The High Court has jurisdiction to quash or stay police investigation into a cognizable offence if the FIR does not disclose prima facie that a cognizable offence has been committed.

These three revisional applications under Sec. 482 of the Criminal P.C. 1973 are for quashing the proceedings of investigation by the police in connection with Barabani P.S. Case No. 8 dated 27-5-1982, Barabani P.S. Case No. 3 dated 16-6-1982 and Barabani P.S. Case No. 8 dated 17-7-1982 each under Section 30(2) of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Amendment Act 1976 and S.379 of the I.P.C. arising out of as manv F.I.Rs. lodged by Sri J.S. Gill, Deputy C.M.E./Agent of Bhanora Colliery in the first case and by Sri S.K. Mukherji, Mining Adviser and Chief Mining Officer, Asansol in the other two cases alleging illegal extraction as of coal from Joyramdanga Collieny on different dates mentioned therein.

2. It is not disputed that the petitioner Ram Badan Choubey was appointed Receiver in respect of Joyramdanga Colliery by the City Civil Court. Calcutta in Title Suit No. 436 of 1979; that as Receiver the petitioner moved an application under Art.226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Amendment Act 1976 on 29-2-1980 and obtained an interim order restraining the respondents from interfering with the work of the said colliery in any manner whatsoever including raising, sale, despatch and movement of coal and fireclay, made by this Court in C. R. No. 1444 (W) of 1980, that the petitioner also moved an application before this Court on 23-5-1980 and the learned single Judge appointed the petitioner as Special Officer directing sale of coal which had already been raised and were lying at the pithead of the colliery in C. R. No. 5366 (W) of 1980; that the petitioner further moved another application before this Court and the learned single Judge was pleased to direct the respondents on 1-10-1980 to return the seized coal and strictly obey the orders passed by this Court on 29-2-1980 and 23-5-1980; and that all the abovementioned orders are continuing. It is also not disputed that the aforesaid orders were made in presence of the learned advocate appearing for the State of West Bengal and that no appeal was preferred against them.

3. Three points common to all the three cases have been raised on behalf of the petitioner. It is submitted that no prosecution can lie against the petitioner for his acts as Receiver appointed by the Court without leave of this Court appointing him, which has not been taken. Secondly the petitioner by extracting coal from the coal mine in question did acts which were warranted by the orders of this Court passed in the aforesaid writ petitions which were in force on the material dates and are still in force and so the petitioner has not committed any offence as his case comes within the general exception to criminal liability mentioned in S.78 of the I.P.C. The third contention is that as the petitioner was in lawful possession of Joyramdanga Colliery extraction of coal therefrom by his men does not constitute an offence of theft punishable under S.379, I.P.C. as alleged in the F.I.Rs.

4. On the other hand it is submitted on behalf of the respondents State of West Bengal and others that this Court exercising criminal revisional jurisdiction is not competent to quash and/or stay the police investigation. In this connection reference has been made to the decision in the case of Emperor v. Nazir Ahmad, AIR 1945 PC 18 : (1945-46 Cri LJ 413) and Jehan Singh v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1974 SC 1146 : (1974 Cri LJ 802). The next submission is that in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1980 SC 1308, AIR 1980 SC 1682 and AIR 1980 SC 2031, no Court could give any sanction to any person to go on extracting coal in violation of the provisions of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Amendment Act 1973 as amended in 1976 and contrary to the aforesaid judgements of the Supreme Court. It is further submitting that no sanction from the court appointing any person as Receiver is necessary to prosecute the said Receiver for illegal extraction of coal.

5. It is not