- (1.) HEARD learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State. At the very outset it be stated that counter affidavit as has been directed has not been filed. This application has been filed for quashing of the F.I.R of Sahibganj (M) P.S case no.89 of 2012 registered under Sections 414 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 54 of the Jharkhand Mines Mineral Concessions Rules, 2004. It is the case of the prosecution that while the truck bearing registration no.BR-01GB-2319 was carrying stone chips, it was intercepted by the A.S.I, Sahibganj (M) police station, who asked the driver to produce document relating to transportation of the stone chips but the driver failed to produce any such document and as as such, stone chip was taken to be a stolen property and on such premise, a case was registered under Sections 414 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 54 of the Jharkhand Mines Mineral Concessions Rules, 2004.
(2.) MR .R.S.Majumdar, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation of illegal extraction of stone from a mine does constitute an offence under Section 54 of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, a Special Legislation, which speaks that if anyone, in contravention of the provisions of the said Rules, extracts or transports the minerals, it would be punishable under Section 54 of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules and under this situation, offence under Sections 414 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code does not get attracted and, therefore, if the offence is there under the provisions of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rule, it can be instituted in terms of Rule 57 of the said Rules, only at the instance of the competent Officer, i.e, the Deputy Director,Miners, Additional Director, Mines or the Director, Mines or the Mines Collector or by an officer, duly authorized by the Government and only then, on the basis of the FIR, cognizance of the offence can be taken. Here nothing has been placed on record to show that the ASI has been authorized to lodge the case punishable under the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules and as such, the instant FIR is fit tobe quashed. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in support of the aforesaid submission, has referred to a decision, rendered in a case of Bhotna Mahto vs.State of Jharkhand [2009 (2) JLJR 258] and also in a case of Gulab Bhagat and another vs. State of Jharkhand (Cr.Misc.No.826 of 2011) and Manarul Sheikh @ Haque and another vs. State of Jharkhand (Cr.Misc.No.966 of 2011). Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that since the case was registered not only under the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules but also under Sections 414 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, an ASI can be said to be competent enough to lodge the case. In the facts and circumstances, as stated above, I do not find any merit in the submission advanced on behalf of the State.
(3.) IN this regard, I may refer to the provision as contained in Section 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which does stipulate that if any offence is committed under any of the law, other than I.P.C, it shall be investigated, inquired into or tried, according to the provisions, as contained in that enactment, in force. Here, in the instant case, as noted above, Rule 57 of the aforesaid Rules, does prescribe that FIR can be lodged at the instance of the persons mentioned above wherein it has never been mentioned that the ASI of any Police Station is competent to lodge the case. Therefore, lodgment of the instant case, at the instance of the ASI, is quite illegal. That apart, offences under the aforesaid Rules, seems tobe non-cognizable, as maximum sentence prescribed is six months or with fine.;