Patna High Court
Broad Son Commodities Private Limited vs The State Of Bihar Through Principal ... on 4 November, 2022
Author: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
Bench: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.299 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-318 Year-2021 Thana- BARUN District- Aurangabad
======================================================
M/S. Aditya Multicom Pvt. Ltd., A Company incorporated under the
provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at 12,
Waterloo Street, 2nd Floor, Kolkata - 700069 through Its Authorized
Signatory, Pankaj Singh @ Pankaj Kumar Singh, Aged about 29 years (Male)
Son of Shri Murali Singh, Resident of Village - Balihar, P.O. - Dullahpur,
P.S.- Simari, District - Buxar.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar, through Principal Secretary, Home, Government of
Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Home, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna.
3. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna.
4. The Superintendent of Police, Aurangabad.
5. The Officer In Charge, Barun Police Station, Aurangabad.
6. The Principal Secretary, Mines and Geology Department, Government of
Bihar, Vikas Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
7. The Assistant Director, Mines and Geology Department, Government of
Bihar, Vikas Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
8. The District Magistrate cum Collector, Aurangabad
9. The Mines Inspector, District Mining Office, Aurangabad.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
with
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 501 of 2021
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-864 Year-2021 Thana- BIHTA District- Patna
======================================================
Broad Son Commodities Private Limited, a Company Incorporated Under The
Provisions Of The Companies Act, 1956 having its Registered Office At Dr.
Himanshu Complex, Block Road, Koilwar Chouk, P.S.- Koilwar, District-
Bhojpur (Ara) through Its Authorised Director Ashok Kumar aged about 65
years (male) son of Ram Chandra Saw, resident of village/Mohalla-
Pareo,P.S.- Bihta, District-Patna
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar, through Principal Secretary, Home, Government Of
Bihar, Old Secretariat,Patna
2. The Principal Secretary, Home, Government Of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna
3. The Director General Of Police, Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna
4. The Superintendent Of Police, Patna
5. The Officer In Charge, Bihta Police Station, Patna
6. The Principal Secretary, Mines & Geology Department Government Of
Bihar, Vikas Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.299 of 2022 dt.04-11-2022
2/84
7. The Assistant Director, Mines and Geology Dept., Govt. Of Bihar, Vikas
Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna
8. The District Magistrate Cum Collector, Patna
9. The Mines Inspector, District Mining Office, Patna
... ... Respondents
======================================================
with
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-406 Year-2021 Thana- DEHRI TOWN District- Rohtas
======================================================
Aditya Multicom Pvt. Ltd., A Company Incorporated Under The Provision
Of The Companies Act, 1956 Having Its Registered Office At 12, Waterloo
Street, 2nd Floor, Kolkata- 700069 through Its Chief Executive Officer,
Sadashiv Prasad Singh Son Of Maleshwar Singh Resident Of 410,
Ganeshalay Apartment, Jharudih, Near Carmel School, Matkuria, Dhanbad-
Jharkhand, 826001
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar, through Principal Secretary, Home, Govt. Of Bihar, Old
Secretariat,Patna
2. The Principal Secretary, Home, Govt. Of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna
3. The Director General Of Police, Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna
4. The Superintendent Of Police, Rohtas
5. The Officer In Charge, Dehri (Town) Police Station, Rohtas
6. The Principal Secretary, Mines And Geology Deptt., Govt. Of Bihar, Vikas
Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna
7. The Assistant Director, Mines And Geology Dept., Govt. Of Bihar, Vikas
Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna
8. The District Magistrate Cum Collector, Rohtas
9. The Mines Inspector, District Mining Office, Rohtas
... ... Respondents
======================================================
with
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 13 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-141 Year-2021 Thana- TILAUTHU District- Rohtas
======================================================
M/S. Aditya Multicom Pvt. Ltd., A Company Incorporated Under The
Provision Of The Companies Act, 1956 Having Its Registered Office At 12,
Waterloo Street, 2nd Floor, Kolkata- 700069 through Its Chief Executive
Officer, Sadashiv Prasad Singh Son Of Maleshwar Singh, Resident Of 410,
Ganeshalay Apartment, Jharudih, Near Carmel School, Matkuria, Dhanbad-
Jharkhand 826001
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar, through Principal Secy., Home, Govt. Of Bihar, Old
Secretariat, Patna
2. The Principal Secretary, Home, Govt. Of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.299 of 2022 dt.04-11-2022
3/84
3. The Director General Of Police, Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna
4. The Superintendent Of Police, Rohtas
5. The Officer In Charge, Tilhautu Police Station, Rohtas
6. The Principal Secretary, Mines And Geology Dept., Govt. Of Bihar, Vikas
Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna
7. The Assistant Director, Mines And Geology Dept., Govt. Of Bihar, Vikas
Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna
8. The District Magistrate Cum Collector, Rohtas
9. The Mines Inspector, District Mining Office, Rohtas
... ... Respondents
======================================================
with
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 290 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-82 Year-2021 Thana- RISIYAP District- Aurangabad
======================================================
M/S. Aditya Multicom Pvt. Ltd., A Company Incorporated Under The
Provisions Of The Company Act, 1956 Having Its Registered Office At 12,
Waterloo Street, 2nd Floor, Kolkata - 700069 through Its Authorized
Signatory, Pankaj Singh @ Pankaj Kumar Singh, Aged About 29 Years
(Male), Son Of Shri Murali Singh, Resident Of Village - Balihar, P.O.-
Dullahpur, P.S.- Simari, District - Buxar.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Home, Government of Bihar,
Old Secretariat, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Home, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna.
3. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna.
4. The Superintendent of Police, Aurangabad.
5. The Officer in Charge, Rishiyup Police Station, Aurangabad.
6. The Principal Secretary, Mines and Geology Department, Government of
Bihar, Vikas Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
7. The Assistant Director, Mines and Geology Department, Government of
Bihar, Vikas Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
8. The District Magistrate cum Collector, Aurangabad
9. The Mines Inspector, District Mining Office, Aurangabad.
10. The Mineral Development Officer, Aurangabad
... ... Respondents
=====================================================
with
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 292 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-374 Year-2021 Thana- DAUDNAGAR District- Aurangabad
======================================================
M/s Aditya Multicom Private Limited, A Company Incorporated Under The
Provisions Of The Company Act, 1956 Having Its Registered Office At 12,
Waterloo Street, 2nd Floor, Kolkata - 700069 through its authorized
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.299 of 2022 dt.04-11-2022
4/84
Signatory, Pankaj Singh @ Pankaj Kumar Singh Aged about 29 years (Male)
son of shri Murali Singh, Resident of Village Balihar, P.O.- Dullahpur, P.s.-
Simari, Distt.- Buxar.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Home, Govt. of Bihar, Old
Secretariat , Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Home Govt. of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna.
3. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna.
4. The Superintendent of Police, Aurangabad.
5. The Officer in Charge, Daudnagar P.S., Aurangabad.
6. The Principal Secretary, mines and Geology Deptt. Govt. of Bihar, Vikas
Bhawan, Bailey Rd. Patna.
7. The Assistant Director, Mines and Geology Deptt. Govt. of Bihar, Vikas
Bhawan, Bailey Rd. Patna.
8. The District. Magistrate Cum Collector, Aurangabad.
9. The Mines Inspector, Distt. Mining Office, Aurangabad.
10. The Mineral Development officer, Aurangabad.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
with
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 295 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-481 Year-2021 Thana- DAUDNAGAR District- Aurangabad
======================================================
M/s Aditya Multicom Pvt. Ltd. A Company Incorporated Under The
Provisions Of The Company Act, 1956 Having Its Registered Office At 12,
Waterloo Street, 2nd Floor, Kolkata - 700069 through its Authorized
Signatory, Pankaj Singh @ Pankaj Kumar Singh aged about 29 years, son of
Shri Murali Singh, resident of village Balihar, P.O. Dullahpur, P.S.- Simari,
District- Buxar.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar, through Principal Secretary, Home, Government of
Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Home, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna
3. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna.
4. The Superintendent of Police, Aurangabad.
5. The Officer in Charge, Daudnagar Police Station, Aurangabad.
6. The Principal Secretary, Mines and Geology Department, Government of
Bihar. Vikas Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
7. The Assistant Director, Mines and Geology Department, Government of
Bihar Vikas Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
8. The District Magistrate Cum Collector, Aurangabad
9. The Mines Inspector, District Mining Office, Aurangabad.
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.299 of 2022 dt.04-11-2022
5/84
10. The Mineral Department Officer, Aurangabad.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
with
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 305 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-264 Year-2021 Thana- BARUN District- Aurangabad
======================================================
M/S. Aditya Multicom Private Limited A Company Incorporated Under The
Provisions Of The Company Act, 1956 Having Its Registered Office At 12,
Waterloo Street, 2nd Floor, Kolkata - 700069 through its Authorized
Signatory, Pankaj Kumar @ Pankaj Kumar Singh Son Of Shri Murali Singh
Resident Of Village- Balihar, P.O.- Dullahpur, P.S.- Simari, District- Buxar.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar, through Principal Secretary, Home, Govt. of Bihar, Old
Secretariat, Patna. Bihar.
2. The Principal Secretary, Home, Govt. of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna.
3. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna.
4. The Superintendent of Police, Aurangabad.
5. The Officer In Charge, Barun Police Station, Aurangabad.
6. The Principal Secretary, Mines and Geology Deptt., Govt. of Bihar, Vikas
Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
7. The Assistant Director, Mines and Geology Deptt., Govt. of Bihar, Vikas
Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
8. The District Magistrate cum Collector, Aurangabad.
9. The Mines Inspector, District Mining Officer, Aurangabad.
10. The Mineral Development Officer, Aurangabad.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
with
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 311 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-47 Year-2021 Thana- NARALI KALA KHURD District-
Aurangabad
======================================================
M/s. Aditya Multicom Pvt. Ltd., A Company Incorporated Under The
Provisions Of The Company Act, 1956 Having Its Registered Office At 12,
Waterloo Street, 2nd Floor, Kolkata - 700069 through its Authorized
Signatory, Pankaj Singh @ Pankaj Kumar Singh aged about 29 years (Male),
Son of Shri Murli Singh, Resident of Village- Balihar, P.O. Dullahpur, P.S.-
Simari, District- Buxar.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Home, Govt. Of Bihar, Old
Secretariat, Patna
2. The P)Rincipal Secretary, Home, Government Of Bihar, Old Secretariat,
Patna
3. The Director General Of Police, Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.299 of 2022 dt.04-11-2022
6/84
4. The Superintendent Of Police, Aurangabad.
5. The Officer In Charge, Narari Kala Police Station- Aurangabad.
6. The Principal Secretary, Mines And Geology Department, Government Of
Bihar. Vikas Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
7. The Assistant Director, Mines And Geology Department, Government Of
Bihar. Vikas Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
8. The District Magistrate Cum Collector, Aurangabad.
9. The Mines Inspector, District Mining Office, Aurangabad.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
with
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 312 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-202 Year-2021 Thana- NAVINAGAR District- Aurangabad
======================================================
M/s Aditya Multicom Pvt. Ltd. A Company Incorporated Under The
Provisions Of The Company Act, 1956 Having Its Registered Office At 12,
Waterloo Street, 2nd Floor, Kolkata - 700069 through its Authorized
Signatory, Pankaj Singh @ Pankaj Kumar Singh aged about 28 years (male)
son of Shri Murali Singh, resident of village Balihar, P.O. Dullahpur, P.S.-
Simari, District- Buxar.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The state of Bihar, through Principal Secretary, Home Government of Bihar,
Old Secretariat, Patna. Bihar
2. The Principal Secretary, Home, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna.
3. The Director General of Police, Bihar,Old Secretariat, Patna.
4. The Superintendent of Police, Aurangabad.
5. The Officer in Charge, Navinagar Police Station, Aurangabad.
6. The Principal Secretary, Mines and Geology Department, Government of
Bihar. Vikas Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
7. The Assistant Director, Mines and Geology Department, Government of
Bihar. Vikas Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
8. the District Magistrate Cum Collector, Aurangabad.
9. The Mines Inspector, District Mining Office, Aurangabad.
10. The Mineral Development Officer, Aurangabad.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
with
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 320 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-176 Year-2021 Thana- BARUN District- Aurangabad
======================================================
Aditya Multicom Private Limited A Company incorporated under the
Provisions of The Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at 12,
Waterloo Street, 2nd Floor, Kolkata- 700069 through its Authorized
Signatory, Pankaj Singh @ Pankaj Kumar Singh, aged about 29 years (male)
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.299 of 2022 dt.04-11-2022
7/84
son of Shri Murali Singh, resident of Village- Balihar, P.O. Dullahpur, P.S.-
Simari, District- Buxar.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar through Principal Secretary Home Govt. Of Bihar Old
Secretariat, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Home, Government Of Bihar, Old Secretariat,
Patna. Bihar
3. The Director General Of Police, Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna. Bihar
4. The Superintendent Of Police, Aurangabad. Bihar
5. The Officer In Charge, Barun Police Station, Aurangabad. Bihar
6. The Principal Secretary, Mines And Geology Department, Government Of
Bihar. Vikas Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
7. The Assistant Director, Mines And Geology Department, Government Of
Bihar. Vikas Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
8. The District Magistrate Cum Collector, Aurangabad Bihar
9. The Mines Inspector, District Mining Office, Aurangabad. Bihar
... ... Respondents
======================================================
with
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 387 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-689 Year-2021 Thana- BIHTA District- Patna
======================================================
Broad Son Commodities Private Ltd. A Company Incorporated Under The
Provisions Of The Companies Act, 1956 Having Its Registered Office At Dr.
Himanshu Complex, Block Road, Koilwar Chouk, P.S. Koilwar, District -
Bhojpur (Ara) through Its Authorised Signatory Santosh Kumar Son Of Late
Nageshwar Prasad, Resident Of Village/Mohalla 100, Pipra Pakadi, P.O.
Pipra Pakadi, P.S. Bettiah Mufassil, District - West Champaran.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar Through Principal Secretary, Home Government Of
Bihar, Patna
2. The Principal Secretary, Home, Government Of Bihar, Old Secretariat,
Patna.
3. The Director General Of Police, Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna.
4. The Superintendent Of Police, Patna.
5. The Officer In Charge, Bihta Police Station, Patna.
6. The Principal Secretary, Mines And Geology Deptt., Govt. Of Bihar, Vikas
Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna .
7. The Assistant Director, Mines And Geology Deptt., Govt. Of Bihar, Vikas
Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
8. The District Magistrate Cum Collector, Patna. .
9. The Mines Inspector, District Mining Office, Patna.
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.299 of 2022 dt.04-11-2022
8/84
... ... Respondents
======================================================
with
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 388 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-179 Year-2021 Thana- SANDESH District- Bhojpur
======================================================
Broad Son Commodities Private Limited A Company Incorporated Under
The Provisions Of The Companies Act, 1956 Having Its Registered Office At
Dr. Himanshu Complex, Block Road, Koilwar Chouk, P.S.- Koilwar, District-
Bhojpur (Ara) through Its Authorised Signatory Santosh Kumar S/O Late
Nageshwar Prasad Resident Of Village/ Mohalla 100, Pipra Pakadi, P.O.-
Pipra Pakadi, P.S.- Bettiah Mufasil, District- West Champaran.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar, through Principal Secretary, Home, Government of
Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Home, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna.
3. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna.
4. The Superintendent of Police, Bhojpur.
5. The Officer in Charge, Sandesh Police Station, Bhojpur
6. The Principal Secretary, Mines and Geology Department, Government of
Bihar. Vikas Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
7. The Assistant Director, Mines and Geology Department, Government of
Bihar. Vikas Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
8. The District Magistrate cum Collector, Bhojpur.
9. The Mines Inspector, District Mining Officer, Bhojpur.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
with
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 401 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-183 Year-2021 Thana- CHANDI District- Bhojpur
======================================================
Broad Son Commodities Private Limited A Company Incorporated Under
The Provisions Of The Companies Act, 1956 having Its Registered Office At
Dr. Himanshu Complex, Block Road, Koilwar Chouk, P.S.- Koilwar, District-
Bhojpur (Ara), through Its Authorised Signatory Santosh Kumar, Aged About
42 Years (Male), S/O Late Nageshwar Prasad, R/O Village/Mohalla 100,
Pipra Pakadi, P.O.- Pipra Pakadi, P.S.- Bettiah Mufasil, District- West
Champaran
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Principal Sect. Home Govt. of Bihar, Old
Secretariat, Patna
2. The Principal Secretary, Home, Govt. of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna
3. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna
4. The Superintendent of Police, Bhojpur
5. The Officer in Charge, Chandi Police Station, Bhojpur
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.299 of 2022 dt.04-11-2022
9/84
6. The Principal Sect., Mines and Geology Department, Govt. of Bihar, Vikas
Bhawan Bailey Road, Patna,
7. The Assistant Director, Mines and Geology Department, Govt. of Bihar,
Vikas Bhawan BAILEY ROAD, PATNA,
8. The District Magistrate cum Collector, Bhojpur
9. The Mines Inspector, District Mining Officer, Bhojpur
... ... Respondents
======================================================
with
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 413 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-115 Year-2021 Thana- IMADPUR District- Bhojpur
======================================================
Broad Son Commodities Private Limited A Company Incorporated Under
The Provisions Of The Companies Act, 1956 Having Its Registered Office At
Dr. Himanshu Complex, Block Road, Koilwar Chouk, P.S.- Koilwar, District-
Bhojpur (Ara), Through Its Authorised Signatory Santosh Kumar, Aged
About 42 Years (Male), S/O Late Nageshwar Prasad, R/O Village/Mohalla
100, Pipra Pakadi, P.O.- Pipra Pakadi, P.S.- Bettiah Mufasil, District- West
Champaran
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar Through Principal Secretary, Home, Govt. Of Bihar, Old
Secretariat, Patna
2. The Principal Secretary, Home, Government Of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna
3. The Director General Of Police, Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna
4. The Superintendent Of Police, Bhojpur
5. The Officer In Charge, Imadpur Police Station, Bhojpur
6. The Principal Secretary, Mines And Geology Department, Government Of
Bihar, Vikas Bhawan Bailey Road, Patna,
7. The Assistant Director, Mines And Geology Dept., Govt. Of Bihar, Vikas
Bhawan, Baily Road, Patna
8. The District Magistrate Cum Collector, Bhojpur
9. The Mines Inspector, District Mining Officer, Bhojpur
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 428 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-125 Year-2021 Thana- DARIHAT District- Rohtas
======================================================
M/S. Aditya Multicom Private Limited A Company Incorporated Under The
Provisions Of The Companies Act, 1956 Having Its Registered Office At 12,
Waterloo Street, 2nd Floor, Kolkata- 700069, Through Its Authorized
Signatory, Mr. Suwant Kumar , Aged About 33 Years, Son Of Mr. Tapeshwar
Singh, Resident Of Village Saranarayan, P.S. Dariyapur, District - Saran.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.299 of 2022 dt.04-11-2022
10/84
1. The State Of Bihar, Through Principal Secretary, Home Government Of
Bihar Old Secretariat, Patna,.
