R.R.PRASAD, J. - (1.) THIS writ application has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings of Potka P.S. case No. 28 of 2003 (G.R. No. 1065 of 2003) including the order dated 5..11.2004 whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offences has been taken against the petitioners under Sections 379, 411 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 4/21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'MMDR Act').
(2.) THE facts giving rise this application are that the then Executive Magistrate, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, made a written complaint to the Officer -in -Charge, Potka Police Station alleging therein that the petitioner No. 1, Bishnu Chandra Choudhary has been getting the Pyroxinite stone mined illegally from Dandugoda Mines which is being crushed in the crusher machine of petitioner No. 2, Pankaj Kumar Mandal and thereafter the same is being supplied to TISCO. On the basis of said information, Potka Police Station case No. 28 of 2003 was instituted under Sections 379 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 4/21 of the MMDR Act. Upon lodgment of the case, Assistant Mining Officer, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur directed the Chief Procurement (raw material), TISCO, Jamshedpur to stop taking supply immediately as that mineral is being supplied after extracting it illegally. Upon it, Chief Procurement Officer (Raw Material), TISCO asked the petitioner's firm, namely, M/s. Jaiswal Minerals Product to stop supply the said materials. Meanwhile, Director, Mines, Jharkhand took objection to the act of the Assistant Mining Officer as he was not competent to get mining operation stopped without permission of the State Government. In that context, even the Deputy Secretary to the Government wrote to the Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur not to act upon the letter of the Assistant Mining Officer as Assistant Mining Officer does not have right to stop mining operation without there being permission of the State Government. Meanwhile, Investigating Officer seems to have sent two samples of the Pyroxinite stone before the Director General, Geological Laboratory for its examination. On being tested, sample 'A' was found to be waste material whereas sample 'B' was found to be Pyroxinite but, according to the report, it had been mined from the mines which had been leased out to the petitioners and, therefore, Investigating Officer, keeping in view the said report, submitted final form exonerating both the petitioners from the charges, still the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences as alleged. Being aggrieved with that, this writ application has been filed.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that though the petitioners were alleged by the informant to have mined Pyroxinite stone illegally but on its verification, one of the sample was found to be waste product whereas the other sample, though was found to be Pyroxinite stone but that had been mined from the mines lease of which had been given to the petitioner No. 1 and in that view of the matter, no offence whatsoever is made out either under Section 379 or under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code or even under Section 4/21 of the MMDR Act but the learned trial court took cognizance of the offence, though no material whatsoever is there showing culpability of the petitioners and, therefore, any order taking cognizance of the offence can certainly be said to have been passed without application of mind and hence, the entire proceeding including he order taking cognizance is fit to be quashed.;