and therefore, when prima facie case was instituted under Section 54 of the Rules, the offence instituted under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner was uncalled for and super addition. 5. Rule 57 of the Jharkhand Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2004 clearly speaks,