2. The Principal Secretary, Home, Government Of Bihar, Old Secretariat,
Patna.
3. The Director General Of Police, Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna.
4. The Superintendent Of Police, Rohtas.
5. The Officer In Charge, Darihat Police Station, Rohtas.
6. The Principal Secretary, Mines And Geology Deptt. Govt. Of Bihar, Vikas
Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
7. The Assistant Director, Mines And Geology Deptt., Govt. Of Bihar, Vikas
Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna Bihar
8. The District Magistrate Cum Collector, Rohtas.
9. The Mines Inspector, District Mining Office, Rohtas.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
with
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 436 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-349 Year-2021 Thana- DEHRI TOWN District- Rohtas
======================================================
Aditya Multicom Private Limited A Company Incorporated under the
Provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at 12,
Waterloo Street, 2nd floor, Kolkata-700069, through its Authorized
Signatory, Mr. Suwant Kumar aged about 33 year son of Mr. Tapeshwar
Singh, Resident of Village Saranarayan, P.S.- Dariyapur, Distt.- Saran.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Principal secretary, Home, Govt. of Bihar, Old
Secretariat, Patna.
2. The Principal secretary, Home, Govt. of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna.
3. The Director General of Police , Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna.
4. The Superintendent of Police, Rohtas.
5. The Officer in Charge, Dehri (Town) Police Station, Rohtas.
6. The Principal secretary, Mines and Geology Deptt. Govt. of Bihar, Vikas
Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
7. The Assistant Director, Mines and Geology Deptt. Govt. of Bihar, Vikas
Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
8. The District Magistrate Cum collector , Rohtas.
9. The Mines Inspector, District Mining Officer, Rohtas.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
with
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 462 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-335 Year-2021 Thana- PALIGANJ District- Patna
======================================================
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.299 of 2022 dt.04-11-2022
11/84
Broad Son Commodities Private Limited A Company Incorporated Under
The Provisions Of The Companies Act, 1956 Having Its Registered Office At
Dr. Himanshu Complex, Block Road, Koilwar Chouk, P.S.- Koilwar, District-
Bhojpur (Ara), through Its Authorised Signatory Santosh Kumar, Aged About
42 Yeras (Male), S/O Late Nageshwar Prasad, R/O Village/Mohalla- 100,
Pipra Pakadi, P.O.- Pipra Pakadi, P.S.- Bettiah Mufasil, District- West
Champaran
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar Through Principal Secretary, Home, Govt. Of Bihar, Old
Secretariat, Patna
2. The Principal Secretary, Home Government Of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna
3. The Director General Of Police, Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna
4. The Superintendent Of Police, Patna
5. The Officer In Charge, Paliganj Police Station, Patna
6. The Principal Secretary, Mines And Geology Department, Government Of
Bihar, Vikas Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna,
7. The Assistant Director, Mines And Geology Department, Government Of
Bihar, Vikas Bhawan Bailey Road, Patna,
8. The District Magistrate Cum Collector, Patna
9. The Mines Inspector, District Mining Office, Patna
... ... Respondents
======================================================
with
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 465 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-247 Year-2021 Thana- DORIGANJ District- Saran
======================================================
Broad Son Commodities Private Limited A Company Incorporated Under
The Provisions Of The Companies Act, 1956 Having Its Registered Office At
Dr. Himanshu Complex, Block Road, Koilwar Chouk, P.S.- Koilwar, District-
Bhojpur (Ara), Through Its Authorised Signatory Santosh Kumar, Aged
Abour 42 Yeras (Male), S/O Late Nageshwar Prasad, R/O Village/Mohalla-
100, Pipra Pakadi, P.O.- Pipra Pakadi, P.S.- Bettiah Mufasil, District- West
Champaran
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar, Through Principal Secretary, Home, Government Of
Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna Bihar
2. The Principal Secretary, Home Government Of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna
3. The Director General Of Police, Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna
4. The Superintendent Of Police, Saran Chapra
5. The Officer In Charge, Doriganj Police Station Saran, Chapra
6. The Principal Secretary, Mines And Geology Department, Govt. Of Bihar,
Vikas Bhawan Bailey Road, Patna,
7. The Assistant Director, Mines And Geology Department, Govt. Of Bihar,
Vikas Bhawan Bailey Road, Patna,
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.299 of 2022 dt.04-11-2022
12/84
8. The District Magistrate Cum Collector, Saran
9. The Mines Inspector, District Mining Officer, Saran
... ... Respondents
======================================================
with
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 481 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-540 Year-2021 Thana- BARHARA District- Bhojpur
======================================================
Broad Son Commodities Private Limited, A Company Incorporated Under
The Provisions Of The Companies Act, 1956 Having Its Registered Office At
Dr. Himanshu Complex, Block Road, Koilwar Chouk, P.S.- Koilwar, District
Bhojpur (Ara)Through Its Authorised Signatory Santosh Kumar Aged About
42 Years (Male), Son Of Late Nageshwar Prasad, Resident Of Village - 100,
Pipra Pakadi, P.O.- Pipra Pakadi, P.S.- Bettiah Mufasil, District - West
Champaran.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar, Through Principal Secretary, Home, Government of
Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Home, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna.
3. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna.
4. The Superintendent of Police, Bhojpur.
5. The Officer In Charge, Barahara Police Station, Bhojpur.
6. The Principal Secretary, Mines and Geology Department, Government of
Bihar, Vikas Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna,
7. The Assistant Director, Mines and Geology Department, Government of
Bihar, Vikas Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna,
8. The District Magistrate cum Collector, Bhojpur
9. The Mines Inspector, District Mining Office, Bhojpur.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
with
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 494 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-126 Year-2021 Thana- NASRIGANJ District- Rohtas
======================================================
Aditya Multicom Private Limited, A Company Incorporated Under The
Provisions Of Companies Act, 1956 Having Its Registered Office At 12,
Waterloo Street, 2nd Floor, Kolkata- 700069 Through Its Authorized
Signatory, Mr. Suwant Kumar, Son Of Mr. Tapeshwar Singh, Resident Of
Village Saranarayan, P.S. - Dariyapur, District - Saran.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Home, Government of Bihar,
Old Secretariat, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Home, Govt. of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna.
3. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna. Bihar
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.299 of 2022 dt.04-11-2022
13/84
4. The Superintendent of Police, Rohtas. Bihar
5. The officer In Charge, Nasriganj Police Station, Rohtas. Bihar
6. The Principal Secretary, Mines and Geology Deptt., Govt. of Bihar, Vikas
Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna Bihar
7. The Assistant Director, Mines and Geology Deptt., Govt. of Bihar, Vikas
Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. Bihar
8. The District Magistrate cum Collector, Rohtas. Bihar
9. The Mines Inspector, District Mining office, Rohtas. Bihar
... ... Respondents
======================================================
with
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 497 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-302 Year-2021 Thana- DIGHWARA District- Saran
======================================================
Broad Son Commodities Private Limited A Company Incorporated Under
The Provisions Of The Companies Act, 1956 Having Its Registered Office At
Dr. Himanshu Complex, Block Road, Koilwar Chouk, P.S.- Koilwar, District-
Bhojpur (Ara), Through Its Authorised Signatory Santosh Kumar, Aged
Abour 42 Years (Male), S/O Late Nageshwar Prasad, R/O Village/Mohalla-
100, Pipra Pakadi, P.O.- Pipra Pakadi, P.S.- Bettiah Mufasil, District- West
Champaran
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar Through Principal Secretary, Home, Govt. Of Bihar, Old
Secretariat, Patna Bihar
2. The Principal Secretary, Home, Govt. Of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna Bihar
3. The Director General Of Police, Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna Bihar
4. The Superintendent Of Police, Saran Chapra Bihar
5. The Officer In Charge, Digwara Police Station , Saran , Chapra Bihar
6. The Principal Secretary, Mines And Geology Department, Govt. Of Bihar,
Vikas Bhawan Bailey Road, Patna, Bihar
7. The Assistant Director, Mines And Geology Department, Govt. Of Bihar,
Vikas Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna, Bihar
8. The District Magistrate Cum Collector, Saran Bihar
9. The Mines Inspector, District Mining Officer, Saran Bihar
... ... Respondents
======================================================
with
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 500 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-456 Year-2021 Thana- KOILWAR District- Bhojpur
======================================================
Broad Son Commodities Private Limited, A Company Incorporated Under
The Provisions Of The Companies Act, 1956 Having Its Registered Office At
Dr. Himanshu Complex, Block Road, Koilwar Chouk, P.S. Koilwar, District
Bhojpur (Ara)Through Its Authorised Signatory Santosh Kumar Son Of Late
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.299 of 2022 dt.04-11-2022
14/84
Nageshwar Prasad, Resident Of Village/Mohalla 100, Pipra Pakadi P.O. Pipra
Pakadi, P.S. - Bettiah Mufassil, District - West Champaran.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar,through principal Secretary, Home, Government of Bihar,
Old Secretariat, Patna. Bihar
2. The Principal Secretary, Home, Govenment of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna.
Bihar
3. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna. Bihar
4. The Superintendent of Police, Bhojpur. Bihar
5. The officer In Charge, Koilwar Police Station, Bhojpur. Bihar
6. The Principal Secretary, Mines and Geology Deptt., Govt. of Bihar, Vikas
Bhawan, Bailey road,Patna Bihar
7. The Assistant Director, Mines and Geology Deptt., Government of Bihar,
Vikas Bhawan, Bailey Road Patna, Bihar.
8. The District Magistrate Cum Collector, Bhojpur. Bihar
9. The Mines Inspector, District Mining office, Bhojpur. Bihar.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
with
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 505 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-261 Year-2021 Thana- AWTARNAGAR District- Saran
======================================================
Broad Son Commodities Private Limited A Company Incorporated Under
The Provisions Of The Companies Act, 1956 Having Its Registered Office At
Dr. Himanshu Complex, Block Road, Koilwar Chouk, P.S.- Koilwar, District-
Bhojpur (Ara), Through Its Authorised Signatory Santosh Kumar, Aged
Abour 42 Years (Male), S/O Late Nageshwar Prasad, R/O Village/Mohalla-
100, Pipra Pakadi, P.O.- Pipra Pakadi, P.S.- Bettiah Mufasil, District- West
Champaran
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar, through Principal Secretary, Home, Government of
Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna Bihar
2. The Principal Secretary, Home, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna
Bihar
3. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna Bihar
4. The Superintendent of Police, Saran Chapra Bihar
5. The officer in Charge, Autar Nagar Police Station, Saran, Chapra Bihar
6. The Principal Secretary, Mines and Geology Department, Government of
Bihar, Vikas Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna, Bihar
7. The Assistant Director, Mines and Geology Department, Govt. of Bihar
Vikas Bhawan Bailey Road, Patna, Bihar
8. The District Magistrate Cum Collector, Saran Bihar
9. The Mines Inspector, District Mining Office, Saran Bihar
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.299 of 2022 dt.04-11-2022
15/84
... ... Respondents
======================================================
with
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 508 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-464 Year-2021 Thana- CHAPRA MUFFASIL District- Saran
======================================================
Broad Son Commodities Private Limited A company incorporated under the
provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 having having its registered office at
Dr. Himanshu Complex, Block Road, Koilwar Chouk, P.S.- Koilwar, District
Bhojpur (Ara)through its authorised signatory santosh Kumar, through its
authorised Singatory Santosh Kumar, aged about 42 years (male), Son of
Late Nageshwar Prasad, resident of Village/ Mohalla 100, Pipra Pakadi, P.O.
Pipra Pakadi, P.S.- Bettiah Mufasil, District- West Champaran.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Home Government Of Bihar
Old Secretariat, Patna Bihar
2. The Principal Secretary, Home, Government Of Bihar, Old Secretariat,
Patna. Bihar
3. The Director General Of Police, Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna. Bihar
4. The Superintendent Of Police, Saran Chapra. Bihar
5. The Officer In Charge, Mufassil Police Station, Saran, Chapra. Bihar
6. The Principal Secretary, Mines And Geology Department , Government Of
Bihar, Vikas Bhawan Bailey Road, Patna.
7. The Assistant Director, Mines And Geology Department Government Of
Bihar. Vikas Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
8. The District Magistrate Cum Collector, Saran. Bihar
9. The Mines Inspector, District Mining Office, Saran. Bihar
... ... Respondents
======================================================
with
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 516 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-181 Year-2021 Thana- RANIYATALAB District- Patna
======================================================
Broad Son Commodities Private Limited, A Company Incorporated Under
The Provisions Of The Companies Act, 1956 Having Its Registered Office At
Dr. Himanshu Complex, Block Road, Koilwar Chouk, P.S. Koilwar, District -
Bhojpur (Ara) through Its Authorised Signatory Santosh Kumar Son Of Late
Nageshwar Prasad, Resident Of Village/Mohalla 100, Pipra Pakadi, P.O.
Pipra Pakadi, P.S.- Bettiah Mufassil, District - West Champaran.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar, Through Principal Secretary, Home Government Of
Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna Bihar
2. The Principal Secretary, Home, Government Of Bihar, Old Secretariat,
Patna. Bihar
3. The Director General Of Police, Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna. Bihar
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.299 of 2022 dt.04-11-2022
16/84
4. The Superintendent Of Police, Patna. Bihar
5. The Officer In Charge, Rani Talab Police Station, Patna. Bihar
6. The Principal Secretary, Mines And Geology Department, Government Of
Bihar, Vikas Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna,Bihar.
7. The Assistant Director, Mines And Geology Department, Government Of
Bihar, Vikas Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna, Bihar.
8. The District Magistrate Cum Collector, Patna. Bihar
9. The Mines Inspector, District Mining Office, Patna. Bihar
... ... Respondents
======================================================
with
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 545 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-209 Year-2021 Thana- SAHAR District- Bhojpur
======================================================
Broad Son Commodities Private Limited A Company incorporated under the
provisions of Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Dr.
Himanshu Complex, Block Road, Koilwar Chouk, P.S.- Koilwar, District-
Bhojpur (Ara), through its authorised signatory Santosh Kumar, aged about
42 years (Male), S/o Late Nageshwar Prasad, R/o Village/Mohalla 100, Pipra
Pakadi, P.O.- Pipra pakadi, P.S.- Bettiah Mufassil, District- West Champaran
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar Through Principal Secretary, Home Govt. Of Bihar, Old
Secretariat, Patna Bihar
2. The Principal Secretary, Home, Government Of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna
Bihar
3. The Director General Of Police, Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna Bihar
4. The Superintendent Of Police, Bhojpur Bihar
5. The Officer In Charge, Sahar Police Station, Bhojpur Bihar
6. The Principal Secretary, Mines And Geology Department, Govt. Of Bihar,
Vikas Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna, Bihar
7. The Assistant Director, Mines And Geology Department, Govt. Of Bihar,
Vikas Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna, Bihar
8. The District Magistrate Cum Collector, Bhojpur Bihar
9. The Mines Inspector, District Mining Office, Bhojpur Bihar
... ... Respondents
======================================================
with
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 554 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-204 Year-2021 Thana- NAVINAGAR District- Aurangabad
======================================================
M/S. Aditya Multicom Private Ltd., A Company Incorporated Under The
Provisions Of The Companies Act, 1956 Having Its Registered Office At 12,
Waterloo Street, 2nd Floor, Kolkata- 700069 Through Authorized Signatory,
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.299 of 2022 dt.04-11-2022
17/84
Pankaj Singh @ Pankaj Kumar Singh Son Of Shri Murali Singh, Resident Of
Village Balihar, P.O. Dullahpur, P.S.- Simari, District - Buxar.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar Through Principal Secretary, Home Govt. Of Bihar, Old
Secretariat, Patna. Bihar
2. The Principal Secretary, Home, Government Of Bihar, Old Secretariat,
Patna. Bihar
3. The Director General Of Police, Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna. Bihar
4. The Superintendent Of Police, Aurangabad. Bihar
5. The Officer In Charge, Navinagar Police Station, Aurangabad. Bihar
6. The Principal Secretary, Mines And Geology Deptt., Govt. Of Bihar, Vikas
Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna Bihar.
