The legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of specific allegations and evidence against an individual in criminal cases, especially in cases involving a corporate entity, and the statutory requirements for initiating a prosecution under specific Acts.

JUDGMENT

S. Pujahari, J. - This is an application filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the 'Cr.P.C.') seeking for quashing of the Charge- sheet dated 30.03.2012 filed in Balasore Vigilance P.S. Case No.54 of 2009 (VGR Case No.22 of 2011), corresponding to T.R. No.15 of 2012 in the court of the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Keonjhar, the order dated 21.11.2012 passed by the said learned Court taking cognizance of the offences under Sections 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short the 'P.C. Act') and under Sections 420, 379, 120-B of IPC, Section 21 of the MMDR Act, 1957 and Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 against the petitioner and co-accused persons, and the consequential proceedings.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Srimanta Das, the learned Sr. Standing counsel appearing for the Vigilance Department.

3. The F.I.R. in this case appears to have been lodged by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Cell, Cuttack on the basis of a report of joint enquiry/ verification conducted by a Team of the Vigilance Department on 10.11.2009 and 11.11.2009 in respect of Guruda Manganese Mines of M/s. Serajuddin & Co. located at Guruda under Joda Mining Circle, District- Keonjhar on the allegation of illegal mining activities of the aforesaid company. Pursuant to the said report, a case was registered by the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Balasore Division, Balasore, and on completion of investigation, charge-sheet was laid for the offences indicated above against eight accused persons including the present petitioner, who is a Partner of the Mining Leaseholder, namely, M/s. Serajuddin & Co. On the basis of the charge-sheet so submitted, the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Keonjhar has taken cognizance of those offences and issued process to the petitioner and the co-accused persons. Hence, the present application.

4. The petitioner has sought for quashing of the Charge-sheet, the impugned order of cognizance and the consequential proceeding on the grounds, inter-alia, that the very inception of the prosecution is unauthorized, inasmuch the Vigilance Police had no authority to conduct the joint enquiry or verification prior to issuance of the Notification No.IV(A)SM-101/209-307/SM dated 27.01.2010 which devolved limited power on police for the purpose of detection, seizure and search into the alleged Mining activities. Admittedly, the F.I.R. in the present case has been drawn on the basis of the report of the joint physical verification of the Mines in question said to have been conducted on 10.11.2009 and 11.11.2009, i.e., prior to issuance of the aforesaid Notification. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the charge-sheet as submitted against him is also bereft of any factual or legal basis, and that the learned trial Court has passed the impugned order of cognizance without application of judicial mind. The allegation wise counter submissions made by the petitioner vide his application at hand may be broadly outlined as under:-

(i) It is alleged that the Lessee-company, M/s. Serajuddin & Co. extracted and despatched a quantity of 88,079.847 MT and 88,068.345 MT of Manganese Ore respectively, the value of which amounted Rs.104,48,03,145/-, during the period from 1966 to 1973, without any valid mining lease. As against this allegation, it is contended by the petitioner that the State Government had granted the Mining lease in favour of the Lessee-company over an area of 93.1 acres on 16.05.1955 for a period of twenty years, and the said grant for the reasons stated had been revoked on 04.04.1962 on the ground of failure on the part of the Lessee to execute the Mining lease deed within the stipulated time. The Lessee preferred a revision under Section 30 of the MMDR Act before the Central Government challenging the said revocation order, and during pendency of the said revisio