H.C. Mishra, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

2. The petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 11.11.2003 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gumla, in G.R. No. 586 of 1999, arising out of Bishunpur P.S. Case No. 31 of 1999, whereby the application filed by the petitioners u/s 239 of the Cr.P.C., for discharge, has been rejected by the Court below.

3. The petitioners have been made accused in Bishunpur P.S. Case No. 31 of 1999, corresponding to G.R. No. 586 of 1999 for the offences u/ss. 409 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code on the written application filed by the Assistant Mining Officer, Gumla, wherein it is alleged that the petitioner No. 1, Tara Chand Sachdeva, is the Managing Director of M/s. Rajhans Refractories (P) Ltd. and the other petitioners are the Directors therein. Said Rajhans Refractories (P) Ltd. was granted mining lease over an area of 159.67 acres in Amtipani, for mining of Bauxite, with the condition that they would furnish correct statistics regarding the mining of the Bauxite done by them on the lease hold area and they would pay proper tax (royalty) to the State Government. It is further alleged that M/s. Rajhans Refractories (P) Ltd., appointed M/s. Allied Minerals Company, Dhanbad, as their Marketing Agent and through them they used to sell the Bauxite to M/s. Hindalco Industries Limited, Lohardagga. It appears from the F.I.R., that the partners in M/s. Allied Minerals Company are the petitioners Nos. 2 to 4 themselves. It is further alleged that during the period 1994-1995, 1997-1998 and 1998-1999, as per the return furnished by M/s. Rajhans Refractories (P) Ltd., the mining of the Bauxite was done to the tune of 31,708.945 MT, whereas during the same period the books of M/s. Hindalco Industries Limited, Lohardagga, showed the purchase of 60,324.19 MT of Bauxite through M/s. Allied Minerals Company. As such the sale of 28,615.245 MT of Bauxite valued at Rs.34,32,530/-on which the tax (royalty) of Rs.10,82,841.40/-was payable, was concealed from the State Government. Out of the said amount, Rs.4,40,000/-of the accused persons was lying with M/s. Hindalco Industries Limited, which had been realized. It further appears from the F.I.R., that there is allegation that the petitioners had concealed the Government property and tax worth Rs.45,15,371.40/-and accordingly, the F.I.R. was lodged for the offences u/ss. 409 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners.

4. It appears that upon investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet against the petitioners and cognizance was also taken against them. Subsequently, the petitioners filed the application for discharge, which was rejected by the Court below by the impugned order dated 11.11.2003 as aforementioned.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. It has also been submitted that for realisation of the alleged dues from the petitioners a separate proceeding has been instituted. It is further submitted that on the basis of the allegations made in the F.I.R., the offence is clearly made out under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, (herein after referred to as the ‘Act’), which is the special statute governing the subject matter and Section 22 of the said Act clearly lays down that “No Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act or any rules made thereunder except upon complaint in writing made by a person authorized in this behalf by the Central Government or the State Government.” Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that the Act clearly bars cognizance except on a complaint filed before the Magistrate and as such, the present case which has been instituted on the basis of the F.I.R. is fit to be quashed. In this connection learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in Narayan Mahto @ Narayan Chandra Ma