7. The Assistant Director, Mines And Geology Deptt. Govt. Of Bihar, Vikas
Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. Bihar
8. The District Magistrate Cum Collector, Aurangabad. Bihar
9. The Mines Inspector, District Mining Officer, Aurangabad. Bihar
10. The Mineral Development Officer, Aurangabad. Bihar
... ... Respondents
======================================================
with
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 634 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-47 Year-2021 Thana- KACCHWA District- Rohtas
======================================================
Aditya Multicom Private Limited, A Company Incorporated Under The
Provisions Of The Companies Act, 1956 Having Its Registered Office At 12,
Waterloo Street, 2nd Floor, Kolkata - 700069 Through Its Authorized
Signatory, Mr. Suwant Kumar, Aged About 33 Years, Son Of Mr. Tapeshwar
Singh, Resident Of Village - Saranarayan, P.S.- Dariyapur, District - Saran.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar, Through Principal Secretary, Home, Government of
Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna. Bihar
2. The Principal Secretary, Home, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna.
Bihar
3. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna. Bihar
4. The Superintendent of Police, Rohtas. Bihar
5. The Officer In Charge, Kachhawan Police Station, Rohtas Bihar
6. The Principal Secretary, Mines and Geology Department, Government of
Bihar, Vikas Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna, Bihar.
7. The Assistant Director, Mines and Geology Department, Government of
Bihar, Vikas Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna, Bihar.
8. The District Magistrate cum Collector, Rohtas. Bihar
9. The Mines Inspector, District Mining Office, Rohtas. Bihar
... ... Respondents
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.299 of 2022 dt.04-11-2022
18/84
======================================================
Appearance :
(In all cases)
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. P.K. Shahi, Sr. Advocate
Mr. P.N. Shahi, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Suraj Samdarshi, Advocate
Mr. Avinash Shekhar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. G.P. Ojha, GA 7
Mr. Saroj Kumar Sharma, AC to AAG 3
For the Dept. of Mines : Mr. Naresh Dixit, Advocate
Ms. Kalpana, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 04-11-2022
A batch of 28 writ petitions were taken up together on
28.09.2022for consideration with the consent of learned counsel for the petitioners, State and the Department of Mines. Earlier, on 05.09.2022 Cr.W.J.C. No. 501 of 2021 was heard and judgment was reserved. Later on, considering that all the cases including Cr.W.J.C. No. 501 of 2021 are raising similar issues, this Court heard learned counsel for the parties in all the cases once again on 02.11.2022.
2.These writ petitions question the lodging of the FIRs under Section 379, and other provisions of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC') as also for the alleged violation of Rule 11, 29(c), 36(3) and 56 and other Rules of the Bihar (Concessions, Prevention of illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 2019') and Section 27 of the Minor Minerals (Development and Patna High Court CR. WJC No.299 of 2022 dt.04-11-2022 19/84 Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the 'MMDR Act, 1957'). The FIRs challenged in each of the writ petitions are mentioned hereinbelow in tabular chart with the allegations levelled in each of the FIRs:-
FIRs relating to the petitioner Aditya Multicom Private Limited Case No. FIR Allegations Cr.W.J.C. No. 299 of 2022 Barun P.S. Case No. 318 of 2021 In course of Inspection of the registered under Sections 379, 411, Stock on the K-License place 420 IPC read with Rule 11, 39, 18000 CFT sand was found 56 of the Bihar Mineral whereas in PMU Report 2265700 (Concession, Prevention of Illegal CFT sand was mentioned. It was Mining, Transportation & Storage) noticed that the license holder has Rules 2019 sold sand without issuing prepaid E-Challan. It is alleged that the license holder has sold the sand stealthily and the Register in form
-J were not found duly filled up.
This has caused revenue loss of Rs. 11,72,50,032/- to the Government exchequer.
Cr.W.J.C. No. 05 of 2022 Dehri Town P.S. Case No. 406 of In course of Inspection of the 2021 registered under Section 379, Stock on the K-License places 409 IPC, Sections 39(2), 39(3), 162700 CFT sand was found 56(2) of Bihar Mineral whereas in P.M.U. report it was (Concession, Prevention of Illegal mentioned as 12377875 CFT. It Mining, Transportation & Storage) was noticed that the license holder Rules 2019 has sold sand without issuing prepaid E-Chalan. It is alleged that the license holder has sold the sand stealthily and the Register in form -J were not found duly filled up. This has caused revenue loss of Rs. 36,55,29,750/- to the Government exchequer.
Cr.W.J.C. No. 13 of 2022 Tilhautu P.S. Case No. 141 of 2021 In course of Inspection of the registered under Sections 379, 411, Stock on the K-License place 420 IPC, read with 11, and 56 of 173000 CFT sand was found the Bihar Mineral (Concession, whereas in P.M.U. report it has Prevention of Illegal Mining, been mentioned 619400 CFT. it Transportation & Storage) Rules was noticed that the license holder 2019 has sold sand without issuing prepaid E-Challan. It is alleged that the license holder has sold the sand stealthily and the Register in Patna High Court CR. WJC No.299 of 2022 dt.04-11-2022 20/84 form -J were not found duly filled up. This has caused revenue loss of Rs. 01,51,77,600/- to the Government exchequer.
Cr.W.J.C. No. 290 of 2022 Rishiyup P.S. Case No. 82 of In course of Inspection of the 2021 registered under section Stock on the three K-License 379,411, 420 IPC read with Rules places total sand was zerp balance 11, 39, 56 of the Bihar Mineral whereas in P.M.U. Report it has (Concession, Prevention of Illegal been mentioned as 183300 CFT Mining, Transportation & Storage) Sand. It was noticed that the Rules 2019 license holder has sold sand without issuing prepaid E-Challan.
It is alleged that the license holder has sold 1,83,300 CFT sand stealthily a and the Register in form -J were not found duly filled up. This has caused revenue loss of Rs. 95,70,928/- to the Government exchequer.
Cr.W.J.C. No. 292 of 2022 Daudnagar P.S. Case No. 374 of In course of Inspection of the 2021 registered under section 379, Stock on the K-License places- at 420, 120B IPC read with Rules K Aurangabad/3/2021, 7790 M.T. 56, 56(2) of the Bihar Mineral less sand was found than the (Concession, Prevention of Illegal quantity mentioned in the P.M.U. Mining, Transportation & Storage) Report, at K. Aurangabad 10/2021 Rules 2019 no sand was found rather in P.M.U. report the stock was shown to be of 88389 M.T. Sand and further at non-renewed place no sand was found whereas in P.M.U. report it was shown as 23446 M.T. sand. Further at Bighat Ghat License place 300 meters inside the river no stock of sand was found whereas in P.M.U. report it was shown 4230670 CFT and 3509565 CFT. The revenue loss amount is not mentioned in the written report.
Cr.W.J.C. No. 295 of 2022 Daudnagar P.S. Case No. 481 of In course of Inspection of the 2021 registered under section Stock at three K-License places 379/411, 420 IPC read with Rules 205350 CFT sand was found 11, 39 and 56 of the Bihar Mineral whereas in P.M.U. report it has (Concession, Prevention of Illegal been shown to be 708830 CFT. It Mining, Transportation & Storage) was noticed that the license holder Rules 2019 has sold sand without issuing prepaid E-Challan. It is alleged that the license holder has sold the sand stealthily and the Register in form -J were not found duly filled up. This has caused revenue loss of Rs. 02,59,22,752/- to the Government exchequer.
Cr.W.J.C. No. 305 of 2022 Barun P.S. Case No. 264 of 2021 In course of Inspection of the Patna High Court CR. WJC No.299 of 2022 dt.04-11-2022 21/84 registered under section 379/411, Stock at five K-License places 420 IPC read with Rules 11, 39 795445 CFT sand was found and 56 of the Bihar Mineral whereas in P.M.U. Report it has (Concession, Prevention of Illegal been shown 3798233 CFT sand, Mining, Transportation & Storage) hence allegation is that the license Rules 2019 holder has sold 3002788 CFT sand without issuing prepaid E-
Challan. It is alleged that the license holder has sold the sand stealthily and the Register in form
-J were not found duly filled up.
This has caused revenue loss of 15,66,35,422/- to the Government exchequer.
Cr.W.J.C. No. 311 of 2022 Narari Kala Khurd P.S. Case No. In course of Inspection of the 47 of 2021 registered under Stock at the two K-License places sections 379, 411, 420 IPC read total 40850 CFT sand was found with Rules 11, 39 and 56 of the whereas in P.M.U. report it has Bihar Mineral (Concession, been shown 3672775 CFT. It was Prevention of Illegal Mining, noticed that the license holder has Transportation & Storage) Rules sold sand without issuing prepaid 2019 E-Challan. It is alleged that the license holder has sold 3631925 CFT sand stealthily and the Register in form -J were not found duly filled up. This has caused revenue loss of Rs. 18,94,51,208/-
to the Government exchequer.
Cr.W.J.C. No. 312 of 2022 Navi Nagar P.S. Case No. 202 of In course of Inspection of the 2021 registered under sections Stock on the K-License place it 379,411 420 IPC read with Rules was noticed that 13,37,050 CFT 11, 39 and 56 of the Bihar Mineral sand were more than the quantity (Concession, Prevention of Illegal mentioned in the report of PMU Mining, Transportation & Storage) which allegedly shows that the Rules 2019 license holder has illegally extracted the sand had sold the sand without issuing prepaid E-
Challan. It is alleged that the license holder has sold the sand stealthily and the Register in form
-J were not found duly filled up.
This has caused revenue loss of Rs. 06,97,50,528/ respectively to the Government exchequer.
Cr.W.J.C. No. 320 of 2022 Barun P.S. Case No. 176 of 2021 In this case it is alleged that on the registered under sections 379, website the stock of sand was 420, 120B IPC read with Rules 56 shown as 'Nil', in course of and 56(2) of the Bihar Mineral inspection it was found that there (Concession, Prevention of Illegal were 0497500 CFT sand at license Mining, Transportation & Storage) place no. 20/20 and at another Rules 2019 place being license place no. 22/20 again on the website the stock was showing 'nil' but in course of inspection 52500 CFT sand were found and further the license for Patna High Court CR. WJC No.299 of 2022 dt.04-11-2022 22/84 the year 2020-21 was not renewed still the petitioner was involved in stocking of sand at that place which shows his intention to unlawful extracting sand and selling of the same stealthily.
Cr.w.J.C. No. 428 of 2021 Darihat P.S. Case No. 125 of 2021 In this case altogether five K-
registered under sections 379, 411, license spots were inspected. In 420, 409 IPC read with Rules course of Inspection of the Stock 39(2), 39(3), 56 (2) of the Bihar at the K-License places sand was Mineral (Concession, Prevention found much less at different sites of Illegal Mining, Transportation which show that the license holder & Storage) Rules 2019 has sold sand without issuing prepaid E-Challan. It is alleged that the license holder has sold the sand stealthily and the Register in form -J were not found duly filled up. This has caused revenue loss of Rs. 64,60,98,600/- respectively to the Government exchequer.
Cr.W.J.C. No. 436 of 2022 Dehri Town P.S. Case No. 349 of In this case in course of Inspection 2021 registered under sections of the Stock at the K-License place 379, 409 IPC read with Rules 33,65,300 CFT sand was not found 39(2), (3) and 56(2) of the Bihar which shows that the license Mineral (Concession, Prevention holder has sold sand without of Illegal Mining, Transportation issuing prepaid E-Challan. It is & Storage) Rules 2019 alleged that the license holder has sold stealthily.
Cr.W.J.C. No. 494 of 2022 Nasriganj P.S. Case No. 126 of In this case altogether six K-
2021 registered under sections license spots were inspected. In 379, 411, 420 IPC read with Rules course of Inspection of the Stock 11, 39, 56 of the Bihar Mineral on the K-License places sand was (Concession, Prevention of Illegal found much less at different sites Mining, Transportation & Storage) which show that the license holder Rules 2019 has sold sand without issuing prepaid E-Challan. It is alleged that the license holder has sold the sand stealthily and the Register in form -J were not found duly filled up. This has caused revenue loss of Rs. 32,86,78,850/-to the Government exchequer.
Cr.W.J.C. No. 554 of 2022 Navi Nagar P.S. Case No. 204 of In this case three K-license spots 2021 registered under sections were inspected. In course of 379, 411, 420 IPC read with Inspection of the Stock at the K- Rules 11,39 of the Bihar Mineral License places sand was found (Concessions, Prevention of Illegal much less at different sites which Mining, Transportation & Storage) shows that the license holder has Rules 2019 sold sand without issuing prepaid E-Challan. It is alleged that the license holder has sold the sand stealthily and the Register in form
-J were not found duly filled up.
This has caused revenue loss of Patna High Court CR. WJC No.299 of 2022 dt.04-11-2022 23/84 Rs. 13,05,06,913/- to the Government exchequer.
Cr.W.J.C. No. 634 of 2022 Kachhawan P.S. Case No. 47 of In this case two K-license spot 2021 under Sections 379, 411, 420 was inspected. In course of IPC read with Rules 39(2), 39(3), Inspection of the Stock on the K- 56(2) of the Bihar Mineral License place sand was found (Concessions, Prevention of Illegal much less at different sites which Mining, Transportation & Storage) show that the license holder has Rules 2019 sold sand without issuing prepaid E-Challan. It is alleged that the license holder has sold the sand stealthily and the Register in form
-J were not found duly filled up.
At the place the signboard containing name, description of land, license number and the rate of sand were not written. This has caused revenue loss of Rs.
78,57,400/- to the Government exchequer.
FIRs relating to the petitioner Broad Son Commodities Private Limited Case No. FIR Allegations Cr.W.J.C. No. 501 of 2021 Bihta P.S. Case No. 864 of 2020 It is alleged that in course of spot registered under Section 22 of the inspection when the Ge-co- MMDR Act 1957, Rules 11, 29 ordinate of the excavated area of
(c), 56 of the Bihar Mineral Chilka Tola Sandghat was taken, (Concession, Prevention of Illegal it was found that the excavation of Mining, Transportation & Storage) sand were done outside the E.C. Rules 2019 Area. The Inspecting Team took measurement of the excavated ditches and found that 56,500 CFT of sand had been done outside the E.C. Area and thereby revenue loss of Rs. 16,53,045/- has been caused to the Government Exchequer.
Cr.W.J.C. No. 387 of 2022 Bihta P.S. Case No. 689 of 2021 In course of Inspection of the registered under Sections 379, 411 Stock at the five K-License places IPC read with Rules 39(3) and 56 difference of 431950 CFT sand of the Bihar Mineral (Concession, between the stock and the P.M.U. Prevention of Illegal Mining, Report was found, it was noticed Transportation & Storage) Rules that the license holder has sold 2019 sand without issuing prepaid E-
Challan. It is alleged that the license holder has sold the sand stealthily and the Register in form
-J were not found duly filled up.
At the all places the signboard containing name, description of Patna High Court CR. WJC No.299 of 2022 dt.04-11-2022 24/84 land, license number and the rate of sand were not written. This has caused revenue loss of Rs.
1,73,94,607/- to the Government exchequer.
Cr.W.J.C. No. 388 of 2022 Sandesh P.S. Case No. 179 of 2021 In course of Inspection of the registered under Sections 378, Stock at two K-License places 379, 411 IPC read with Rules difference of 20590 CFT sand was 39(3), 56 of the Bihar Mineral found between the physical (Concession, Prevention of Illegal verification and the P.M.U. Report. Mining, Transportation & Storage) It was noticed that there is differe Rules 2019 the license holder has sold sand without issuing prepaid E-Challan.
It is alleged that the license holder has sold the sand stealthily and the Register in form -J were not found duly filled up. At the all places the signboard containing name, description of land, license number and the rate of sand were not written. This has caused revenue loss of Rs. 08,23,600/- to the Government exchequer.
Cr.W.J.C. No. 401 of 2022 Chandi P.S. Case No. 183 of 2021 In course of Inspection of the registered under section 379 IPC Stock at the K-License place read with Rules 39(3), 56 of the difference of 13500 CFT sand was Bihar Mineral (Concessions, found between the physical Prevention of Illegal Mining, verification and the P.M.U. Report. Transportation & Storage) Rules It was noticed that the license 2019 and 15 of Environment holder has sold sand without Protection Act. issuing prepaid E-Challan. It is alleged that the license holder has sold the sand stealthily and the Register in form -J were not found duly filled up. At the all places the signboard containing name, description of land, license number and the rate of sand were not written. This has caused revenue loss of Rs. 05,40,000/- to the Government exchequer.
Cr.W.J.C. No. 413 of 2022 Imadpur P.S. Case No. 115 of In course of Inspection of the 2021 registered under section 379 Stock at two K-License places IPC read with Rules 1, 12,13, 15, difference of 295350 CFT sand 39(3) and 56 of the Bihar Mineral between physical and P.M.U. (Concessions, Prevention of Illegal Report was found. It was noticed Mining, Transportation & Storage) that the license holder has sold Rules 2019 sand without issuing prepaid E-
Challan. It is alleged that the license holder has sold the sand stealthily and the Register in form
-J were not found duly filled up.
At the all places the signboard containing name, description of land, license number and the rate Patna High Court CR. WJC No.299 of 2022 dt.04-11-2022 25/84 of sand were not written. This has caused revenue loss of Rs.
