D.K.SINHA, J. - (1.) PETITIONER has invoked the extra -ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the entire criminal proceeding initiated against him in Palkot P.S. Case No.6 of 2007, corresponding to G.R. No.69 of 2007 for the offence under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 54 of the Jharkhand Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2004. 2. Prosecution story, in short, was that the informant Sub -Inspector of Police Ajay Prasad of Palkot Police Station intercepted a tractor on 15.1.2007 with trailer carrying stones and boulders thereon but no valid document was produced by the driver -petitioner Ranjit Nayak. However, it was disclosed by the driver of the tractor that on the instruction of his employer Jagannath Sahu, he was carrying the same to be unloaded at Kaurandbera Colony. Tractor and trailer loaded with stones and boulders were seized to which a seizure list was prepared in presence of the witnesses and the case was instituted under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code as also under Section 54 of the Jharkhand Minor Minerals Concession Rules as evident from the certified copy of Palkot P.S. Case No.6 of 2007 (Annexure -1). 3. Learned counsel Mr. Nilesh Kumar submitted that the petitioner was admittedly the driver of the tractor and trailer having nothing to do with the stones and boulders except that he was directed to carry it on the instruction of his employer from the place of quarrying to its destination. Complaint was lodged by the Police Officer of the rank of Sub -Inspector, who was not a competent Officer under the Jharkhand Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2004 to launch prosecution against the petitioner and that the Mining Department of the State Government did not make any complaint against the petitioner. Even search and seizure was made illegally by the informant Police Officer. Materials were loaded on the Tractor by the lessee Balmukund Mahto by issuing valid challan and this fact was communicated to the informant but the case was lodged mechanically without verifying the explanation and challan. 4. Learned counsel exhorted that Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is not attracted against the petitioner which is a general law when the provisions of special law vide the Jharkhand Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2004 is available and therefore, when prima facie case was instituted under Section 54 of the Rules, the offence instituted under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner was uncalled for and super addition. 5. Rule 57 of the Jharkhand Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2004 clearly speaks, "No court inferior to that of Magistrate of the 1st Class shall try any offence punishable under these Rules and no court shall take cognizance of any offence under these Rules except upon a Complaint made in writing by the competent officers or Deputy Director of Mines or Additional Director of Mines or Director of Mines or any other officer empowered by the government . 6. Informant, who is admittedly a Sub -Inspector of Police, is not empowered by the government to lodge a case for the alleged offence under the Jharkhand Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2004. 7. In the instant case, F.I.R. was instituted on 15.1.2007 only against the petitioner -driver of the tractor and trailer carrying stones and boulders by the informant Sub -Inspector of Police. By that time and before that Jharkhand Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2004 had already come into force w.e.f. 26th July, 2004. 8. Rule 54(7) of the Jharkhand Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2004 deals with the offence as well as the punishment in the present fact and circumstances of the case as it was alleged that petitioner -driver had not produced any challan in relation to transportation of minor minerals such as stone metals which attracted punishment of imprisonment up to six months and fine up to Rs.1000/ -. 9. I find substance in the argument of the counsel for the petitioner that on the face of this special law viz. Jharkhand Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2004, institution of the case for the same offence under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code, a general law, is not applicable in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Raj Kapoor versus Laxman, reported in (1980)2 SCC 175. 10. Secondly, I further observe that Rule 57 of the Jharkhand Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2004 specifically provides that unless a complaint or F.I.R. in writing is presented or lodged by a competent officer, Deputy Director of Mines, Additional Director of Mines, Director of Mines or any other officer authorized by the Government on this behalf, no court shall take cognizance of the offence under these Rules and, therefore, the F.I.R. lodged by the informant Sub -Inspector of Police who was neither a competent officer nor authorized to do so in the present case, in contravention of Rule 57 of the Jharkhand Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2004 is unsustainable under law. 11. I, therefore, find substance that the prosecution of the petitioner, in the facts and circumstances, on the written report of an officer who is not a competent officer under Rule 57 of the said Rules is unsustainable under law and that the offence under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code is not maintainable being the general law against the petitioner. 12. Under the aforesaid premises, there appears merit in this writ petition, accordingly, it is allowed and the criminal prosecution of the petitioner in Palkot P.S. Case No.6 of 2007, corresponding to G.R. No.69 of 2007 is set aside.;