Rakesh Ranjan Prasad, J. - (1.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that though cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 379/ 411 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken but the allegation, upon which cognizance of the said offence has been taken comes within the ambit of penal provision of Section 4 of the M.M.R.D. Act a special legislation and therefore, prosecution under Sections 379/ 411 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be maintained. At the same time, the prosecution under Section 21 of the M.M.R.D. Act can also not be maintained for the reason that the prosecution had never been initiated by a person authorized by the State Government or the Central Government.
(2.) AT the same time there has been no allegation whatsoever against the petitioners attracting offence under Section 17 of the C.L.A. Act and that the offence under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act never gets attracted as it has never been the case of the prosecution that iron ore had been extracted from any protected forest. At the same time, the offence under Section 42 of the Indian Forest Act never gets attracted as the iron ore which is being allegedly transported illegally will never fall within the definition of 'forest produce' as has been defined under Section 2(4) of the Indian Forest Act.
(3.) HOWEVER , learned counsel appearing for the State seeks four weeks' time to file counter affidavit.;