01,18,14,000/- to the Government exchequer.
Cr.W.J.C. No. 462 of 2022 Paliganj P.S. Case No. 335 of In course of Inspection of the 2021 registered under sections Stock at the K-License place 378, 379/411 IPC read with Rules difference between the stock and 39(3), 56 of the Bihar Mineral P.M.U Report was found. it was (Concessions, Prevention of Illegal noticed that the license holder has Mining, Transportation & Storage) sold sand without issuing prepaid Rules 2019 E-Challan. It is alleged that the license holder has sold the sand stealthily and the Register in form
-J were not found duly filled up.
At the place the signboard containing name, description of land, license number and the rate of sand were not written. The extent of revenue loss caused to the Government exchequer has not been mentioned.
Cr.W.J.C. No. 465 of 2022 Doriganj P.S. Case No. 247 of In course of Inspection of the 2021 registered under sections Stock on the five K-License places 379/411, 420 IPC read with Rules it was found that the stocks were 39(3) of the Bihar Mineral much less than mentioned stock in (Concessions, Prevention of Illegal the report of the P.M.U., hence Mining, Transportation & Storage) allegation is that the license holder Rules 2019 has sold sand without issuing prepaid E-Challan. It is alleged that the license holder has sold the sand stealthily and the Register in form -J were not found duly filled up. At the all places the signboard containing name, description of land, license number and the rate of sand were not written. This has caused revenue loss of (i) Rs.
7,78,38,614/-, (ii) Rs.
10,26,10,683/-, (iii)
15,42,37,116/-, (iv)
01,06,03,495/-, (v) 01,54,61,475/-,
(vi)01,71,49,073/- to the
Government exchequer.
Cr.W.J.C. No. 481 of 2022 Barhara P.S. Case No. 540 of In course of Inspection of the
2021 registered under section 379 Stock at the K-License place IPC read with Rules 39(3), 56 of difference of 55950 CFT sand was the Bihar Mineral (Concessions, found between the stock and Prevention of Illegal Mining, P.M.U. Report. Tt was noticed Transportation & Storage) Rules that the license holder has sold 2019 sand without issuing prepaid E-
Challan. It is alleged that the license holder has sold the sand stealthily and the Register in form
-J were not found duly filled up.
At the place the signboard Patna High Court CR. WJC No.299 of 2022 dt.04-11-2022 26/84 containing name, description of land, license number and the rate of sand were not written. This has caused revenue loss of Rs.
22,38,000/- to the Government exchequer.
Cr.W.J.C. No. 497 of 2022 Dighwara P.S. Case No. 302 of In course of Inspection of the 2021 registered under sections Stock at the K-License place it was 379, 420 IPC read with Rules noticed that out of two license 39(3) of the Bihar Mineral places, at K-7/21 place 61915 CFT (Concession, Prevention of Illegal sand were more than the quantity Mining, Transportation & Storage) mentioned in the report of PMU Rules 2019 which allegedly show that the license holder has illegally extracted the sand and at one place (K-12/21 the quantity was less showing that the license holder had sold the sand without issuing prepaid E-Challan. It is alleged that the license holder has sold the sand stealthily and the Register in form -J were not found duly filled up. At the place the signboard containing name, description of land, license number and the rate of sand were not written. This has caused revenue loss of Rs.
26,41,913/- and 1,24,73,807/
respectively to the Government
exchequer.
Cr.W.J.C. No. 500 of 2022 Koilwar P.S. Case No. 456 of In this case altogether seven K-
2021 registered under sections license spots are involved. In 378, 379, 411 IPC read with Rules course of Inspection of the Stock 39(3) and 56 of the Bihar Mineral at the K-License places sand was (Concession, Prevention of Illegal found much less at different sites Mining, Transportation & Storage) which show that the license holder Rules 2019 has sold sand without issuing prepaid E-Challan. It is alleged that the license holder has sold the sand stealthily and the Register in form -J were not found duly filled up. At the place the signboard containing name, description of land, license number and the rate of sand were not written. This has caused revenue loss ofRs.
13,36,70,320/- to the Government exchequer.
Cr.W.J.C. No. 505 of 2021 Awtar Nagar P.S. Case No. 261 of In this case altogether three K-
2021 registered under sections license spots were inspected. In 188, 420, 379 IPC read with Rules course of Inspection of the Stock 39(3) of the Bihar Mineral at the two K-License places sand (Concessions, Prevention of Illegal was found much less at different Mining, Transportation & Storage) sites which show that the license Rules 2019 holder has sold sand without Patna High Court CR. WJC No.299 of 2022 dt.04-11-2022 27/84 issuing prepaid E-Challan. Further at third place the same was found more than the report provided in the P.M.U. Report which shows that illegal mining has been done.
It is alleged that the license holder has sold the sand stealthily and the Register in form -J were not found duly filled up. At the place the signboard containing name, description of land, license number and the rate of sand were not written. This has caused revenue loss of Rs. 3,30,49,195/-, Rs.
01,10,43,423/- and 03,72,96,525/-
respectively to the Government exchequer.
Cr.W.J.C. No. 508 of 2022 Muffasil P.S. Case No. 464 of In this case in course of Inspection 2021 registered under sections of the Stock at the K-License place 379, 411 IPC read with Rules sand was found much less as 39(3) of the Bihar Mineral shown in the report of PMU (Concessions, Prevention of Illegal which shows that the license Mining, Transportation & Storage) holder has sold sand without Rules 2019 issuing prepaid E-Challan. It is alleged that the license holder has sold the sand stealthily and the Register in form -J were not found duly filled up. At the place the signboard containing name, description of land, license number and the rate of sand were not written. This has caused revenue loss of Rs. 2,37,07,452/- to the Government exchequer.
Cr.W.J.C. No. 516 of 2022 Rani Talab P.S. Case No. 181 of In this case altogether eighteen K-
2021 registered under sections license spots were inspected. In 378, 379, 411 IPC read with Rules course of Inspection of the Stock 39(3), 56 of the Bihar Mineral at the K-License places, sand was (Concessions, Prevention of Illegal found much less at different sites Mining, Transportation & Storage) which shows that the license Rules 2019 holder has sold sand without issuing prepaid E-Challan. It is alleged that the license holder has sold the sand stealthily and the Register in form -J were not found duly filled up. At the place the signboard containing name, description of land, license number and the rate of sand were not written. This has caused revenue loss of Rs. 07,48,88,106/- to the Government exchequer.
Cr.W.J.C. No. 545 of 2022 Sahar P.S. Case No. 209 of 2021 In this case two K-license spots registered under section 379 IPC were inspected. In course of read with Rules 39(3), 56 of the Inspection of the Stock at the K- Patna High Court CR. WJC No.299 of 2022 dt.04-11-2022 28/84 Bihar Mineral (Concession, License places sand was found Prevention of Illegal Mining, much less at different sites which Transportation & Storage) Rules shows that the license holder has 2019 sold sand without issuing prepaid E-Challan. It is alleged that the license holder has sold the sand stealthily and the Register in form
-J were not found duly filled up.
At the place the sign board containing name, description of land, license number and the rate of sand were not written. This has caused revenue loss of Rs.
93,60,000/- to the Government exchequer.
Submissions on behalf of the petitioners
3.The basic contention on behalf of the petitioners is that for the offences alleged under the MMDR Act and the Rules of 2019 an FIR under the penal provisions of I.P.C. cannot be registered. And that the MMDR Act and the Rules made thereunder are in the nature of Special Statutes, therefore, the violation of the provisions of the MMDR Act and the Rules of 2019 are to be dealt only in accordance with the mechanism provided thereunder. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that the primary allegation against the petitioners is that of excavation beyond the Environment Clearance ( in short E.C.) permitted area and transportation of sand without issuance of e- transit challan. According to him, these allegations would be specifically covered under Rule 56(1) of the Rules of 2019 and the same shall be punishable under Section 56(2) of the same rules Patna High Court CR. WJC No.299 of 2022 dt.04-11-2022 29/84 but for this violation a case under Sections 379, 411, 406 or 420 IPC cannot be registered.
4. It is submitted that Rule 61 of Rules of 2019 provides that the offences under these rules shall be cognizable only upon a written complaint made in writing by the competent officer or Deputy Director of Mines or Additional Director of Mines or Director of Mines or any other officer empowered by the Government.
5. It is submitted that Section 2(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.P.C.') defines complaints which means any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Code, that some person,whether known or unknown have committed an offence, that would not include a police report. It is, thus, submitted that the court below can take cognizance of any offence under the Rules of 2019 only upon a written complaint and not on the basis of a police report. Hence, the police should not have registered an FIR in this case.
6. It is further submitted that even on the face of the allegations made in the FIR, no offence under Section 379 IPC would be made out against the petitioners. Since the sand stored at the K-license places belong to the petitioners, it is his submission Patna High Court CR. WJC No.299 of 2022 dt.04-11-2022 30/84 that a person cannot commit theft of his own goods. It is submitted that the petitioner(s) are settlees for the entire stretch of river passing through the district and according to Rule 26(1)(b) and Schedule II of the 1972 Rules, royalty for sand in case of auction was the auction amount. In the hearing held on 02.11.2022, learned counsel for the petitioners has once again submitted with reference to Rule 51(1) (b) read with Schedule III(A) of Rules of 2019 that in case of auction the auction amount is the royalty. Thus, according to the petitioners, the necessary import would be that the petitioners had paid the royalty for the sand for the entire river stretch passing through the district. According to the 2013 Sand Policy and the Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the '1972 Rules'), the petitioners were required to prepare a mining plan and submit the same to the State Government for approval.
7. It is submitted that on the basis of mining plan, the petitioners were granted the environmental clearance by State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (in short 'SEIAA') which prescribed the particular area from which the petitioners could excavate the sand. This demarcation was on the basis of mineral potential of a river at a particular place. If the mineral potential of a particular ghat got diminished, the petitioner is Patna High Court CR. WJC No.299 of 2022 dt.04-11-2022 31/84 entitled to get revised/new mining plan approved and obtain new EC for a new area.
8. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that the dictum of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Sanjay reported in (2014) 9 SCC 772 has drawn a distinction between theft under Section 378 IPC and the provisions of the MMDR Act. It is submitted that any contravention of the terms and conditions of the mining lease or doing mining activity in violation of Section 4 of the Act is an offence punishable under Section 21 of the MMDR Act whereas dishonestly removing mineral which is the property of the State within the State's possession without its consent, constitutes theft and police can register an FIR. It is submitted that since the entire district was settled to the petitioner, no offence of theft is committed.
9. It is submitted that under Section 26 of the General Clauses Act whether an act or omission constitutes an offence under two or more enactments, then the offender shall be liable to be prosecuted and punished under either or any of those enactments, but shall not be liable to be punished twice for the same offence. It is submitted, therefore, that whether or not the allegation in the FIR constitutes an offence under IPC and MMDR Patna High Court CR. WJC No.299 of 2022 dt.04-11-2022 32/84 Act separately, shall depend on the facts and circumstances of the case. It is his submission that any investigation separately by the police for offence of theft under IPC and a complaint by the authorized officer under the MMDR Act for violation of Rules of 2019, would violate the mandate of Section 26 of the General Clauses Act and Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India.
10. As regards some of the FIRs lodged under Section 420/406 IPC, it is submitted that on perusal of the FIR, it would appear that there is no allegation of cheating or breach of trust. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has, in the case of Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma and Ors vs. State of Bihar and Anr. reported in (2000) 4 SCC 168, Sharon Michel and Ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2009) 3 SCC 375, Anil Mahajan vs. Bhor Industries Limited and Anr. reported in (2005) 10 SCC 228 and Indian Oil Corporation vs. NERC India Limited and Ors. reported in (2006) 6 SCC 736 and also in Vinod Natesonvs. State of Kerala reported in (2019) 2 SCC 401 equivalent to MNG Bharateesh Reddy vs. Ramesh Ranganathan and Anr. reported in (2022) SCC Online SC 1061 are some of the judgments on the aforesaid proposition of law.
11. It is further submitted that Section 411 IPC would also not be attracted as there is nothing on record to suggest that the Patna High Court CR. WJC No.299 of 2022 dt.04-11-2022 33/84 petitioners had accepted any stolen article. It is submitted that in similar set of facts and circumstances, in case of this petitioners itself, in the district of Rohtas, Dehri P.S. Case No. 407 of 2021 was registered (Annexure '23' of the supplementary affidavit of the petitioner), the petitioner filed Cr.W.J.C. No. 1233 of 2021 seeking quashing of the FIR and the learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 07.04.2022 after relying on the ratio of the judgment in the case of Mithilesh Kumar Singh vs. State of Bihar reported in 2019 (6) BLJ 149 quashed the first information report.
12. Learned Senior Counsel, therefore, submits that the case of the petitioners is covered by the principles laid down in the case of State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Bhajanlal and Ors. Reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, therefore, the entire prosecution against the petitioners deserve to be quashed.
Stand of the State
13. The Assistant Superintendent of Police, Danapur has filed a counter affidavit in the leading case being Cr.W.J.C. No. 501 of 2021. It is stated therein that the Assistant Mines Director, Patna has lodged first information report that during course of inspection, excavation was found outside the permitted lease area. In course of investigation, the I.O. as well as the Supervisory Patna High Court CR. WJC No.299 of 2022 dt.04-11-2022 34/84 authorities have upon consideration of the materials available on the record found the case true against the petitioners and unknown employees of the company. It is submitted that in the case of M.C.Mehta Vs. State of Kerala reported in (1997) 1 SCC 388 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the State is the trustee of all the natural resources which are by nature meant for public use and enjoyments. Public at large is the beneficiary of the sea-shore, running waters, airs, forest and ecological fragile land. The State is under legal duty to protect the natural resources. These resources meant for public use cannot be converted into private ownership. Learned counsel for the State submits that the aforesaid doctrine has been invoked in the subsequent judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay (Supra). It is submitted that recently this Hon'ble Court while dealing with similar matter, rejected the anticipatory bail of the petitioners vide order dated 12.08.2020 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 21609 of 2020 with observation that the Court has experienced numerous cases coming up of similar nature which creates an impression that sand smugglers are active in the State of Bihar who are thriving in connivance with the persons who have been given responsibility to check. The State argued that the illegal extraction of sand Patna High Court CR. WJC No.299 of 2022 dt.04-11-2022 35/84 causes heavy loss to the State Exchequer to the tune of Rs. 600 crores to 700 crores per year.
14. It is submitted that the MMDR Act or the Rules of 2019 bars cognizance on the basis of a police report but in a case where police report is submitted before a competent court under Sections 379, 411, 406 or 420 IPC, the learned Magistrate shall proceed in accordance with law. There is no law which bars lodging of F.I.Rs.
15. A counter affidavit, a reply to the supplementary affidavit of the petitioner and a supplementary counter affidavit have been filed on behalf of the Department of Mines (respondent nos. 8 and 9). The counter affidavit reiterates the allegations against the petitioner(s) in its reply to the supplementary affidavit of the petitioner respondent nos. 8 and 9 stated that the petitioner conducted illegal mining outside the EC permitted area. The petitioner in Cr.W.J.C. No. 501 of 2021 was granted permission in Chilka Tola sandghat for the extraction of sand within Geo Coordinate Area but during the raid it was found that he was illegally excavating the sand from the site which was beyond the EC permitted area.
16. It is further submitted that the Ministry of Forests and Climate Change has issued the guidelines in January 2020. Patna High Court CR. WJC No.299 of 2022 dt.04-11-2022 36/84 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Common Cause versus Union of India and Ors. dated 02.08.2017 held that the mining activity which are not governed under the provisions of Environment Protection Act, 1985, Water Prevention and Control of Pollution Act 1974, the Air Act 1981, The Forest Conservation Act 1980 and Wild Life Protection Act 1972 shall be considered as illegal mining within the provision of Section 21(5) of the MMDR Act and the concerned authority shall take necessary action. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the respondents are required to come out heavily on those involved in the illegal excavation.
Submissions on behalf of the Department of Mines
17. Learned counsel for the Department of Mines submits that sand are natural resources, public property and national assets and unauthorized extraction of sand from the river beds or sale of the sand without prepaid e-challan would constitute a theft within the meaning of Section 378 IPC. It is submitted that the magnitude of theft may be imagined from the facts of these cases which involve over 500 crores of unlawful and illegal excavation and sale without pre-paid e-challan leading to a huge revenue loss to the State Exchequer. This amounts to causing unlawful loss to the State and unlawful gain to the licensee, thus, Patna High Court CR. WJC No.299 of 2022 dt.04-11-2022 37/84 the ingredients of Section 406, 420 IPC are also attracted. It is submitted that in the case of Sanjay (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that there is no bar on the court from taking cognizance of the offence under Section 379IPC. Paragraph '11' of the judgment has been relied upon.
