- (1.) Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State.
(2.) The petitioner has been apprehending his arrest in Gua P.S. Case No. 07 of 2008 registered under Sections 379/411/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 26/33 of Indian Forest Act and Section 21 of M.M.R.D. Act.
(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that as per the case of the prosecution, when two dumpers were found carrying iron ore, it was intercepted by the police personnel. Upon it, occupants of it started fleeing away, but the driver was intercepted, who disclosed that at the instance of this petitioner, iron ore had been loaded on the vehicles and, therefore, the case was instituted under Sections 379/411/34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Sections 26/33 of Indian Forest Act and also under Section 21 of M.M.R.D. Act, but even if, entire allegation made in the F.I.R. is taken to be true, no offence either under Section 379 or 411 of Indian Penal Code is made out. Further it was submitted that even offence under Section 21 of Indian Forest Act would not be attracted as there is no such case that the iron ore has been extracted from the forest area and if any offence is made out, that is made out under Section 21 of M.M.R.D. Act, which is bailable and that for instituting a case under Section 21 of M.M.R.D. Act, one needs to file a complaint.;