Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. - (1.) This application is directed against the judgment dated 27.03.2001 passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh in Cr. Appeal No. 7 of 1999 whereby and where under judgment and f passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Hazaribagh on 23.12.1998 in connection with G. R. No. 144 of 1995 convicting the petitioners for the offence punishable under Rule 40(1) of Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1972 has been affirmed and the sentence has been modified by revising the same from 6 months S.I. to 3 months S.I.
(2.) It has been stated by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners that the P.W. 3 is alleged to have inspected the place of occurrence and has submitted a report before the District Mining Officer-P.W. 3 who has subsequently filed the complaint leading to prosecution of the petitioners. Learned senior counsel submits that the inspection report had never accompanied the complaint although the inspection was made on 07.12.1994, but the inspection report was produced at the time of examination of C.W. 1-Lala Narendra Kishore on 27.06.1996. He further submitted that the inspection report is itself concocted document and which is prepared subsequently and no reliance can be placed on it. Furthering his argument he has submitted that the inspection report also does not contain the plot no. or the area where the petitioners was manufacturing bricks without any licence as required under the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules. It has been stated that in absence of specifying place of occurrence, judgment of conviction is liable to be set aside.
(3.) Mr. Ram Prakash Singh, learned A.P.P. opposed the prayer made by the petitioner.;