Considerations
18. Having heard Mr. P.K. Shahi, learned Sr. Advocate, Mr. P.N. Shahi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Suraj Samdarshi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. G.P. Ojha, learned G.A. 7, Mr. Saroj Kumar Sharma, learned AC to AAG-3 and Mr. Naresh Dixit, learned counsel assisted by Ms. Kalpana, learned counsel for the Department of Mines as also on perusal of the records, this Court finds that these writ applications have been filed for quashing of the FIRs which are containing either or both of the following allegations:-
(i) that the petitioner(s) has indulged in excavation of sand unlawfully and illegally beyond EC permitted area and have also extracted sand from much more than the permitted depth;
(ii) that the petitioners having K-licenses were allegedly indulged in stealthily/thievery selling the sand from the license places without issuing prepaid e-challan, stock was found less at those places. At some of the places, the stock was found more Patna High Court CR. WJC No.299 of 2022 dt.04-11-2022 38/84 showing unlawful excavation of the sand beyond the EC permitted area and the licensee had not maintained the required registers showing descriptions of sale etc. MMDR Act 1957 and the Rules of 2019 discussed
19. At this stage, this Court would briefly notice the relevant Statutes, Rules, Proviso and the Provisions contained thereunder.
20. The Parliament in the Eighth year of republic of India enacted MMDR Act, 1957. The Act provides for development and regulation of mines and minerals under the control of the Union. The word "minor minerals" has been defined under Clause (e) of Section 3 which reads as under:- "(e)- "Minor Minerals" means building stones, gravel, ordinary clay, ordinary sand other than sand used for prescribed purposes and any other mineral which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare to be a minor mineral;"
21. Section 4 thereof provides that the prospecting or mining operations are to be done under a license or lease. Under this provision, no person shall undertake any reconnaissance, prospecting or mining operations in any area, except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a reconnaissance permit or of a prospecting license or, as the case may be, of a Patna High Court CR. WJC No.299 of 2022 dt.04-11-2022 39/84 mining lease, granted under this Act and the rules made thereunder. Sub-section (3) of Section 4 says that any State Government may, after prior consultation with the Central Government and in accordance with the rule made under Section 18, undertake reconnaissance prospecting or mining operations with respect to any mineral specified in the First Schedule in any area within that State which is not already held under any reconnaissance permit, prospecting license or mining lease. Section 9 talks of royalty in respect of mining lease- according to Sub-section (2) of Section 9, the holder of a mining lease granted on or after the commencement of this Act shall pay royalty in respect of any mineral removed or consumed by him or by his agent, manager, employee, contractor or sub-lessee from the leased area at the rate for the time being specified in the Second Schedule in respect of that mineral.
22. Section 15 of the MMDR Act 1957 confers limited power upon the State Government to make rules in respect of minor minerals. By virtue of sub-section (1) of Section 15, the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules for regulating the grant of quarry leases, mining leases or other mineral concessions in respect of minor minerals and for purposes connected therewith. Such rules may provide for all or Patna High Court CR. WJC No.299 of 2022 dt.04-11-2022 40/84 any of the matters specified under sub-section (1A) of Section 15. Section 21 prescribes penalties for contravention of the provision of sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A) of Section 4 of the Act. Whoever contravenes those provisions shall be punishable, with imprisonment for a term which may extent to five years and with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees per hectare of the area.
23. Sub-section (2) of Section 21 of the MMDR Act prescribes that any rule made under any provisions of this Act may provide that any contravention thereof shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees, or with both, and in the case of a continuing contravention, with additional fine which may extend to fifty thousand rupees for every day during which such contravention continues after conviction for the first such contravention. According to sub-section (5) of Section 21, whenever any person raises, without any lawful authority, any mineral from any land, the State Government may recover from such person the mineral so raised, or where such mineral has already been disposed of, the price thereof, and may also recover from such person, rent, royalty or tax, as the case may be, for the period during which the land was occupied by such person without any lawful authority. Sub-section (6) of Section 21 says Patna High Court CR. WJC No.299 of 2022 dt.04-11-2022 41/84 that "notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (2 of 1974), an offence under sub-section (1) shall be cognizable." The explanation has been inserted under sub-section (6) of Section 21 which reads as under:-
"Explanation:- on and from the date of commencement of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2021, the expression "raising, transporting or causing to raise or transport any mineral without any lawful authority" occurring in this Section, shall mean raising, transporting or causing to raise or transport any mineral by a person without prospecting licence, mining lease or composite license or any contravention of the rules made under Section 23C."
24. Section 23 of the MMDR Act deals with offence by a company. Sub-section (1) of Section 23 provides that if the person committing an offence under this Act or any rules made thereunder is a company, every person who at the time the offence was committed was in-charge of, and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. The proviso to sub- section (1) of Section 23, however, says that anything contained in Patna High Court CR. WJC No.299 of 2022 dt.04-11-2022 42/84 this sub-section shall render any such person liable to any punishment, if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence. Sub-section (2) of Section 23 starts with a non-obstante clause. According to this sub-section, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where an offence under this Act has been committed with the consent or connivance of any director, manager, secretary or other officer, all such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. For the purpose of this Section, "company" means anybody corporate and includes a firm or other association of individuals. The word "director" in relation to a firm means a partner in the firm.
25. Section 23A makes the offence compoundable under this Act and or any rules made thereunder compoundable by the person authorized under Section 22 to make a complaint to the court with respect to that offence. Sub-section 2 of Section 23A says that whether an offence is compounded under Sub-section (1), no proceeding or further proceeding, as the case may be, shall be taken against the offender in respect of the offence so Patna High Court CR. WJC No.299 of 2022 dt.04-11-2022 43/84 compounded, and the offender, if in custody, shall be released forthwith.
26. Section 23C confers power on the State Government to make rules for preventing illegal mining, transportation and storage of minerals. The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules for preventing illegal mining, transportation and storage of minerals and for the purposes connected therewith.
27. Section 23C has been inserted by way of Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Amendment Act 1999 (Act 38 of 1999) w.e.f 18.12.1999. A careful perusal of Sections 15 and 23C would suggest that the State Government has power to make rules but it is restricted to: (i) making rules for grant of mining leases or other mineral concession in respect of minor minerals and for the connected purposes, and (ii) making rules for preventing illegal mining, transportation and storage of minerals and connected purposes. Prior to insertion of Section 23C in exercise of powers conferred by Section 15 of the MMDR Act, Governor of Bihar was pleased to make 1972 Rules. Rule 40 of 1972 Rules provides penalty for unauthorized extraction and removal of minor minerals. Rule 41 provided that no court inferior to that of Magistrate of First Class shall try any offence Patna High Court CR. WJC No.299 of 2022 dt.04-11-2022 44/84 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 officer or the Deputy Director of Mines or Additional Director of Mines or Director of Mines or any other officer empowered by the Government. Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 26 provides for rent/royalty and assessment and according to Clause-
(b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 26, royalty shall be charged at the rates specified in Schedule II.
28. It appears that in the year 2003, the Governor of Bihar framed the Bihar Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2003 (hereinafter called 2003 Rules) and again in the year 2017, the Bihar Minor Minerals Rules 2017 (hereinafter called 2017 Rules) were issued. The Governor of Bihar, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 15 read with Section 23C and 26 of the MMDR Act, made the Rules of 2019 whereunder by virtue of Rule 88, 1972 Rules, 2003 Rules and 2017 Rules have been repealed. But the action taken thereunder have been saved. All proceedings (including proceeding by way of investigation) pending before any officer, authority or court, immediately before the commencement of the Rules of 2019, all such offence be deemed to be proceeding Patna High Court CR. WJC No.299 of 2022 dt.04-11-2022 45/84 pending before it as per the Rules of 2019 and shall continue to be dealt with accordingly.
29. For purpose of the present batch of writ applications, Rule 56, 61, 64 and 65 of Rules of 2019 have fallen for consideration. According to Rule 56 of the Rules 2019, no person shall extract or remove or undertake any mining operation in any area without holding any mineral concession, permit or any other permission granted or permitted under these rules or shall transport or store or cause to be transported or stored any mineral without a valid challan or license. Sub-rule 2 of Rule 56 prescribes that whoever contravenes sub-rule (1) shall be punished with an imprisonment for a term, which may extend to two years or with a fine which may extend to five lakh rupees, or with both. Rule 61 makes the offence cognizable upon written complaint. According to this provision, no Court inferior to that of a Magistrate of the First 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 a competent officer or Deputy Director of Mines or Additional Director of Mines or Director of Mines or any other officer empowered by the Government.
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.299 of 2022 dt.04-11-2022 46/84 Sub-rule(7) of Rule 56 provides the procedure for confiscation and auction of property seized. Clause (v) of sub-rule (7) of Rule 56 says that the order of confiscation under Rule shall not prevent imposition of any other punishment to which the person affected thereby is liable under these rules or any other law. (emphasis supplied).
30. Rule 64 of the 2019 Rules provides that in terms of power made under sub-section (30B) of the MMDR Act 1957, the State Government may, if necessary in public interest, for the purposes of trial of all or any of the offences under this rule, either appoint or designate in every district of the State, special court(s) in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court. Rule 65 confers power to transfer cases to regular courts. According to this provision, where after taking cognizance of any offence under these rules, a special court is of the opinion that offence is not triable by it, shall notwithstanding that it has no jurisdiction to try such offence transfer case for trial of such offence, any Court having jurisdiction under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the court to which the case is transferred may proceed with the trial of the offence as if it had taken cognizance of the offence.
31. In the background of the aforesaid provisions of the MMDR Act 1957 and the rules framed thereunder, learned Senior Patna High Court CR. WJC No.299 of 2022 dt.04-11-2022 47/84 Counsel for the petitioners in these writ applications have submitted that the allegations made in the first information reports in these cases may at best constitute an offence punishable under Rule 56 of the Rules of 2019 which may attract a punishment up to two years of imprisonment or with a fine which may extend to rupees five lakhs or with both. It is his contention that in terms of Rule 61 no Court shall take cognizance of any offence committed under these rules except upon a complaint made in writing by the competent officer, therefore, the submission is that the very lodgement of the first information report in all these cases is contrary to the scheme of the rules of 2019.
Reasons for rejection of contentions of the petitioners
32. To this Court, it appears at first glance that the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners are liable to be rejected at the outset for the reasons mentioned here-in-after.
No order taking cognizance under challenge
33. In these batch of writ applications, the petitioners have not challenged any order taking cognizance. It is not their case that the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence under the Rules of 2019 on the basis of a police report. Patna High Court CR. WJC No.299 of 2022 dt.04-11-2022 48/84 The petitioners are aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the registration of the first information reports for the offences alleged under some of the provisions of the Indian Penal Code together with the provisions of the Rules of 2019. At this stage, the allegations against the petitioners may be briefly noted to appreciate the kind of allegations made in the FIRs. This Court is reproducing the contents of three different FIRs which represent the F.I.Rs. in all other writ applications. This is the reason learned counsel for the parties consented for taking up all the cases together. The FIR being Dighwara P.S. Case No. 302 of 2021 dated 16.09.2021 in Cr.W.J.C. No. 497 of 2021 reads as under:-
"ftyk [kuu dk;kZy; Lkkj.k] Nijk i=kad 1916 ,e0 Nijk] fnukad 16-09-2021 isz'kd] [kku fujh{kd] lkj.k] NijkA lsok esa] Fkkuk/;{k fn?kokjk] lkj.k] NijkA fo'k; :- izkFkfedh ntZ djus ds laca/k esaA egk"k;] mi;qDZr fo'k; ds laca/k esa dguk gS fd czkWMlu dkWeksfMVht izk0 fy0 fgeka"kq dEiysDl] dksbZyoj pkSd] vkjk dks izkIr K Hk.Mkj.k vuqKfIr (1) RDA 27/21 (K-7/21) xzke- ekuqiqj] ekStk ua0- 146 Fkkuk- fn?kokjk] vapy- fn?kokjk ftyk- lkj.k] [kkrk la[;k- 203 131 [ksljk la[;k 435] 334 (2) K-12/21 xzke blqiqj ekStk ua0 147 Fkkuk- fn?kokjk] vapy- fn?kokjk ftyk- lkj.k] [kkrk la[;k- 62] [ksljk la[;k- 65, 66 ds LFkyksa ij miyC/k ckyw dh ek=k dk HkkSfrd lR;kiu fd;k x;k ,oa mDr vuqKfIr LFkyksa ij dze"k% fuEuor ckyw dh ek=k ikbZ xbZ% (1) 109415 lh0,Q0Vh0 (2) 109468 lh0,Q0Vh0 tcfd ih0,e0;w0 }kjk miyC/k djk;s x;s izfrosnu ds vuqlkj mDr LFkyksa ij ckyw dh ek=k dze"k% (1) 47500 lh0,Q0Vh0 (2) 401800 lh0,Q0Vh0 ckyw dk Hk.Mkj.k vafdr gSA Patna High Court CR. WJC No.299 of 2022 dt.04-11-2022 49/84 bl izdkj vuqKfIr/kkjh RDA 27/21 (K-7/21) ds fodz; LFky ij 61915 lh0,Q0Vh0 ckyw vf/kd izkIr gqvkA mDr ls Li'V gksrk gS fd vuqKfIr/kkjh }kjk voS/k [kuu ,oa ifjogu djus ds ea"kk ls vf/kd ckyw Hk.Mkfjr fd;k x;k gSA iqu% vuqKfIr/kkjh K-12/21 ds LFy ij ih0,e0;w0 }kjk miyC/k djk;s x;s izfrosnu ls mDr LFy ij ckyw dh ek=k 292332 lh0,Q0Vh0 de ik;k x;kA mDr ls Li'V gksrk gS fd vuqKfIr/kkjh }kjk fcuk bZ-pkyku fuxZr fd, pksjh ls ckyw dk fodz; dj fn;k x;k gSA lHkh vuqKfIr LFkyksa ij lkbZu cksMZ ftlij vuqKfIr/kkjh dk uke] irk] [kkrk] [ksljk] ekStk] vuqKfIr la[;k ,oa ckyw dk fodz; ewY; vknh vafdr ugha ik;k x;k rFkk Hk.Mkfjr ckyw LFkyksa dk Fencing ,oa Hk.Mkfjr ckyw dks rkjiksfyu ls <dk gqvk ugha ik;k x;kA mDr d`r dk;Z vuqKfIr ds dafMdk 1] 12] 13] 15 ,oa 16 dk mYya?ku gS rFkk fcgkj [kfut (lekuqnku voS/k [kuu] ifjogu ,oa Hk.Mkj.k fuokj.k) fu;ekoyh] 2019 ds fu;e 39(3) ds rgr~ n.Muh; gSA K-
vuqKfIr la[;k RDA 27/21 (K-7/21) ds ckor 26]41]913/- :] K-12/21 ds ckor 1]24]73]807/- : ljdkjh jktLo dh xcu gqbZ gS] tks olwyuh; gSA vr% vuqjks/k gS fd vuqKfIr/kkjh czkWMlu dkWeksfMVht izk0 fy0 fgeka"kq dEiysDl] dksbZyoj pkSd] vkjk ds fo:) mijksDr of.kZr fu;e rFkk IPC ds fu;e 379] 411 rFkk 420 ,oa IPC ds vU; lqlx a r /kkjkvksa ds rgr~ izkFkfedh ntZ djus dh d`ik djsaxsA fo"oklHkktu g0- 16-9-21 vthr dqekj (o'kZ43) [kku fujh{kd] lkj.k] NijkA firk jktsUnz izlkn xzke- ckthriqj iks0- "ksj?kkVh Fkkuk- vkel] ftyk- x;k] fcgkj Registered Dighwara P.S. Case No. 302/21 dt. 16.9.21 U/s 379/420 I.P.C. & 39(3) Bihar Mineral (Concession Prevention of Illegal Mining transportation & Storage) Rule 2019. I will investigate this case."
