This application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing the first information report of Jagarnathpur P.S. case no.36 of 2008 (G.R No.202 of 2008) instituted under sections 379/420 of the Indian Penal Code and also under sections 8/9 of the Jharkhand Minerals Dealers’ Rule read with Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.

The case of the prosecution is that one Raghav Nandan Prasad, District Mining Officer, Chaibasa on receiving information relating to illegal storage of iron ores came along with other Mining Officials at Mauza-Karanjia and found iron ore fines/blue dust stored at several places over Hatgamharia-Jaitgarh Road. On enquiry, it could be known that iron ores taken from the mines situated in the State of Orissa was meant to be transported to Haldia Port still it was stored at Mauza Karanjia which under the challan was not permissible and thereby transporters including the petitioner at whose instance iron ores had been stored have been alleged to have committed offence under sections 8 and 9 of the Jharkhand Minerals Dealers’ Rule, 2007 read with Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act and that apart, they have also been alleged to have committed offence under sections 379/420 of the Indian Penal Code.

On the basis of the information given to the Jagarnathpur police, a case was registered as Jagarnathpur Police case no.36 of 2008 under sections 379/420 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Rules 8 and 9 of the Jharkhand Minerals Dealers’ Rule read with Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that Jharkhand Minerals Dealers’ Rule, 2007 was promulgated by the State of Jharkhand in exercise of power conferred by Section 23 (C) (1) and 23(2)(c) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 in order to regulate mining, transportation, storage of minerals and mineral products and further Rule 3 prohibits any person from engaging himself in any transaction of buying and selling any minerals without being registered and similarly Rule 6 prohibits any person from transporting any minerals without obtaining transport challan. Further Rule 8 is a penal provision prescribing punishment in case any person contravenes any of the provision of rule or buys or sells or stores minerals.

Learned counsel in view of the aforesaid provisions submits that the allegations upon which the case has been lodged do fall within the purview of special legislation, namely, Jharkhand Minerals Dealer’s Rule, 2007 and Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and in that event the cognizance of such offence in terms of the provision as contained in Section 22 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 can be taken by the court only upon complaint in writing made by a person authorized in this behalf by the Central Government or the State Government and therefore, any prosecution initiated on the basis of the first information report would be quite illegal and hence, first information report is fit to be quashed.

It be stated that in spite of opportunity being given to the State, no counter affidavit has been filed.

Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, it appears that on finding iron ore stored at a place at the instance of the accused without there being any authority, a case was registered under sections 420/34 and section 8/9 of the Jharkhand Minerals Dealers’ Rule read with Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act but the question falls for consideration is as to whether in view of the special law, namely, Jharkhand Minerals Dealers’ Rule, 2007 and also Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, case lodged under the penal code would be competent ? For adjudicating this issue one needs to take notice of the definition of the ‘special law’ as has been defined under section 41 of the Indian Penal Code which read