The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of penal provisions under the special legislation, which influenced the jurisdiction and governance of the prosecution.

This application had been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the first information report of Gua P.S. Case No. 22 of 2008, instituted under Sections 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 8/9 of the Jharkhand Mineral Dealer's Rules, 2007 read with The Mines and Minerals (Development And Regulation) Act, 1957.

2. 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 as well as SubInspector of Police of Barajamda out post near Central Hospital, Barajamda and found iron ore fines/blue dust stored at NoamundiBarajamda road. On inquiry, 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 Barajamda through transport permit never permitted storage at Barajamda nor any one had been given license under the Jharkhand Mineral Dealer's Rule, 2007 for storage of the iron ores at the place where it was found. However, it could be found that different quantity of iron ores had been stored there by the transporters, namely, S.M.Carrier, KolkataJaipur Parivahan Pvt. Ltd, A.M. Logistics Pvt. Ltd and thus, those accused persons by contravening provision of the aforesaid rules committed offence under Rule 8 and 9 of the Jharkhand Mineral Dealer's Rules, 2007 read with Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 as well as under the Indian Penal Code.

On the basis of the information given to the Gua police, a case was registered as Gua P.S. Case No. 22 of 2008 under Sections 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Rules 8 & 9 of the Jharkhand Mineral Dealer's Rules read with Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act.

3. Institution of the said case was challenged on the ground that Jharkhand Mineral Dealer's Rules, 2007 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 regulate mining, transportation and storage of minerals and minerals products and further Rules 3 & 6 prohibit any person from engaging himself in any transaction of buying and selling any minerals without being registered and from transporting any minerals without obtaining transport Challans, contravention of which is punishable under Rule 8 and, thereby, the allegations upon which the case was lodged, do fall within the purview of special legislation namely Jharkhand Mineral Dealer's Rules, 2007 and the 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 Rule 8 of Jharkhand Mineral Dealer's Rules 2007, prescribing penalties for contravention of the provisionss relating to the sell, purchase and storage, did come to the conclusion that the allegations do constitute offence under the said Rules 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 the 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 Gua P.S. Case No. 22 of 2008, was set aside vide order dated 16/04/2009.

5. That order was challe