The main legal point established in the judgment is that offenses falling within the purview of special legislation should be governed by the special law and not under general law.

This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the first information report of Mandu P.S. Case No. 493 of 2008 (G.R. No. 4585 of 2008), instituted under Sections 468 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Rule 9 of the Jharkhand Minerals Transit Challan Regulations, 2005 as well as Section 52 of the Jharkhand Mineral Concessions Rule, 1960 as also under Sections 21 and 23 of The Mines and Minerals (Development And Regulation) Act, 1957.

2. The case of the prosecution is that one Rameshwar Rana Prasad, Assistant Mining Officer, Ramgarh, in course of patrolling and inspection when found coal loaded on 4 trucks without there being transit permit ( FormD) as required under Rule 3 of the Jharkhand Minerals Trnasit Challan Regulations, 2005 an inquiry was made and it could be known that coal had been loaded at Ghato Colliery belonging to TATA. Thus, it has been alleged that accused persons by indulging themselves, in the manner stated above, have put the State Government to a great loss. On the basis of the information given to Mandu police, a case was registered as Mandu P.S. Case No. 493 of 2008 under the offences mentioned above.

3. Institution of the said case was challenged on the ground that Jharkhand Minerals Transit Challan Regulations, 2005 was framed by the State of Jharkhand in exercise of power conferred by Section 23 (C)(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, in order to prevent illegal mining, transportation, storage of minerals and mineral products , whereas clause 9 of the said Regulation does prescribe that whenever any mining lessee transports the minerals raised in his mine without any valid permit or challan, it will be treated as a transgression of the conditions of the lease and provisions of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and also Mineral Concessions Rules, 1960 and Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 and, thereby, would be liable to be prosecuted under the said Acts and the Rules and, thereby, the allegations upon which the case has been lodged do fall within the purview of “Special Legislation” namely, Jharkhand Minerals Transit Challan Regulations, 2005 and Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. The cognizance of which offence can be taken by the Court under Section 22 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 only upon a 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, thereby, the first information report is fit to be quashed.

4. The Court, having regard to the provisions of Clause 9 of the Jharkhand Minerals Transit Challan Regulations, 2005, prescribing penalties for transgression of the conditions of the lease in terms of the Act and the Rules, did come to the conclusion that the allegations do constitute offence under the aforesaid Jharkhand Minerals Transit Challan Regulations, 2005 as well as the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, the special legislation and, thereby, any investigation, inquiry or trial shall be governed, in view of Section 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by the special law and not under general law. In that event, it was held that any prosecution launched by the informant not by way of complaint but by way of information to the police is quite illegal and, thereby, the first information report of Mandu P.S. Case No. 493 of 2008, was set aside vide order dated 16/04/2009.

5. That order was challenged by the State of Jharkhand before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Cr.) No. 7126 of 2010/ Cr. Appeal No. 562 of 2011, which was heard along with other Criminal Appeals bearing Nos. 560/2011 and 561/2011. Their Lordships set aside the order passed by this Court and remanded the matter back for taking a decision afresh in