D.K.SINHA, J. - (1.) The petitioners have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of the entire criminal proceeding including the order impugned dated 12.9.2003 whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offence was taken by the CJM, Dhanbad for the offence under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120 -B and 414 of the Indian Penal Code against all the 4 accused persons including the petitioners herein.
(2.) THE earlier WP (Cr) No. 71 of 2002 preferred by the petitioners for the quashment of their criminal proceeding in Katras (Rajganj) P.S. Case No. 32 of 2002 was dismissed on the ground that the writ was premature. The prosecution story in short was that three trucks load of coal were intercepted by the police giving rise to the institution of FIR being Katras (Rajganj) P.S. Case No. 32 of 2002 for the alleged offence for carrying steam coke without valid documents. The drivers of the said trucks could not give satisfactory answer though, certain documents were recovered from the dash boards of the trucks. In course of investigation, the employees of the Coke Company Raj Kumar Singh and Gurudas Chatterjee admitted having prepared the challans and bills of the steam coke to be carried on the said trucks on the instance of the owner petitioners. They further admitted that though the coal were of good quality but the same were disposed of as unusable coal and the petitioners were the owners of the said company.
(3.) MR . Indrajit Sinha, the learned Counsel submitted that the petitioners used to run a Private Limited Company engaged in the production of de -regulated NLM coal and for the said purpose they entered into a linkage agreement with M/s. BCCL, a subsidiary company of the Coal India Limited. The petitioners used to receive coal as per the linkage on deposit of entire value of the coal in advance. At times, surplus supply of coal were to be disposed of or sold by the petitioners as there was no provision in the linkage agreement for return of surplus/undersigned coal to M/s. BCCL. The position being so, if they could not be allowed to dispose of the unusable coal, it would lead to stoppage of fund and also occupation of a considerable area in the premises, causing great hindrance in the production/manufacturing process. Mr. Sinha further submitted that there was no provision in law to prevent from disposing of the unusable/surplus coal and as such, the petitioners moved before the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in WP No. 1247 of 2000 wherein by the order dated 18.5.2000 the writ petition was disposed of, directing the concerned respondents not to disturb the petitioners' function or business if the same was carried but in accordance with law. Mr. Sinha further attracted towards the minutes of 4th SPC meeting, held at Coal India Limited on 15.11.1996, wherein it was decided that the units were not required to take any permission for disposal of undersigned/surplus coal after deregulation of coal to the extent of 10% of the total receipt of the coal (Annexure -4).;