The central legal point established in the judgment is the inapplicability of general law when a special law is in force, and the requirement for a complaint made in writing by competent officers under the special law.

D.K. Sinha, J.

1. Petitioner has invoked the extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the entire criminal proceeding initiated against him in Palkot P.S. Case No. 5 of 2007, corresponding to G.R. No. 52 of 2007 for the offence under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 54 of the Jharkhand Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2004.

2. Prosecution story, in short, was that the informant Sub-Inspector of Police Ajay Prasad of Palkot Police Station intercepted two tractors on 12.1.2007 with trailers with the registration number of only one tractor carrying stones and boulders thereon but no valid document was produced by the driver-petitioner Bhotna Mahto of tractor Sonalika who was driving another tractor without registration number. However, it was disclosed by the petitioner that under the instruction of his employer, he was carrying the stone metals to unload at the construction site of Petertoli village. Tractors and trailers carrying stones and boulders were seized in presence of witnesses and seizure list was prepared. The informant Ajay Prasad, Sub-Inspector of Police lodged the FIR for the offence under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code as also under Section 54 of the Jharkhand Minor Minerals Concession Rules against the petitioner herein and another as evident from the certified copy of Palkot P.S. Case No. 5 of 2007 (Annexure-1).

3. Learned Counsel Mr. Nilesh Kumar submitted that the petitioner was admittedly, the driver of the tractor and trailer and he had nothing to do with the stones and boulders except that he was directed to carry it on the instruction of his employer from the place of quarrying to the construction site. FIR was lodged by the Police Officer of the rank of Sub-Inspector, who was not a competent Officer under the Jharkhand Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2004 to launch prosecution against the petitioner and that the Mining Department of the State Government did not make any complaint against the petitioner. Even search and seizure was made illegally by the informant Police Officer. Materials were loaded on the Tractor by the lessee against valid challan and this fact was communicated to the informant but the case was lodged mechanically without verifying the explanation and challan.

4. Learned Counsel exhorted that Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is not attracted against the petitioner which is a general law when the provisions of special law vide the Jharkhand Minor Minerals Concession Rules. 2004 is in force and therefore, when prima facie case was instituted under Section 54 of the Rules, the offence instituted under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner was uncalled for and super addition.

5. Rule 57 of the Jharkhand Minor Minerals Concessions Rules, 2004 clearly speaks:

No court inferior to that of Magistrate of the 1st Class shall try any offence punishable under these Rules and no Court shall take cognizance of any offence under these Rules except upon a complaint made in writing by the competent officers or Deputy Director of Mines or Additional Director of Mines or Director of Mines or any other officer empowered by the Government.

6. Informant, who is admittedly a Sub-Inspector of Police, is not empowered by the Government to lodge a case for the alleged offence under the Jharkhand Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2004.

7. In the instant case, FIR was instituted on 12.1.2007 only against the drivers of the tractors and trailers intercepted by the informant Sub-Inspector of Police and by the time of alleged occurrence Jharkhand Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2004 had already come into force w.e.f. 26th July, 2004.

8. Rule 54(7) of the Jharkhand Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2004 deals with the offence and punishment under the present facts and circumstances of the case as it was alleged that the petitioner-driver had not produce