Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ARVIND SINGH CHANDEL, J.
Aditya Multicom Private Limited., through its Chief Executive Officer Sadashiv Prasad Singh Son of Maleshwar Singh - Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Bihar, through Principal Secretary, Home, Government of Bihar and Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No 1597 of 2024 with Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No 1613 of 2024
Decided On : 07-10-2024
Constitution of India – Article 226 & Bihar Minerals (Concession, Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2019 – Rule 56 with India Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 379 & 420 – Petitioner alleged to have committed illegal mining – Quashing of FIRs sought for – Petitioner was the valid settlee of at the relevant point of time – a mineral concessionaire/settlee of the sand ghats is required to transport sand only on the basis of e-transit challans – Rule 39(2) of the 2019 rules especially deals with the storage of minerals beyond leasehold area on the basis of k licenses, provides that every person having a storage licence has to issue a transport challan in Form G while dispatching the minerals from his stock – It has been held that Rule 56 of Rule 2019 does not apply in case of a valid settlee and the petitioner was undisputably a valid settlee at the relevant point of time – Therefore, amended Rule 56 of Rule 2019 Rules would not apply in case of the petitioner and institution of instant FIR under Rule 56 of the 2019 Rules (amended) is completely unjustified and is not applicable to the case of the petitioner – Written complaint has been filed only on the basis of information gathered from the ED which the ED has gathered from the Income Tax Department – It was incumbent upon the Mining Department to ascertain the veracity of the information supplied by then ED – The Mining Department, upon receipt of such information supplied by the ED, should have marked upon an assessment proceeding under Rule 46 of the 2019 Rules in order to determine the liability of the petitioner and proceeded according to law to recover the civil liability under Rule 82 of the 2019 Rules – No criminal prosecution could have been launched without getting the approval from the Collector – In the present case, undisputedly, the petitioner is a settlee and he was alleged to have been found transporting the sand without E-transit challan – The Collector could, apart from cancelling the mineral concession – However, the FIR has been lodged without getting any approval of the Collector – Rule 56 of the amended 2019 is not applicable to the petitioner since the alleged transportation of sand is of the period from April 2020 to August 2020 – Further, the written complaint as well as the FIR does not contain any averment about the deceit, cheating or fraudulent intention of the petitioner and, therefore, no offence under Section 420 is made out – There being nothing in the complaint that the petitioner has sold in excess of its entitlement, or that the petitioner has excavated the sand from the said ghat in excess of its entitlement, offence punishable under Section 379 not made out – impugned FIRs quashed – Writ petitions allowed. (Paras 25 to 34)
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; M/s Harsh Construction Vs. State of Bihar, CWJC No 111 of 2023 – Relied upon.
CBI Vs. V. C. Shukla, (1998) 3 SCC 410; Manohar Lal Sharma Vs. Union of India, (2017) 11 SCC 731; Salib @ Shalu @ Salim Vs. State of U.P., 2023 SCC Online SC 947; T T Antony Vs. State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181; Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2013) 6 SCC 348; Tarak Dash Mukharjee Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 SCC Online SC 2121; State of Bihar Vs. P P Sharma, AIR 1991 SC 1260; Cr W J C No 299/2022 – Referred to.
JUDGMENT :
(Arvind Singh Chandel, J.)
Since in both the writ petitions, common issues are involved, hence these writ petitions are being decided by this common order.
2 Cr W J C No 1613 of 2024 has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of Daudnagar PS Case No 047 of 2024 dated 08.02.2024 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 379 and 420 of the IPC and Rule 56 of Bihar Minerals (Concession, Prevention of illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2021 (hereinafter referred as the 2019 Rules) and Cr W J C No 1597 of 2024 has been filed seeking quashing of Dehri Town PS Case No 115 of 2024 dated 13.02.2024 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 379 and 420 of the IPC.
3 In both the petitions, the petitioner is common which is a company incorporated under the Companies Act. Dehri Town PS Case No 115 of 2024 is based upon the written complaint made by Anil Kumar, Assistant Director, District Mining Office, Rohtas and Daudnagar PS Case No 047 of 2024 is based upon the written complaint submitted by the informant Vikas Kumar, Assistant Director, District Mining Office, Aurangabad.
Facts of the case.
4 The petitioner, in both the petitions, i e, Aditya Multicom Private Limited was minerals concessionaire of sand ghats in the entire districts of Aurangabad and Rohtas from 2015 to 2019 for excavation and sale of sand. After completion of initial settlement period of five years, several extensions were granted to the petitioner till 30.09.2021. It is further pleaded that on 20.04.2021, petitioner surrendered its settlement. Petitioner had obtained K Licence in terms of Rule 39 of the 2019 Rules in Aurangabad and Rohtas for storage of sand beyond the leasehold area. It is further pleaded that the sand stocked at K Licence was royalty paid. After surrender of the settlement, generation of E-Challans was suspended/blocked from 01.05.2021. The petitioner requested the authorities of Mining Department to conduct physical verification of the sand stocked at K Licence sites and allow it to sell the same. However, no verification was conducted and the K Licenses in both the districts were cancelled. Subsequently, the Mining Department instituted several FIRs against the petitioner alleging that it had misappropriated the sand from K Licence site and sold the same without issuance of e-transit challans and cause revenue loss to the Government. Details of the said FIRs have been mentioned in paragraph 20 of both the writ petitions. It was further pleaded that in the meantime, the Directorate of Enforcement (hereinafter referred to as the ED) instituted ECIR bearing PTZO/07/22 dated 10.01.2022 under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Allegedly, during investigation, the ED obtained information from the Income Tax Department which was gathered during the raid conducted by the Income Tax Department on another Company. On the basis of such information, the ED came to the conclusion that for the period from April, 2020 to August 2020, sand worth Rs 90,92,71,400/- was sold from the sand ghats of Aurangabad and Rohtas and on comparison of the same with the information provided by the Mining Department, it appeared that sand worth Rs 38,71,46,070/- had been sold without generation of e-transit challans which has caused revenue loss to the public exchequer. The above information was shared by the ED with the Mining Department and on the basis of the said information received from the ED, both the above mentioned FIRs have been lodged against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner has, during the period April 2020 to August 2020, transported sand worth Rs 38,71,46,070/- without generation of e-transit challans.
5 It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that from bare perusal of the FIRs in both the writ petitions, it reveals that it has been lodged merely on the basis of information supplied by the ED relying on unsubstantiated information gathered from the documents seized by the Inco
FIRs against a mineral concessionaire were quashed due to lack of verification and failure to establish cognizable offences, emphasizing the need for proper legal procedures in prosecution.
Penalties on stockyard dealers for alleged shortages of sand must be explicitly provided for in law; arbitrary imposition of penalties without statutory backing is impermissible.
Point of law: The Licensee who contravenes the provisions of these rules deals with storing, stocking and transportation of minerals, either in raw form and / or subjected the mineral/s to beneficia....
Penalty cannot be imposed on stockyard dealers for alleged shortages of sand without statutory provisions supporting such action.
No offence was established against the petitioner under the cited laws as allegations were insufficient, leading to quashing of the F.I.R. and proceedings.
The court emphasized the distinct nature of offences under the MMDR Act and the IPC, highlighting the interpretation of Section 22 of the MMDR Act and the ingredients constituting the offence of thef....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
