No cognizance can be taken for the offence if a private complaint has not been filed by the authorized person of the State or Central Government, as per the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.

ORDER :

1. By way of the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the impugned FIR being C.R. No. II-1 of 2014 registered before Rajkot Taluka Police Station, District Rajkot for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 5, 6, 13 of the Gujarat Mineral Prevention of Illegal (Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2005, Sections 4(1), 4(1)A, 21 of Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act and Sections 4 and 68 of the Gujarat Mines and Minerals Rule, 2005 as well as other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR qua the petitioner.

2. The facts of the case suggest that on 21.10.2013, D.K. Patel, Assistant Geologist (Mineral Researcher) Rajkot, has sent one report to the complainant to the Police Sub-inspector, Police station, Jamnagar Road Taluka, District Rajkot and on the basis of same, FIR came to be registered. It was learnt that in the Government waste land of village Kathariya, Blacktrap mineral was being illegally excavated and transported without any royalty pass, the Officer seized the six tractors being (1) MP-44-M-312. (2) GJ-10-AF-4904. (3) GJ-3-L-2242. (4) MP-14-K-9118, (5) GJ-12-E-8157 and (6) GRG-9774 and sent to Rajkot Taluka Police station and tractor No. GRG-9774, was sent to the office of Senior Geologist as it got puncture. Thereafter statement of drivers and labourer were recorded, from which, it was found that excavation and transportation was done since more than a year, under instruction of Bhanjibhai Ramjibhai Solanki i.e. present applicant and all excavated goods were transported to Kothariya at Dipak Minerals Crusher Plant. It is stated that blasting was also done by the present applicant. On 21.10.2013, inspection was carried out in the excavated land and in presence of Talati-cum-Mantri, Sarpanch and few panchas land was measured by total station machine. On 24.10.2013 to get specific gravity of the excavated land, sample of four rocks, was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory at Gandhingar.

2.1 It is stated that on 24.10.2013 officials had visited crusher plant of present petitioner viz. Dipak Minerals, the said land survey no. 352 was in the lease of Dipak Mineral, which has remanded closed for last seven years as the mining lease was cancelled and as per the order in the appeal, the case is remanded to the Collector of Rajkot. Thereafter, it was found that illegal mining had taken place in survey no. 352 as well as in survey no. 40, 41 and 45 and statements were recorded of the owner of survey no. 40 and 41 on 28.10.2013, who stated that their land is at another place under cultivation and they are not connected with the mining. After detail inspection and measurement with the map of the area with FSL report of sample, it was found that lease of Blacktrap was given to the present applicant earlier for the year 1990 to 1996, and thereafter, was not renewed. During the lease period as per office record, about 5349 metric ton was produced.

2.2 In accordance to measurement map of the excavation by the surveyor, in survey no. 352 in the old lease area, the total excavation was 83557.62 cubic meter. It appears from the FSL sample report multiplying the asodic gravity of 2.99 total of 2,49,837 metric tons was found to be excavated. The register showed just 5349 metric ton, so it was learnt that since 1990 to 1996 total of 2,44,488 metric ton, illegally, mining of mineral was done from survey no. 352. And from survey no. 40, 41 and 45, total of 5,37,243 metric tons illegally mining of minerals was done.

3. Heard Mr. Jal Unwala, learned Senior Advocate alongwith Mr. Rutviz Oza, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Pranav Trivedi, learned APP for the respondent-State.

4. Senior advocate Mr. Unwala submits that survey no. 40, 41 and 45 does not belong to the present petitioner. Further there was no illegality found till the year 1996, merely to c