No offence was established against the petitioner under the cited laws as allegations were insufficient, leading to quashing of the F.I.R. and proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. No one turns up on behalf of the respondent- State in spite of repeated calls.

3. This Writ Petition (Cr.) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed with a prayer for quashing of the F.I.R. and the entire criminal proceeding of Rajrappa P.S. Case No.171 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 303 (2), 317 (2), 3 (5) of the B.N.S., 2023 , Section 04/21 of the Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957, Rule 54 of Jharkhand Minor Minerals Concession Rules, and Rule 09/13 of the Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation & Storage)Rules, 2017 which is now pending before the learned S.D.J.M., Ramgarh.

4. The brief facts of the case is that the informant- the District Mining Officer, Ramgarh found two Hywa vehicles being loaded with sand in excess of the amount of sand mentioned in the relevant challan. The only allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner is the owner of M/s. Aditya Enterprises from which the co-accused purchased sand, which was transported with some additional sand, in excess of the quantity of sand mentioned in the relevant challan. It is next submitted that the undisputed fact remains that the petitioner sold the sand as mentioned in the challan and after the vehicles left the premises of the petitioner, the petitioner can no way be held responsible for the excess sand, found loaded in the said vehicle. It is further submitted that the undisputed fact remains that the petitioner, by genuine transaction, has sold respectively 400 cft and 500 cft of sand to M/s. Mahadev Enterprises by two separate challans. It is further submitted that the petitioner is in no way concerned with the ownership of the Hywa vehicle nor is there any allegation against the petitioner of being the owner of the Hywa vehicles concerned. Therefore, the continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioner, will amount to abuse of process of law. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer of the petitioner, as prayed for in the instant Writ Petition (Cr.), be allowed.

5. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the only allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner is the owner of M/s Aditya Enterprises which sold 400 cft and 500 cft of sand respectively; which was to be carried by two vehicles, which were seized by the District Mining Officer. There is no allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner has any connection with the ownership of the vehicles which were carrying the sand. There is also no allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner loaded more sand than the quantity of sand mentioned in the challan; allegedly found loaded in the Hywa vehicles.

6. So far as the offence punishable under Section 303 (2) of the B.N.S., 2023 is concerned, the same relates to punishment for commission of theft. There is no allegation that any commission of theft of sand has been committed by the petitioner. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations, as made against the petitioner in the F.I.R., are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section303 (2) of the B.N.S., 2023 is not made out against the petitioner.

7. So far as the offence punishable under Section 317 (2) of the B.N.S., 2023 is concerned, the same provides punishment for a person dishonestly receiving or retaining any stolen property. Now, as already discussed above, in the absence of any theft having been committed, the question of any stolen property being retained or received by the petitioner does not arise. There is no allegation that the sand which the petitioner sold to the vehicle owners was stolen rather the documents relating to the sand sold by the petition