34. The FIR being Bihta P.S. Case No. 864 of 2020 dated 03.12.2020 in Cr.W.J.C. No. 501 of 2021 reads as under:-
"lsok esa] Fkkuk/;{k fcgVk fo'k; %& izkFkfedh ntZ djus ds laca/k esa egk"k;] mijksDr fo'k; ds lac/k esa dguk gS fd foHkkxh; Kkikad 3167 fnukad 01- 12-2020 }kjk xfBr tk¡p ny &2 ds lnL; Jh jathr dqekj] [kku fujh{kd] Hkkstiqj ds lkFk vkt fnukad 03-12-2020 dks le; 10 cts iwokZgu ls iVuk ftykUrxZr unh {ks= ds voS/k [kuu ds fo:) LFkkuh; fujh{k.k@ tk¡p fd;k x;kA tk¡p ds nkSjku lksu unh ds fNydk Vksyk ckyw ?kkV ds mR[kfur LFkku dk Ge-co-ordinate fy;k x;k tks SEIAA ls izkIr fNydk Vksyk ckyw ?kkV ds bZ0lh0 Js= vFkkZr dkWuZj fcUnq Ge-co-ordinate ls ckgj vk;k vFkkZr mR[kfur LFky tks fNYdk Patna High Court CR. WJC No.299 of 2022 dt.04-11-2022 50/84 Vksyk ckyw?kkV ds mRkjh lhek ls lVs if"pr fn"kk ,oa mRkj fn"kk esa fLFkr oks bZ0lh0 {ks= ls ckgj ik;k x;kA mDr bZ0lh0 {ks= ds ckgj LkHkh mR[kfur xM~<+ksa dk ekih djk;k x;k tks Øe"k% fuEu izdkj gSA % ¼i½ ya0 200 QhV] pkS0 30 QhV] xgjkbZ 4 QhV ¼ii½ ya0 150 QhV] pkS0 25 QhV xgjkbZ 5 QhV] ¼iii½ ya0 125 QhV] pkS0 20 QhV xgjkbZ 4 QhV] ¼iv½ ya0 220 QhV] pkS0 25 QhV xgjkbZ 4 QhV] rFkk ¼v½ ya0 145 QhV] pkS0 30 QhV xgjkbZ 5 QhV] vFkkZr dqy 96]500 ?ku QhV lsku ckyw dk mR[kuu@izs'k.k bZ0lh0 {ks= ds ckgj voS/k :Ik ls fd;k gqvk ik;k x;k tks fcgkj [kfut ¼lekuqnku] voS/k [kuu] ifjogu ,oa Hk.Mkj.k fuokj.k½ fu;ekoyh 2019 ds fu;e 11] 29 ¼x½ ,e0,e0Mh0vkj0 1957 ¼MMDR Act½ ds vuqHkkx ¼Section½ 22 rFkk vkbZ0ih0lh0 ds fu;e 378 ,oa 379 dk mYya?ku gS tks fd fcgkj [kfut ¼lekuqnku] voS/k [kuu] ifjogu ,oa Hk.Mkj.k fuokj.k½ fu;ekoyh] 2019 ds fu;e 56 fd izko/kkuksa ds rgr n.Muh vijk/k gSa mDr voS/k [kuu djus ls jkT; ljdkj dh jkf"k 16]53]045@& :0 ¼lksyg yk[k frjiu gtkj iSatkyhl :0 ek=½ dk {kfr gqvk gS lkFk gh Ik;kZoj.k ds izko/kkuksa @ SEIAA ds "krksaZ ,oa ca/kst ,oa vuqeksfnr [kuu ;kstuk ,oa vU; lqlaxr izko/kkuksa dk mya?ku gqvk gSa mDr voS/k [kuu es0 czkMlu dkWeksfMVht izk0fy0 ,oa mlds dfeZ;ksa }kjk fd;k x;k gSaA vr% vuqjks/k gS fd mDr voS/k [kuu esa lafyIr es0 czkMlu dkWeksfMVht izk0fy0 ,oa mlds dfeZ;ksa ds fo:) mDr of.kZr fu;ekoyh ,oa vU; lqlaxr /kkjkvksa ds rgr izkFkfedh ntZ dj vkxs dh dkjokbZ fd;k tk,A vkidk fo"oklHkktu irk% g0@& firk Jh dfirnso flag ¼jkts"k dqekj dq"kokgk ½ xzk0 $ iksa0 cgq:fi;k izHkkjh lgk;d funs"kd Fkkuk rqjdkSf;k ftyk [kuu dk;kZy;
ftyk iwohZ pEikj.k] fcgkj iVuk
eks0 & 7352036380"
35. The FIR being Dehri (T) P.S. Case No. 406 of 2021 dated 03.08.2021 in case of Cr.W.J.C. No. 5 of 2022 reads as under:-
"ftyk [kuu dk;kZy;] jksgrkl ¼lklkjke½A i=kad & 2147@,e0 lklkjke fnukad & 03-08-2021 lsok esa] Fkkuk/;{k bUnziqjh vks- ih- Fkkuk jksgrkl Patna High Court CR. WJC No.299 of 2022 dt.04-11-2022 51/84 fo'k; %& izkFkfedh ntZ djus ds laca/k esaA egk"k;] mi;ZqDr fo'k; ds laca/k esa dguk gS fd vkids FkkukUrxZr fuxZr esllZ vfnR; eYVhdkWe izk0 fy0 fd vuqKfIr la0 & K-ROHTAS/02/2021 dk irk ekStk & fldjh;k] ekStk la0& 00] iz[k.M & fMgjh] Fkkuk& bUnziqjh vks0ih0] ftyk& jksgrkl] [kkrk la0 & 13] 15] [ksljk la0 & 264] 167] K-ROHTAS/03/2021 dk irk ekStk & fldjh;k] ekStk la& 00] iz[k.M& fMgjh] Fkkuk bUnziqjh vks0ih0 ftyk& jksgrklk] [kkrk la0 & 17] [ksljk la0 & 225] 231] 245] 246] 272] 273] 274] 280] 281] 282] K-ROHTAS/15/2021 dk irk ekStk & fldjh;k] ekStk la0& 00] iz[k.M & fMgjh] Fkkuk& bUnziqjh vks0ih0] ftyk& jksgrkl ,oa ROHTAS/14/2021 dk irk ekStk & dVkj] ekStk la0& 00] iz[k.M & fMgjh] Fkkuk& bUnziqjh vks0ih0] ftyk& jksgrkl] [kkrk la0 & 79& [ksljk la0 & 1093] 1123] ds LFkyksa ij miyC/k ckyw dh ek=k dk HkkSfrd lr;kiu ftyk [kuu dk;kZy;] jksgrkl lklkjke ds i=kad & 1986@[kuu ] fnukad & 15-07-2021 ds vkyksd esa fd;k x;kA HkkSfrd lR;kiu ds nkSjku mDr pkjks vuqKfIr LFkyksa ij ckyw dh ek=k 1627000 ?kuQhV ik;k x;ka tcfd ih0,e0;w0 }kjk miyc/k djk;s x;s izfrosnu ds vuqlkj mDr pkjks Hk.Mkfjr vuqKfIr LFkyksa ij 12377875 ?kuQhV ckyw dk Hk.Mkj.k gSa mDr ls Li'V gksrk dh vuqKfIr/kkjh ds dfeZ;ks@lapkydksa }kjk fcuk izhisM bZ&pkyku fuXkZr dj Pkksjh ls ckyw dk fcØ; dj fn;k x;k gSA lkFk gh fdlh Hkh O;fDRk }kjk izi=&*t* esa la/kkfjr iath dk HkkSfrd lR;kiu ds Øe esa izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k gSA mDr lHkh Hk.Mkfjr ckyw LFkyksa dk Fencing ,oa Hk.Mkfjr ckyw dk rkjiksfyu ls <dk gqvk ugha ik;k x;kA mDr d`R; dk;Z vuqKfIr ds dafMdk 1] 12] 13] ,oa 15 dk mYy?ku gS rFkk fcgkj [kfut ¼leuqnku] voS/k [kuu ifjogu ,oa Hk.Mkj.k fuokj.k½ fu;ekoyh] 2019 ds fu;e 11] 39 dk mYya?ku ,oa mDr 56 ds rgr n.Muh; gSA mDr pkjks vuqKfIr la[;k ls 36]55]29]750@& :Ik;s dh {kfr fcgkj jkT; ljdkj dks gqbZ gS] tks olwyuh; gSA vr% vuqjks/k gS fd mDr vuqKfIr/kkjh ds izkf/kd`r dfeZ;ks@lapkydksa dk fo:) mijksDr of.kZr fu;e rFkk IPC ds fu;e dh /kkjk 379] 411] 420] ,oa IPC ds vU; lqlaxr /kkjkvksa ds rgr izkFkfedh ntZ djus dh d``ik djsaxsA fo"oklHkktu xokg LFkk;h irk& g0@& 1- "kf"kdkUr ikBd ¼g0@&½ firk&Jh ";ke uUnu ¼vat; dqekjk½ firk Jh deys"k ikBd Ikzlkn ;kno [kku fujh{kd xzke eksguiqj] Fkkuk fnukjk xzke &efB;kiqj ftyk [kuu dk;kZy;
iks0&telkSr jksgrkl] lklkjke 2- /khjsUnz dqekj flag ¼g0@&½ Fkkuk& "kkgiqj firk Hkkjr flag ftyk&iVuk xzke pkmj] Fkkuk djxgj] ftyk jksgrkl"
36. On going through the allegations made in the first information reports, it appears that the allegation is that of excavating huge quantity of minor minerals (sand) from an area Patna High Court CR. WJC No.299 of 2022 dt.04-11-2022 52/84 beyond the EC permitted area. There were several ditches from which excavation had been done. There are allegations that the petitioners are indulged in selling of sand by way of thievery/stealing without issuing pre-paid e-challan and thereby they have caused huge revenue loss in several hundreds of crores of rupees to the State Exchequer. Thus, essentially the FIR alleges commission of theft, dishonest removal of sand from the non-
permitted areas and stealthily selling the same for unlawful gain causing unlawful loss to the State.
A glance over the relevant Sections of the I.P.C.
37. At this stage, this Court would extract hereunder the definition of theft and other offences under the Indian Penal Code.
Theft is defined under Section 378 IPC which reads as under:-
"378. Theft.--Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person without that person's consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to commit theft. Explanation 1.--A thing so long as it is attached to the earth, not being movable property, is not the subject of theft; but it becomes capable of being the subject of theft as soon as it is severed from the earth. Explanation 2.--A moving effected by the same act which effects the severance may be a theft. Explanation 3.--A person is said to cause a thing to move by removing an obstacle which prevented it from moving or by separating it from any other thing, as well as by actually moving it.
Explanation 4.--A person, who by any means causes an animal to move, is said to move that animal, and to move everything which, in consequence of the motion so caused, is moved by that animal.
Explanation 5.--The consent mentioned in the definition may be express or implied, and may be given Patna High Court CR. WJC No.299 of 2022 dt.04-11-2022 53/84 either by the person in possession, or by any person having for that purpose authority either express or implied."
38. Section 410 IPC deals with stolen property and it is punishable under Section 411 IPC. Section 410 and 411 are quoted hereunder for a ready reference:-
"410. Stolen property.--Property, the possession whereof has been transferred by theft, or by extortion, or by robbery, and property which has been criminally misappropriated or in respect of which 2 *** 3 ***criminal breach of trust has been committed, is designated as "stolen property", 4 [whether the transfer has been made, or the misappropriation or breach of trust has been committed, within or without 5 [India]]. But, if such property subsequently comes into the possession of a person legally entitled to the possession thereof, it then ceases to be stolen property. 411. Dishonestly receiving stolen property.-- Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both."
39. Cheating is defined under Section 415 and it is punishable under Section 420 IPC. Both the Sections are reproduced hereunder for a ready reference:-
"415. Cheating.--Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat".
Explanation.--A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section."
"420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.-- Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with Patna High Court CR. WJC No.299 of 2022 dt.04-11-2022 54/84 imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."
40. Criminal Breach of trust is defined under Section 405 IPC and the same is punishable under Section 406 IPC. Both the Sections are reproduced hereunder:-
"405. Criminal breach of trust.--Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or wilfully suffers any other person so to do, commits "criminal breach of trust".1
[Explanation 2[1].--A person, being an employer 3 [of an establishment whether exempted under section 17 of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952) or not] who deducts the employee's contribution from the wages payable to the employee for credit to a Provident Fund or Family Pension Fund established by any law for the time being in force, shall be deemed to have been entrusted with the amount of the contribution so deducted by him and if he makes default in the payment of such contribution to the said Fund in violation of the said law, shall be deemed to have dishonestly used the amount of the said contribution in violation of a direction of law as aforesaid.] [Explanation 2.--A person, being an employer, who deducts the employees' contribution from the wages payable to the employee for credit to the Employees' State Insurance Fund held and administered by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), shall be deemed to have been entrusted with the amount of the contribution so deducted by him and if he makes default in the payment of such contribution to the said Fund in violation of the said Act, shall be deemed to have dishonestly used the amount of the said contribution in violation of a direction of law as aforesaid.]"
"406. Punishment for criminal breach of trust.--Whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both." Patna High Court CR. WJC No.299 of 2022 dt.04-11-2022 55/84
41. In the case of Birla Corporation. Limited. v. Adventz Investments & Holdings Limited and Ors., reported in (2019) 16 SCC 610 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered as to what constitute theft and held:
"....In order to constitute theft, the following ingredients are essential:
(i) Dishonest intention to take property;
(ii) The property must be moveable;
(iii) It should be taken out of the possession of another person;
(iv) It should be taken without the consent of that person;
(v) There must be some removal of the property in order to accomplish the taking of it.
42. In paragraphs 71, 72 and 73 of the judgment in Birla Corpn. Ltd. (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-
"71. Intention is the gist of the offence. It is the intention of the taker which must determine whether taking or moving of a thing is theft. The intention to take "dishonestly" exists when the taker intends to cause wrongful loss to any other which amounts to theft. It is an essential ingredient of the offence of "theft" that the movable property should have been "moved" out of the possession of any person without his consent. "Movable property" is defined in Section 22 IPC, which reads as under:
"22. "Movable property".--The words "movable property" are intended to include corporeal property of every description, except land and things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything which is attached to the earth."
72. "Dishonestly" has been defined in Section 24 IPC, which reads as under:
"24. "Dishonestly".--Whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to Patna High Court CR. WJC No.299 of 2022 dt.04-11-2022 56/84 one person or wrongful loss to another person, is said to do that thing "dishonestly"."
73. "Wrongful gain" and "Wrongful loss" have been defined in Section 23 IPC, which read as under:
"23. "Wrongful gain".-- "Wrongful gain" is gain by unlawful means of property to which the person gaining is not legally entitled. "Wrongful loss".-- "Wrongful loss" is the loss by unlawful means of property to which the person losing it is legally entitled.
Gaining wrongfully : Losing wrongfully.-- A person is said to gain wrongfully when such person retains wrongfully, as well as when such person acquires wrongfully. A person is said to lose wrongfully when such person is wrongfully kept out of any property, as well as when such person is wrongfully deprived of property."
43. The test applied is that it is to be seen whether there is "dishonest intention" on the part of the petitioners in excavation of sand beyond the E.C. Permitted area or in thievery selling the sand without pre-paid e-challan and thereby causing "wrongful loss" to the State and getting "wrongful gain" for themselves.
The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners had already paid entire royalty amount over the entire area, therefore, he cannot be said to have committed theft was raised earlier in the case decided by this Court vide judgment reported in 2018 (4) PLJR 706 and the same has been rejected by this Court. The submission that by virtue of Rule 51(1)(b) read with Schedule III(A) of Rules of 2019, in case of auction, the amount of auction is the royalty amount cannot come to the rescue of the petitioners at the stage of investigation of the FIR. During Patna High Court CR. WJC No.299 of 2022 dt.04-11-2022 57/84 the investigation only the test as to whether there was a 'dishonest intention' on the part of the petitioners in excavation of sand beyond the E.C. Permitted area or in thieving/selling of sale of sand without pre-paid E-Challan would be applied. In any case, to this Court, it appears that such submission cannot be allowed to be taken as a ground to scuttle the investigation by quashing the first information report.
44. On a bare perusal of Rule 56 of Rules of 2019, it would appear that Rule 56 is restricted to Act of extraction, removal or undertaking any mining operation in any area without holding any mineral concession, permit or any other permission granted or permitted under Rules of 2019. Rule 56 does not cover a case of theft as defined under Section 378 IPC and explained in Birla Corporation Limited (supra). In the case of Sanjay (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held in paragraph '30' and '31' of the judgment that a police officer on his own authority has the duty to prevent any injury attempted to be committed to any public property or national assets and to prosecute such person in accordance with law. Further the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in paragraph '69' that the wordings used in Section 62 of the MMDR Act 1957 is not a complete and absolute bar for taking action by the police for illegal and Patna High Court CR. WJC No.299 of 2022 dt.04-11-2022 58/84 dishonestly committing theft of minerals including sand from the river bed. The Hon'ble Apex Court went on to say in paragraph '72' of its judgment in Sanjay's case (supr) that on a close reading of provisions of the MMDR Act and the offence defined under Section 378 IPC, it is manifest that the ingredients constituting the offence are different. Sanjay's case (supra) has once again been relied upon by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jayant and others versus State of M.P. reported in 2021 (2) SCC 670.
45. At this stage, this Court finds that in the case of Jayant (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has answered an identical issue. In the said case also, in course of surprise inspection by the respective Mining Inspectors some vehicles loaded with the minor mineral (sand/storage/yellow soil, etc.) were checked and handed over to the police station to keep them in safe custody. The private appellants were indulged in illegal mining and transportation of minor mineral. Later on the Mining Inspectors prepared their respective case under Rule 53 of the MP Minor Mineral Rules 1996 and submitted them before the Mining Officers with a proposal of compounding the same. The compounding was approved by the Collector which was accepted by the violators and they deposited the amount determined by the Patna High Court CR. WJC No.299 of 2022 dt.04-11-2022 59/84 Collector. Their tractors/trolleys along with the minerals which was illegally excavated/transported were released.
After some time, a news item was published in a daily newspaper Bhaskar on 08.09.2019 with respect to illegal excavation/transportation of mineral and it was reported that despite the offence under Section 379, 414 IPC and the offence under the MMDR Act, 2006 Rules having been found to be attracted, necessary legal action has not been taken, the violators were permitted to go on compounding the offence under Rule 53 of the 1996 Rules, a Judicial Magistrate 1st Class took note of the said information and taking a view that the offences under IPC and the offence under the MMDR Act are distinct and different, it is permissible to lodge/initiate the proceedings for the offences under IPC as well as under the MMDR Act, the Magistrate in exercise of powers conferred under Section 156(3) CrPC (Suo Moto) directed to register a criminal case under Section 156(3) for initiation of investigation and for submission of report after due investigation.
The private appellants and others challenged the FIR in the High Court and it was mainly contended that in view of the bar under Section 22 of the MMDR Act, the order passed by the Magistrate directing to register the FIR is unsustainable and Patna High Court CR. WJC No.299 of 2022 dt.04-11-2022 60/84 deserves to be quashed and set-aside. The High Court dismissed the application whereafter the private appellants moved to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court framed the following three issues:-
"(i) Whether in case of illegal mining/transportation of minor minerals, after compounding of offence, issuance of direction by the Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC for investigation of the offences, amounts to taking cognizance and the same is hit by Sections 22 and 23-A of the MDDR Act, as well as Rule 53 of the 1996 Rules and whether it impinges/affects the powers of the authorised person to compund the offence under Rule 18 of the 2006 Rules ?
