The judgment establishes the principle that the initiation of a proceeding for an offence under the Mines & Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 does not debar the police from taking action for theft of minerals under the Indian Penal Code.

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

2. This application has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Chakulia (Shyam Sunderpur) P.S. Case No. 22 of 2014, which has been registered for the offences under sections 379 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code as also Rule 4/54 of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004.

3. The prosecution story as would appear from the FIR instituted by the Circle Officer, Chakulia is that in course of inspection, three vehicles bearing registration no. UR 28B-2659, JH05-AA-7749 and U.K. 8268 were found loaded with sand. On being queried, the driver could not produce any valid document to substantiate the transportation of sand.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of the provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the First Information Report could not be registered under Section 379 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code as the special law on the subject i.e. the Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act as well as the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules will override the provisions of the general law. With respect to the institution of the FIR under the provisions of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the informant of the present case is the Circle Officer, Chakulia and he being not an authorized officer as envisaged under the provisions of MMDR Act and the Rules framed thereunder, the FIR so far as it relates to offences under the provisions of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules is concerned, is liable to be quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that Sections 379 & 411 of the Indian Penal Code is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case since none of the ingredients of theft as defined in Section 378 of the Indian Penal Code is fulfilled and therefore he submits that the entire criminal proceedings instituted against the petitioner should not be allowed to continue as continuance of the same would be an abuse of the process of law.

5. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand has submitted that the police is competent enough to register the FIR if it is found that the accused persons have indulged in committing theft of stolen minor minerals and continuance of criminal proceeding under both the special law as well as the general law should not act as a hindrance.

6. After hearing learned counsel for both the sides and on going through the records, I find that three trucks were apprehended which were found loaded with sand and no valid documents were in possession of the drivers so as to indicate genuineness of the transportation of sand. The first information report has been instituted by the police on the basis of a written report given by the Circle Officer, Chakulia and it is to be deduced as to whether the offences for which the first information report has been instituted against the petitioner is tenable in the eyes of law and whether the informant was competent enough to institute the present case both under the provisions of Indian Penal Code as well as under the provisions of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules.

7. In this connection, reference may be made to Section 22 of the Mines & Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, which reads thus:-

“22 Cognizance of offences.-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.

8. Rule 57 of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules lays down the persons authorised to file a complaint under the provisions of this Rule.

9. The present case has been instituted by the Circle Officer, Chakulia, who according to the statements made in this application, did not have any jurisdiction t