Cognizance under the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules is invalid without a formal complaint from the competent authority; only a prima facie case under Section 414 IPC was established due to illegal possession.

JUDGMENT :

JITENDRA KUMAR, J.

1. The present petition, under Section 482 Cr.PC, has been preferred by the petitioners for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 02.05.2013, passed by learned C.J.M., West Champaran at Bettiah in Sahodra P.S. Case No. 66 of 2009 (G.R. No. 2715 of 2009), whereby learned C.J.M. has taken cognizance against the petitioners of the offence punishable under Sections 379 and 120B read with Section 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and Sections 33 and 41 of the Indian FOREST ACT and Sections 4(1) and 40(10) of BIHAR MINOR MINERAL CONCESSION RULES , 1972.

2. The prosecution case as per the FIR is that Mining Inspector, District Mining office, West Champaran at Bettiah seized 20 vehicles loaded with soil and stone and the same were handed over to the Police Station along with written report for lodging the FIR. The vehicles belong to the petitioners and released to them by the confiscation authorities under the FOREST ACT .

3. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons and thereafter, cognizance was taken against the petitioners by learned C.J.M. by the impugned order.

4. I heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that the alleged vehicles were not found to be transporting any mineral. They were standing in front of the houses of their owners. He further submits that all the vehicles have been also got released by Confiscating Authority in favour of the petitioners, finding no commission of the offence under the Indian FOREST ACT . He further submits that the falsity of the case emerges from the fact that some of the vehicles shown to be loaded with minor minerals were not attached with engines. As such, there is no question of transporting alleged minor minerals. He further submits that as a matter of fact, all the vehicles were standing in front of the houses of the petitioners and no offence has been committed by them. He further claims that in fact, there was nothing loaded in the alleged vehicles. He further submits that under the BIHAR MINOR MINERAL CONCESSION RULES , 1972, prosecution can be initiated only by lodging complaint by the competent authority. Hence, FIR is not maintainable and liable to be quashed.

6. However, learned APP for the State defends the impugned order submitting that there is no illegality or infirmity in it and the present petition is liable to be dismissed. He further submits that as per the uncontroverted allegation made in the FIR, the offences as taken cognizance of by the impugned order, are clearly made out. He further submits that the prosecution can be initiated under IPC and Indian FOREST ACT even by lodging FIR or even under the BIHAR MINOR MINERAL CONCESSION RULES , 1972. The proceeding cannot be quashed only on account of FIR to have been filed by the competent authority.

7. I considered the submissions advanced by both the parties and perused the materials on record.

8. I find that, the allegedly seized soil and stone come under the definition of minor minerals. Hence, the alleged acts of the accused persons are to be governed by BIHAR MINOR MINERAL CONCESSION RULES , 1972. Rule 4 prohibits mining operation without permit or mining lease, whereas Rule 40 provides for penalty for unauthorized extraction and removal of minor minerals. Rule 41 provides that no Court can take cognizance of any offence under the Rules except upon a