(ii) Whether in case of illegal mining/transportation of minor minerals, action by police for offence of theft under Section 378 IPC is impermissible in case of initiation of proceeding for commission of an offence under the MMDR Act ?
(iii) Whether in case of illegal mining/transportation of minor minerals, taking cognizance of offence by the Magistrate is permissible only on basis of written complaint by the Mining Officer/authorised officer ?"
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.299 of 2022 dt.04-11-2022 61/84 The Hon'ble Supreme Court noticed catena of judgments such as Centre for Public Interest Litigation vs. Union of India reported in (2012) 3 SCC 1 (para 75) as under:-
"75. The State is empowered to distribute natural resources. However, as they constitute public property/national asset, while distributing natural resources the State is bound to act in consonance with the principles of equality and public trust and ensure that no action is taken which may be detrimental to public interest. Like any other State action, constitutionalism must be reflected at every stage of the distribution of natural resources. In Article 39(b) of the Constitution it has been provided that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community should be so distributed so as to best subserve the common good, but no comprehensive legislation has been enacted to generally define natural resources and a framework for their protection. Of course, environment laws enacted by Parliament and State Legislatures deal with specific natural resources i.e. forest, air, water, coastal zones, etc."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court thereafter noticed the case of M.C. Mehta (supra), para 24, 25 and 34 which read as under:-
"24. The ancient Roman Empire developed a legal theory known as the "Doctrine of Public Trust". It was founded on the ideas that certain common properties such as rivers, seashore, forests and the air were held by Government in trusteeship for the free and unimpeded use of the general public. Our contemporary concern about 'the environment' bears a very close conceptual relationship to this legal doctrine. Under the Roman law these resources were either owned by no one (res nullius) or by everyone in common (res communious). Under the English common law, however, the Sovereign could own these resources but the ownership was limited in nature, the Crown could not grant these properties to private owners if the effect was to interfere with the public interests in navigation or fishing. Resources that were suitable for these uses were deemed to be held in trust by the Crown for the benefit of the public. Joseph L. Sax, Professor of Law, University of Michigan-- proponent of the Modern Public Trust Doctrine--in an erudite article "Public Trust Doctrine in Natural Resource Law: Effective Judicial Intervention", Michigan Law Patna High Court CR. WJC No.299 of 2022 dt.04-11-2022 62/84 Review, Vol. 68, Part 1, p. 473, has given the historical background of the public trust doctrine as under:
"The source of modern public trust law is found in a concept that received much attention in Roman and English law--the nature of property rights in rivers, the sea, and the seashore. That history has been given considerable attention in the legal literature and need not be repeated in detail here. But two points should be emphasised. First, certain interests, such as navigation and fishing, were sought to be preserved for the benefit of the public; accordingly, property used for those purposes was distinguished from general public property which the sovereign could routinely grant to private owners. Second, while it was understood that in certain common properties
--such as the seashore, highways and running water
--"perpetual use was dedicated to the public", it has never been clear whether the public had an enforceable right to prevent infringement of those interests. Although the State apparently did protect public uses, no evidence is available that public rights could be legally asserted against a recalcitrant government."
25. The public trust doctrine primarily rests on the principle that certain resources like air, sea, waters and the forests have such a great importance to the people as a whole that it would be wholly unjustified to make them a subject of private ownership. The said resources being a gift of nature, they should be made freely available to everyone irrespective of the status in life. The doctrine enjoins upon the Government to protect the resources for the enjoyment of the general public rather than to permit their use for private ownership or commercial purposes. According to Professor Sax the public trust doctrine imposes the following restrictions on governmental authority:
"Three types of restrictions on governmental authority are often thought to be imposed by the public trust: first, the property subject to the trust must not only be used for a public purpose, but it must be held available for use by the general public; second, the property may not be sold, even for a fair cash equivalent; and third the property must be maintained for particular types of uses."
34. Our legal system--based on English common law-- includes the public trust doctrine as part of its jurisprudence. The State is the trustee of all natural resources which are by nature meant for public use and enjoyment. Public at large is the beneficiary of the seashore, running waters, air, forests and ecologically fragile lands. The State as a trustee is under a legal duty to protect the natural resources. These resources meant for public use cannot be converted into private ownership."
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.299 of 2022 dt.04-11-2022 63/84 Again in the case of Intellectuals Forum v. State of A.P. reported in (2006) 3 SCC 549 the Hon'ble Supreme Court while balancing the conservation of natural resources vis-a-vis urban development observed in para 67 as under:-
"67. The responsibility of the State to protect the environment is now a well-accepted notion in all countries. It is this notion that, in international law, gave rise to the principle of "State responsibility" for pollution emanating within one's own territories (Corfu Channel case8) . This responsibility is clearly enunciated in the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, Stockholm 1972 (Stockholm Convention), to which India was a party. The relevant clause of this declaration in the present context is para 2, which states:
"The natural resources of the earth, including the air, water, land, flora and fauna and especially representative samples of natural ecosystems, must be safeguarded for the benefit of present and future generations through careful planning or management, as appropriate."
46. The Hon'ble Supreme Court noticed its earlier judgment in the case of Sanjay (supra). Relevant paragraphs 8.2, 8.3, 8.4 from the judgment of Jayant (supra) are quoted hereunder for a ready reference:-
"8.2. This Court in Sanjay case2 further observed in paras 60 and 69 as under: (SCC pp. 809 & 811) "60. There cannot be any two opinions that natural resources are the assets of the nation and its citizens. It is the obligation of all concerned, including the Central and the State Governments, to conserve and not waste such valuable resources. Article 48-A of the Constitution requires that the State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country. Similarly, Article 51-A enjoins a duty upon every citizen to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife, and to have compassion for all the living creatures. In view of the
8. [Corfu Channel case (United Kingdom v. Albania), 1949 ICJ Rep 4 : (1949) 43 AJIL 491] )
2. [State (NCT of Delhi) v. Sanjay, (2014) 9 SCC 772 : (2014) 5 SCC (Cri) 437] Patna High Court CR. WJC No.299 of 2022 dt.04-11-2022 64/84 constitutional provisions, the doctrine of public trust has become the law of the land. The said doctrine rests on the principle that certain resources like air, sea, water and forests are of such great importance to the people as a whole that it would be highly unjustifiable to make them a subject of private ownership.
* * *
69. Considering the principles of interpretation and the wordings used in Section 22, in our considered opinion, the provision is not a complete and absolute bar for taking action by the police for illegal and dishonestly committing theft of minerals including sand from the riverbed. The Court shall take judicial notice of the fact that over the years rivers in India have been affected by the alarming rate of unrestricted sand mining which is damaging the ecosystem of the rivers and safety of bridges. It also weakens riverbeds, fish breeding and destroys the natural habitat of many organisms. If these illegal activities are not stopped by the State and the police authorities of the State, it will cause serious repercussions as mentioned hereinabove. It will not only change the river hydrology but also will deplete the groundwater levels."
8.3. That thereafter, after considering the relevant provisions of the MMDR Act, this Court opined that there is no complete and absolute bar in prosecuting persons under the Penal Code where the offences committed by persons are penal and cognizable offence. Ultimately, this Court concluded in paras 72 and 73 as under: (SCC p. 812) "72. From a close reading of the provisions of the MMDR Act and the offence defined under Section 378 IPC, it is manifest that the ingredients constituting the offence are different. The contravention of terms and conditions of mining lease or doing mining activity in violation of Section 4 of the Act is an offence punishable under Section 21 of the MMDR Act, whereas dishonestly removing sand, gravel and other minerals from the river, which is the property of the State, out of the State's possession without the consent, constitute an offence of theft. Hence, merely because initiation of proceeding for commission of an offence under the MMDR Act on the basis of complaint cannot and shall not debar the police from taking action against persons for committing theft of sand and minerals in the manner mentioned above by exercising power under the Code of Criminal Procedure and submit a report before the Magistrate Patna High Court CR. WJC No.299 of 2022 dt.04-11-2022 65/84 for taking cognizance against such persons. In other words, in a case where there is a theft of sand and gravel from the government land, the police can register a case, investigate the same and submit a final report under Section 173 CrPC before a Magistrate having jurisdiction for the purpose of taking cognizance as provided in Section 190(1)(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
73. After giving our thoughtful consideration in the matter, in the light of the relevant provisions of the Act vis-à-vis the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Penal Code, we are of the definite opinion that the ingredients constituting the offence under the MMDR Act and the ingredients of dishonestly removing sand and gravel from the riverbeds without consent, which is the property of the State, is a distinct offence under IPC. Hence, for the commission of offence under Section 378 IPC, on receipt of the police report, the Magistrate having jurisdiction can take cognizance of the said offence without awaiting the receipt of complaint that may be filed by the authorised officer for taking cognizance in respect of violation of various provisions of the MMDR Act. Consequently, the contrary view taken by the different High Courts cannot be sustained in law and, therefore, overruled. Consequently, these criminal appeals are disposed of with a direction to the Magistrates concerned to proceed accordingly."
8.4. Thus, as held by this Court, the prohibition contained in Section 22 of the MMDR Act against prosecution of a person except on a written complaint made by the authorised officer in this behalf would be attracted only when such person is sought to be prosecuted for contraventions of Section 4 of the MMDR Act and not for any act or omission which constitutes an offence under the Penal Code."
47. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jayant(supra) held that in Sanjay (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court had no occasion and/or had not considered when and at what stage the Bar under Section 22 of MMDR Act would be attracted. The Hon'ble Court therefore, found that it is required to be considered as to when and at what stage the Magistrate can Patna High Court CR. WJC No.299 of 2022 dt.04-11-2022 66/84 be said to have taken cognizance attracting the bar under Section 22 of the MMDR Act. It was held that on a bare reading of Section 22 of the MMDR Act or the Rules made thereunder the bar would be attracted when the Magistrate takes cognizance.
48. Having examined the series of judgments such as Krishna Pillai v. T.A. Rajendran 1990 Supp SCC 121; A.R. Antulay v. Ramdas SriniwasNayak (1984) 2 SCC 500; Manohar M. Galani V. Ashok N. Advani (1999) 8 SCC 737; Chief Enforcement Officer v. Videocon International Ltd. (2008) 2 SCC 492; Legal Remembrancer v. Abani Kumar Banerji AIR 1950 Cal 437 : 1950 SCC OnLine Cal 49; R.R. Chari v. State of U. P. 1951 SCC 250 : AIR 1951 SC 207 and Narayandas Bhagwandas Madhavdas v. State of W.B. AIR 1959 SC 1118 : 1959 Cri LJ 1368 the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jayant case (supra) held in paragraph 12 and 13 as under:-
"12. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the relevant provisions of the law as also the judicial pronouncements, we are of the view that the High Court has not committed any error in not quashing the order passed by the learned Magistrate and not quashing the criminal proceedings for the offences under Sections 379 and 414. It is required to be noted that the learned Magistrate in exercise of the suomotu powers conferred under Section 156(3) CrPC directed the In-charge/SHO of the police station concerned to lodge/register the crime case/FIR and directed initiation of investigation and directed the In-charge/SHO of the police station concerned to submit a report after due investigation.
13. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the cases referred to hereinabove, it cannot be said that at this stage the learned Magistrate had taken any cognizance of the alleged offences attracting the bar under Section 22 of the MMDR Act. On considering the relevant provisions of the MMDR Act and the Rules made thereunder, it cannot be said that there is a bar against registration of a criminal case or investigation by the police agency or submission of a Patna High Court CR. WJC No.299 of 2022 dt.04-11-2022 67/84 report by the police on completion of investigation, as contemplated by Section 173 CrPC."
49. As regards the duty of the State to restore the ecological imbalance and to stop the damages caused to the nature, in Jayant'scase the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed in paragraph 19 as under:-
"19. It is the duty cast upon the State to restore the ecological imbalance and to stop damages being caused to the nature. As observed by this Court in Sanjay2, excessive in-stream sand-and-gravel mining from riverbeds and like resources causes the degradation of rivers. It is further observed that apart from threatening bridges, sand mining transforms the riverbeds into large and deep pits, as a result, the groundwater table drops leaving the drinking water wells on the embankments of these rivers dry. Even otherwise, sand/mines is a public property and the State is the custodian of the said public property and therefore the State should be more sensitive to protect the environment and ecological balance and to protect the public property the State should always be in favour of taking very stern action against the violators who are creating serious ecological imbalance and causing damages to the nature in any form. As the provisions of Section 23-A are not under challenge and Section 23-A of the MMDR Act so long as it stands, we leave the matter there and leave it to the wisdom of the legislatures and the States concerned."
50. In the Jayant'scase the State had preferred an appeal on the premise that the order passed by the learned Magistrate which was confirmed by the High Court, affects the powers of the authorised person to compound the offence in exercise of powers under Rule 53 of the 1996 Rules and Rule 18 of the 2006 Rules, the Hon'ble Supreme Court deprecated the said filing of appeal by the State and held that it is absolutely misconceived and the State ought not to have filed the Special Leave Petition /appeal. Patna High Court CR. WJC No.299 of 2022 dt.04-11-2022 68/84
51. At this stage, this Court is of the considered opinion that the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioners saying that because these petitioners are the licencees, therefore in their cases allegation of theft, transfer of stolen property, criminal breach of trust or cheating would not lie are liable to be rejected. If a licensee, in the garb of having license indulges in dishonestly mining from the river beds by causing large and dip pits beyond the E.C. Permitted area and thereby engage in excavation, extraction, removal and selling of the minor minerals, his act would, prima-facie, subject to investigation, fall in the category of theft and criminal breach of trust. The allegation that the petitioners were indulged in stealthily selling the sand without issuing prepaid challan and thereby caused huge revenue loss to the State Exchequer, if substantiated in course of investigation, would attract the definition of cheating. These are not the cases of mere breach of the terms of license and the provisions of Rules of 2019. The observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph '13' of Jayant's case are the final words.
Conduct of the petitioner Broad Son and it's Director- Not Citing the earlier judgment of this Court
52. At this stage, this Court would notice that the petitioner (M/s Broad Son Commodities private Limited through its director Patna High Court CR. WJC No.299 of 2022 dt.04-11-2022 69/84 Shri Ashok Kumar and another Director namely Shri Mithilesh Kumar being petitioner nos. 1 and 2 in Cr.WJC No. 1910 of 2017 and 10 of 2018 (hereinafter referred to as the 'case first decided') had raised identical issues before this Court. In those writ applications, Shri S.B. Upadhyay, learned Senior Counsel had led the arguments on behalf of the petitioners.
53. Prayer was to quash the FIR of Patliputra P.S. Case No. 109 of 2017 instituted under Sections 420, 406, 379/34 IPC and Section 21 of the MMDR Act read with Rule 40 of the 1972 Rules and also for quashing of the FIR being Bihta P.S. Case No. 523 of 2017 registered under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Rule 3 of the Rules of 2003. The allegation in those FIRs were that the petitioners were found extracting sand illegally by going to six meters in depth which was contrary to the mining plan and thereby extraction of sand was done by mining more than three meters in depth. It was claimed that all the sandghat of such districts were settled in favour of the M/s Broad Sons Commodities Private Limited. The allegations were that the settlee company and its proprietor Shri Mithilesh Singh had indulged in illegal mining from outside the approved mining plan. In the second FIR, the allegation was that there were shortage of sand at the 6 license places and the Patna High Court CR. WJC No.299 of 2022 dt.04-11-2022 70/84 stockists licensee were required to generate prepaid challan before transportation but it was found that the sand were being sold without issuing prepaid challan. Several receipt books were seized from the alleged place. This Court finds that in the present writ application also the allegations are of identical nature.
54. This Court finds that in the case first decided, Mr. S.B. Upadhyaya, learned Sr. counsel had argued the matters. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay (supra) was cited on behalf of the petitioners and it was submitted that no case under Sections 379, 406, 420/34 of the IPC is made out. It was further submitted in the cases first decided that the petitioner is the settlee of the sandghat and paid royalty amount in terms of the Rule 26(1)(b) read with Schedule (II) of the Rules 1972, therefore, in such circumstance, a person who is owner of the sandghat and has already paid the entire royalty over the entire area cannot be said to have committed theft and, therefore, he cannot be prosecuted for the offence alleged under Section 379 and other Sections of the Indian Penal Code.
55. This Court, therefore, finds that identical submissions were made before this Court in the cases first decided which would be evident from the paragraphs 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the judgment dated 05.10.2018 reported in 2018 (4) PLJR 706. Patna High Court CR. WJC No.299 of 2022 dt.04-11-2022 71/84
56. This Court, therefore, finds that both the kind of allegations which are subject matter of these writ applications were present in the earlier set of writ applications reported in 2018 (4) PLJR 706 decided by this Court as back as on 05.10.2018. After noticing the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and the Department of Mines, what this Court held in those cases in paragraph '20' to '26' are being reproduced hereunder for a ready reference:-
"20. A perusal of the allegations made in the FIR and the fact that in course of investigation police has found the allegations true and submitted a charge-sheet would further lead this Court to take a view that in the facts of the present case it cannot be said that no prima facie case is made out against the petitioner. There are allegations of mining of sand which is a minor mineral in an area which is not covered under the work order. It means the allegation of illegal mining is in respect of the areas in respect of which there is no approved mining plan. This is the violation of the Rules of 1972 and, therefore, this Court agrees with the submissions of the learned counsel representing the Department of Mines that the case of the petitioner would be covered under Rule 40(8) of the Rules of 1972.
