Tyagi, J. - (1.)THIS is an appeal by the State from the judgment of the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Shahpura dated the 5th of June, 1961, acquitting the accused Poonamchand and 12 others.
(2.)A complaint was lodged by Sundersingh, Mining Engineer Bhilwara on the 27th of May, 1960 in the court of the District Magistrate, Bhilwara in which it was alleged that the thirteen persons named therein were found working a quarry on the 24th of May, 1960 without a licence or a permit and that they had committed an offence under rule 30 of the Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 and were punishable under rule 47 of those Rules. Poonamchand, who was a contractor for making a road in that area defended the case on the plea that he held a contract from the Public Works Department for making a road in that area and that he had quarried Stones for that purpose and that he was, therefore, not liable to pay any royalty nor was he liable to any punishment under R. 47. The learned Sub-divisional Magistrate who tried the case recorded an order of acquittal in favour of the accused on the ground that he had quarried stones for making a road, a contract of which granted to him by the Public Works Department. In this appeal it has been urged that the learned Magistrate was in error in thinking that Poonamchand had a right to quarry without a licence simply because he had obtained a contract for making a road from the Public Works Department. Mr. D. P. Gupta for the accused Poonamchand has urged that Poonamchand had taken out the stones for execution of a contract granted to him by the Public Works Department and he was, therefore, not liable to pay any royalty. He has referred to term No. 5 in the standard form of royalty collection contract under rule 34 of the Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959.
It may be noted that the term appearing in the standard form cannot be availed of by the accused Poonamchand for he is not a party to any such contract. The law contemplates concession in the matter of royalty for contractors executing contracts under the Public Works Department, but they are supposed to obtain licence, lease or permit as the case may be in this behalf from the Mining Department and they cannot be regarded to be immune in the matter of payment of royalty without obtaining consent of the Mining Department. In this view of the matter, J the accused Poonamchand and others cannot be considered to be right in taking up the stand that they are not liable to pay any royalty or that they have a right to i quarry without a permit merely because they were doing so for the purpose of 1 executing a government contract. They have obviously contravened the provision of rule 47 and are liable to be punished in the absence of a permit or licence from the Mining Department Mr. Kansingh for the State, however, does not want to press for conviction in this case as, in fact, the accused Poonamchand, in his opinion quarried stones for the execution of a government contract. As he failed to ; appreciate the position of the law and worked under a misconception, we are not interfering in the order of acquittal passed by the lower Court. However, we would like to make the position of the law clear as mentioned above. .