Imtiyaz Murtaza, S.N.H.Zaidi - (1.) -Impugned herein is the proceeding launched against the petitioner pursuant to F.I.R. dated 12.8.2008 registered at Case Crime No. 525 of 2008 under Rules 57 and 70 of the U. P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 and Section 379/411 of the I.P.C. P.S. Dildarnagar District Ghazipur.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned A.G.A., appearing for the State authorities. It would appear that the F.I.R. lodged refers to letter received from Deputy Collector, Zamania Ghazipur that the accused named in the F.I.R. was indulging in illegal activities of excavations of sands and its sale and pursuant thereto, the police of P.S. Dildanagar District Ghazipur raided the place and found the sands stored to the extent mentioned in the F.I.R. on the land belonging to Rustam which according to further allegation had been collected there for sale and the accused was indulging in illegal sale of the sands. It is mentioned that the accused had no valid licence for excavation or sale of the sands. Thereafter, F.I.R. was lodged in the case as stated supra at Case Crime No. 525 of 2008 under Rules 57 and 70 of the Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules and Section 379/411, I.P.C. To begin with the learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Section 22 of the Mines, Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 canvassed that the Magistrate is not vested with the power to take cognizance on the basis of charge-sheet submitted by the police. The learned counsel further referred to Section 23A and canvassed that the offences under the Act can be taken cognizance of on the basis of complaint by person authorized under Section 22 of the Act attended with further submissions that the offences for which the petitioner has been indicted is compoundable as would be apparent from Section 23A of the Act and also the Rules framed thereunder. It is further canvassed that Rule 57 and Rule 70 of the Rules, 1963 being non-cognizable offences, it is not permissible for the police to investigate the non-cognizable offence. Lastly, he argued that the F.I.R. lodged in the case be quashed in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) SINCE learned counsel for the petitioner has laid great stress on Sections 22 and 23A of the Act, we feel called to quote the same as under : "22. Cognizance of offences.-No Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act or any Rules made thereunder except upon complaint in writing made by a person authorized in this behalf by the Central Government or State Government." "23A. Compound of offences.-(1) Any offence punishable under this Act or any Rule made thereunder may, either before or after the institution of the prosecution, be compounded by the person authorized under Section 22 to make a complaint, to the Court with respect to that offence, on payment to that person for credit to the Government of such sum as that person may specify : Provided that in the case of an offence punishable with fine only no such sum shall exceed the maximum amount of fine which may be imposed for that offence. (2) Where an offence is compounded under sub-section (1), no proceeding or further proceeding, as the case may be, shall be taken against the offender in respect of the offence so compounded, and the offender, in custody, shall be released forthwith." We have also glanced through Section 190 attended with Section 155 of the Cr. P.C. alongwith Section 20 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulations and Development) Act, 1957. Section 155 of the Cr. P.C. as amended envisages (1) when information is given to an officer in- charge of a police station of the commission within the limits of such station of a non-cognizable offence, he shall enter or cause to be entered the substance of the information in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf, and refer, the information to the Magistrate, (2) No police officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial, (3) any police officer receiving such order may exercise the same powers in respect of the investigation (except the power to arrest without warrant) as an officer in-charge of a police station may exercise in a cognizable case, and (4) where a case relates to two or more offences of which at least one is cognizable, the case shall be deemed to be a cognizable case, notwithstanding that the other offences are non-cognizable.;