21. The submission of the learned senior counsel that the court could have taken cognizance only on the basis of a complaint in writing in terms of Section 22 of the MMDR Act, 1957 would also not appeal to this Court because the Court is well strengthened in its view from the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) (para 30 and 31) (supra) that the mining of sand from the areas in respect of which no work order has been issued by the Department of Mines is likely to attract the definition of theft under Section 378 of the Penal Code, 1860. This is, however, a prima facie view of this Court and such observations are not to be considered by the learned trial court as any opinion of this Court. Paragraphs 30 and 31 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) (supra) read as under:--
"31. A perusal of the aforementioned provisions would show that a police officer of his own authority has the duty to prevent any injury attempted to be Patna High Court CR. WJC No.299 of 2022 dt.04-11-2022 72/84 committed to any public property or national assets and to prosecute such person in accordance with law.
32. The policy and object of the Mines and Minerals Act and Rules have a long history and are the result of an increasing awareness of the compelling need to restore the serious ecological imbalance and to stop the damages being caused to the nature. The Court cannot lose sight of the fact that adverse and destructive environmental impact of sand mining has been discussed in the UNEP Global Environmental Alert Service Report. As per the contents of the Report, lack of proper scientific methodology for river sand mining has led to indiscriminate sand mining, while weak governance and corruption have led to widespread illegal mining. While referring to the proposition in India, it was stated that sand trading is a lucrative business, and there is evidence of illegal trading such as the case of the influential mafias in our country."
22. In the aforementioned facts and circumstances as also the judicial pronouncements present on the subject, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the present case it cannot be said that the registration of the FIR under the various provisions of the IPC and subsequent investigation and cognizance by the learned ACJM is illegal or bad in law. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order taking cognizance in the present case.
23. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this is a case of violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This Court would not agree with such submission as according to this Court mere institution of an FIR or the subsequent investigation and order taking cognizance for the offences in respect of which sufficient materials are available on the record cannot be taken as an act of violation of fundamental right of a citizen as contained in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is facing prosecution by virtue of the order passed by a competent court of law and only because he is being tried for the offences in respect of which charges have been framed against him, no case of violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India is made out. This Court is of the considered opinion that the ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of BhajanLal (supra), Pepsi Foods Ltd. (supra) and Md. Khalique (supra) would not be attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case. These judgments are clearly distinguishable and cannot help the petitioner of these cases.
24. This Court also finds that the revisional order passed by the Commissioner, Department of Mines available at page 30 Patna High Court CR. WJC No.299 of 2022 dt.04-11-2022 73/84 of the rejoinder cannot be said to be a compounding order with respect to the offences alleged in the present case. In the said order, there is a revisional order in respect of dispute with respect to termination of the agreement. There is no whisper of compounding of offences in the order dated 25.01.2018 passed by the Commissioner, Department of Mines, Government of Bihar.
25. The submissions of learned senior counsel for the petitioner that in case of excess mining it may at best be a case of additional royalty which the State can recover from the petitioner, is also not acceptable to this Court. Rule 40(8) of the Rules of 1972 clearly provides that for illegal mining by violating the rules there may be any other action which may be provided under any other law for the time being in force. In the opinion of this Court, if the petitioner has allegedly violated the Rules of 1972 and removed minor mineral from an area of which there is no approved mining plan, he cannot come out of the rigours of Rule 40(8) of the Rules of 1972 by offering the additional royalty for excess amount. This submission is also liable to be rejected.
26. In Cr. W.J.C. No. 10 of 2018, the petitioner is seeking quashing of the FIR. However, a perusal of the allegations mentioned in the FIR shows that those are liable to be investigated and at this stage this Court sitting in its writ jurisdiction would not be justified in weighing the materials which have been brought by the petitioner by way of Annexures to the writ applications and the rejoinder. The investigation in the case cannot be interfered with in the facts and circumstances of the case stated hereinabove."
57. The judgment of this Court in 2018 (4) PLJR 706 was subject to a challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Crl) No. 010596 of 2018. The said SLP (criminal) was dismissed as withdrawn in the following words:-
"Learned senior counsel for the petitioners seek permission to withdraw these petitions.
Permission is granted.
The special leave petitions are, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn."
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.299 of 2022 dt.04-11-2022 74/84
58. At this stage, this Court would go through the sheet anchors of this batch of writ applications. The petitioners have claimed that in view of the judgment of the learned Co-ordinate Benches of this Court on identical issues, this Court should also quash the First Information Reports. The records would show that after the decision rendered by this Court in the two writ applications on 05.10.2018 reported in (2018) 4 PLJR 706 some other writ applications came for consideration before two different learned Co-ordinate Benches of this Court. Judgments of the learned Co-ordinate Bench-discussed
59. On 18.02.2019 while hearing Cr.WJC No. 140 of 2017 (M/s Aditya Multicom Private Limited and Anr. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.), learned Co-ordinate Bench having noticed that the first information report being Rohtas (Amjhor) P.S. Case No. 5 of 2017 has been registered for the offences alleged under Rule 6, 7 and 8 of the Bihar Minerals (Prevention of illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2003 and upon completion of investigation the police had submitted a chargesheet and the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dehri took cognizance of the offence under Section 6, 7 and 8 of the 2003 Rules, accepted the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned Magistrate could not have taken cognizance for the Patna High Court CR. WJC No.299 of 2022 dt.04-11-2022 75/84 offences alleged under 2003 Rules because no complaint was filed in terms of Rule 9 of the 2003 Rules. It is evident from the facts and circumstances of the said case that the FIR was not registered under any of the provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the learned Magistrate could not have taken cognizance for the offences under the 2003 Rules on the basis of a police report.
60. The another case being Cr.WJC No. 2267 of 2018, 2288 of 2018 and 2282 of 2018 [M/s Mahadev Enclave Pvt. Ltd. (in all) vs. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary- cum-Commissioner, Home Department (in all)] came for consideration before the learned Co-ordinate Bench. In the said case, the FIR were registered vide Manpur P.S. Case No. 25 of 2018, Asthawan P.S. Case No. 31 of 2018 and Sare P.S. Case No. 14 of 2018 against the petitioner under Section 15 of the Environment Protection Act 1986 and Rule 40 of the 1972 Rules. The allegation was that the mining activities were being carried out in violation of the conditions of mining plan and environmental clearance. The learned Co-ordinate Bench noticed Section 22 of the MMDR Act, Rule 41 of the 1972 Rules and Section 19 of the 1986 Act which expressely prohibit taking cognizance except upon a complaint in writing made by person authorized in this behalf.
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.299 of 2022 dt.04-11-2022 76/84
61. Learned Co-ordinate Bench held that in view of those provisions even though Section 21(6) of the MMDR Act, 1957 makes the offence committed under Sub-Section (1) of Section 21 cognizable but no FIR can be instituted.
62. This Court finds that in both the cases discussed above the FIRs were not registered under any of the provisions of the Indian Penal Code.
63. The third case which came for consideration before the learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court were a batch of four writ applications being Cr.WJC No. 540, 676, 693 with 718 of 2019 (Mithilesh Kumar Singh vs. State of Bihar & Ors. ) ( in all). In these cases, Mr. S.B. Upadhyay, learned Senior Counsel led the argument on behalf of the petitioners. The petitioner was the same and one person who was petitioner no. 2 in Cr.WJC No. 1910 of 2017 dismissed on 05.10.2018 vide judgment reported in (2018) 4 PLJR 706. Before the learned Co-ordinate Bench the petitioner prayed for quashing of the First Information Report which was registered under Sections 420, 406, 379 read with Section 34 of the IPC, Section 21 of the MMDR Act, Rules 40, 21 and 22 of the 1972 Rules and under Section 15 of the Environmental (Protection) Act 1986. In this case the learned Co-ordinate Bench noticed that the allegations were that excess sand had been Patna High Court CR. WJC No.299 of 2022 dt.04-11-2022 77/84 excavated than prescribed in the mining plan and the environmental clearance. The allegation was also that the company had crossed the environmental clearance capping limit. This Court finds that identical contentions which were subject matter of consideration by this Court in Cr.WJC NO. 1910 of 2017 and 10 of 2018 were made before the learned Co-ordinate Bench. But while doing so, judgment of this Court reported in (2018) 4 PLJR 706 was not cited at the Bar. This Court has noticed from the records that in the F.I.R. there were also allegations of unlawful dispatch of sand. Learned Co-ordinate Bench was not informed of the fact that on similar allegations the contentions of the petitioners that the FIR cannot be instituted for the alleged offence had been rejected. It is difficult to appreciate as to why the earlier judgment of this Court was not cited even as the petitioner was the same and one and learned Senior Counsel who was leading him before the learned Co-ordinate Bench was aware of the judgment of this Court which was in fact challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court where also the same learned Senior Counsel had represented the petitioners. At the same time, learned counsel for the State as well as the Department of Mines did not place the earlier judgment before the learned co-ordinate Bench. Learned Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Mithilesh Patna High Court CR. WJC No.299 of 2022 dt.04-11-2022 78/84 Kumar Singh (supra) accepted the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and quashed the first information report.
64. A question arises whether the judgment in Mithilesh Kumar Singh (supra) is per incuriam This Court is reminded of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of the State of Bihar v. Kalika Kuer @ Kalika Singh & Others reported in (2003) 5 SCC 448 held in paragraph '10' as under:-
"10. Looking at the matter, in view of what has been held to mean by per incuriam, we find that such element of rendering a decision in ignorance of any provision of the statute or the judicial authority of binding nature, is not the reason indicated by the Full Bench in the impugned judgment, while saying that the decision in the case of Ramkrit Singh1 was rendered per incuriam. On the other hand, it was observed that in the case of Ramkrit Singh1 the Court did not consider the question as to whether the Consolidation Authorities are courts of limited jurisdiction or not. In connection with this observation, we would like to say that an earlier decision may seem to be incorrect to a Bench of a coordinate jurisdiction considering the question later, on the ground that a possible aspect of the matter was not considered or not raised before the court or more aspects should have been gone into by the court deciding the matter earlier but it would not be a reason to say that the decision was rendered per incuriam and liable to be ignored. The earlier judgment may seem to be not correct yet it will have the binding effect on the later Bench of coordinate jurisdiction. Easy course of saying that earlier decision was rendered per incuriam is not permissible and the matter will have to be resolved only in two ways -- either to follow the earlier decision or refer the matter to a larger Bench to examine the issue, in case it is felt that earlier decision is not correct on merits. Though hardly necessary, we may however, refer to a few decisions on the above proposition."
1. [AIR 1979 Pat 250 : 1979 Pat LJR 161 (FB)] Patna High Court CR. WJC No.299 of 2022 dt.04-11-2022 79/84
65. Further in the case of Vijay Laxmi Sadho (Dr) v. Jagdish reported in 2001 (2) SCC 247, Hon'ble Supreme Court held in paragraph 33 as under:-
"33. As the learned Single Judge was not in agreement with the view expressed in Devilal case4 it would have been proper, to maintain judicial discipline, to refer the matter to a larger Bench rather than to take a different view. We note it with regret and distress that the said course was not followed. It is well-settled that if a Bench of coordinate jurisdiction disagrees with another Bench of coordinate jurisdiction whether on the basis of "different arguments" or otherwise, on a question of law, it is appropriate that the matter be referred to a larger Bench for resolution of the issue rather than to leave two conflicting judgments to operate, creating confusion. It is not proper to sacrifice certainty of law. Judicial decorum, no less than legal propriety forms the basis of judicial procedure and it must be respected at all costs."
66. This Court has referred the aforesaid judgments to draw an analogy that had the judgment of this Court reported in 2018 (4) PLJR 706 which was having a binding effect been cited before the learned co-ordinate Bench in the case of Mithilesh Kumar Singh (supra) reported in 2019 (6) BLJ 149, perhaps the learned co-ordinate Bench could have considered to resolve the issue in the light of the settled proposition of law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of a difference of opinion between the two Benches of equal strength. Since the earlier judgment of this Court was not cited, learned co-ordinate Bench had no occasion to consider the same.
4. Devilal v. Kinkar Narmada Prasad, Election Petition No. 9 of 1980 Patna High Court CR. WJC No.299 of 2022 dt.04-11-2022 80/84
67. It further appears that yet another case being Cr.WJC No. 1233 of 2021(Aditya Multicom Private Ltd. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) came for consideration before another learned co-ordinate Bench of this Court. The Court was given to understand that the case is covered by judgment of this Court in the case of Mithilesh Kumar Singh (supra). The learned co- ordinate Bench, therefore, followed the judgment in the case of Mithilesh Kumar Singh (supra). When the judgment of Cr.W.J.C. No. 1233 of 2021 was cited before this Court saying that the learned co-ordinate Bench has already decided this issue so this Court should follow the same, this Court wanted to go through the facts/allegations contained in those cases. On asking, learned counsel for the petitioners filed a supplementary affidavit enclosing a copy of the F.I.R. of Dehri Town P.S. Case No. 407 of 2021 which was subject matter of Cr.W.J.C. No. 1233 of 2021. Then this Court noticed that the allegations made therein were of shortage of stock and thievery selling of sand without issuing pre- paid E-Challan whereas in the case of Mithilesh Kumar Singh (Supra) the only allegation noticed by the Court was that of excess extraction/excavation of sand. The learned co-ordinate Bench in Cr.W.J.C. no. 1233 of 2021 observed in second paragraph at page no. 8 of the judgment as under:-
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.299 of 2022 dt.04-11-2022 81/84 "It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was a valid licensee and the allegation against the petitioner is not of having removed the stock without issuing challan."
68. The learned co-ordinate Bench has recorded that the court is not going into the merit of the allegation because there is no dispute that the case is covered by the judgment in Mithilesh Kumar Singh (Supra).
69. On 02.11.2022, when this Court called upon learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the Department of Mines as also learned G.A. 7 for the State to demonstrate as to how the allegations in both the cases were identical or similar, learned counsel admit that the allegations in Cr.W.J.C. No. 1233 of 2021 were in fact of selling of sand without issuing pre-paid E- Challan.
Learned counsel for the parties submitted that due to inadvertent mistake they could not cite the earlier judgment reported in 2018(4) PLJR 706 in course of hearing of the cases before Co-ordinate Bench. They have accepted that the judgment in the case of Jayant (supra) was also not cited inadvertently . In this connection Court's order dated 02.11.2022 may be referred to.
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.299 of 2022 dt.04-11-2022 82/84 In such circumstance, to this Court, it appears that the conduct of the petitioners in not citing earlier judgment of this Court reported in 2018 (4) PLJR 706 and giving an impression to the Court in Cr.W.J.C. No. 1233 of 2021 that it would be covered by the judgment in Mithilesh Kumar Singh (supra) may be required to be examined for consequential order. This issue shall remain open for consideration at appropriate stage.
70. In the light of the discussions held hereinabove, as also keeping in view the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay (supra) and Jayant (supra), this Court reiterates its' earlier view that no fault may be found with lodging of the F.I.Rs. in these cases and investigation into these cases need not be interfered with at this stage. This Court regrets its' inability to agree with the views expressed by the learned co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Mithilesh Kumar Singh (supra) and in Cr.WJC No. 1233 of 2021(Aditya Multicom Private Ltd. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) disposed of on 07.04.2022.
71. To this Court, it appears that to finally resolve the issues involved in batch of these writ applications and to make the diversed opinion of this Court consistent with the law and the judicial pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the Patna High Court CR. WJC No.299 of 2022 dt.04-11-2022 83/84 subject, it has become expedient to refer these matters to the Hon'ble Division Bench on the following issues:-
(i) Whether Section 22 of the MMDR Act of 1957 read with Rule 56 of the Rules of 2019 may be interpreted so as to read a bar on lodging of the FIR alleging commission of offences of theft etc. under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code against a licensee in the matter of excavation of sand from the river beds from an area beyond or contrary to the mining plan and in violation of the Environment Clearance, on the face of Clause (v) under sub-rule(7) of Rule 56 and the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanjay and Jayant's case.
(ii) Whether the alleged thieving sale of sand from the stock license point without issuing pre-paid E-Challan and thereby causing huge revenue loss to the State Exchequer and unlawful gain to the petitioners may be subjected to an investigation by Police by way of a police case registered for the offences under Sections 379, 411, 406 and 420 IPC ?
(iii) Whether the judgments of the learned co-ordinate Benches in the case of Mithilesh Kumar Singh (supra) and M/s Aditya Multicom Pvt. Limited vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.
(Cr.W.J.C. no. 1233 of 2021) are per incurium for not noticing Patna High Court CR. WJC No.299 of 2022 dt.04-11-2022 84/84 the earlier judgment of a Bench of equal strength, hence not laying down a correct statement of law ?
72. During pendency of these writ applications, unless otherwise ordered by the Hon'ble Division Bench, the investigation in all the cases and further proceeding shall continue.
73. Let the records be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice at the earliest to consider it listing before an appropriate Bench. The parties are at liberty to mention the matter for early hearing.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) avin/-sushma-2/-
AFR/NAFR AFR CAV DATE 02.11.2022 Uploading Date 04.11.2022 Transmission Date 04.11.2022
Note: The ordersheet duly signed has been attached with the record. However, in view of the present arrangements, during Pandemic period all concerned shall act on the basis of the copy of the order uploaded on the High Court website under the heading 'Judicial Orders Passed During The Pandemic Period'.