| Headnote |
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 – ss.4, 21 and 22 – Penal Code, 1860 – s.379 – Uttar Pradesh Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules, 1963 – rr.3, 7 and 57 – Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 – ss.3 and 4 – The appellant was granted rights to excavate sand vide mining lease over a plot – It was alleged that the appellant was mining outside the permitted area and had illegally excavated a pit – Consequent to which, FIR was registered u/s.379 IPC, rr. 3, 57 and 7 of the Rules 1963, ss. 4, 21 of the Act, 1957 and ss.3 and 4 of the Act, 1984 – The Magistrate took cognizance and summoned appellant for trial – Petition filed by the appellant u/s. 482 CrPC before the High Court to quash criminal proceedings was dismissed – On appeal before the Supreme Court, the appellant contended that he was wrongly charge-sheeted by the police for the offences, as at the best there was violation of s.4 which was punishable u/s. 21 of the Act, 1957 – It was further contended that the Act, 1957 is a special statute, the prosecution for an offence u/s. 379 IPC was not maintainable – Held: In the State (NCT of Delhi) v. Sanjay, it was observed that considering the principles of interpretation and wordings used in s.22 of the Act, 1957, the provision is not a complete and absolute bar for taking action by the police for illegal and dishonestly committing theft of minerals including sand from the riverbed – Further, the said judgment specifically referred to s.26 of the General Clauses Act and stated that the offence u/s.4 r/w. s.21 of the Mines Regulation Act is different from the offence punishable u/s.379 of IPC – Thus, they are two ‘different’ and not the ‘same offence’ – Therefore, contentions of the appellant were rejected – There was no bar on the Court from taking cognizance of offence u/s.379 IPC – And violation of s.4 of the Act, 1957, being a cognizable offence, the police could have investigated the same – However, it was clarified that prosecution and cognizance u/s. 21 r/w. s.4 of the Act, 1957 will not be valid and justified in absence of authorisation – In view thereof, the order of the High Court refusing to set aside the prosecution and cognizance of the offence u/s.379 of the IPC and ss.3 & 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act was upheld – General Clauses Act – s.26.Jeewan Kumar Raut and Another v. Central Bureau of Investigation – distinguished – The State Police filed the chargesheet/complaint against the appellant u/s.379 IPC, rr. 3, 57 and 7 of the Rules 1963, ss. 4, 21 of the Act, 1957 and ss.3 and 4 of the Act, 1984 – Appellant contended that the State police was not authorised and therefore, could not have filed the charge-sheet/ complaint and strongly placed reliance on the Jeewan Kumar Raut case – Held: In Jeewan Kumar Raut case reference was made to cl.(iv) of Sub-section (3) to s.13 of the Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994 which states that the appropriate authority shall investigate any complaint of breach of any of the provisions of the said Act or any rules made thereunder and take appropriate action – However, there is no similar provision under the Mines Regulation Act, 1957 – The issue raised in the Jeewan Kumar Raut case was entirely different from the one raised in the present case – No merit in the contention of the appellant – The violation of s.4 of the Act, 1957 being a cognizable offence, the police could have investigated the same, there being no bar under the Act, 1957 – Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 – Penal Code, 1860 – Uttar Pradesh Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules, 1963 – Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. |
