The judgment establishes the requirement of obtaining a valid lease or license for mining operations under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, and emphasizes the authority of the authorized officer to make a complaint leading to the registration of a petition FIR.

JUDGMENT

Sureshwar Thakur, J. (Oral) - In FIR No.77 of 06.09.2010, registered at Police Station Sohana, District Mohali, the present petitioner is alleged to make illegal mining of minor minerals at Bhagomajra, near village Bairampur.

2. The FIR was lodged on anvil of a complaint made to the police, by Mining Officer of the area concerned, with allegations therein, that the petitioner herein is visiting breaches, upon Section 3 of The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Mines Act') inasmuch as, his lifting earth from his land, and, hence his also making consequent breaches qua Section 4(1) of the Mines Act.

3. After completion of investigations into the petition FIR, the learned trial Judge concerned, after issuance of summons, upon the present petitioner, rather successfully ensuring the personal appearance before him of the petitioner herein. However, at the pre-charge stage, he moved an application, seeking relief for his being discharged of the petition offences. However, the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned, through an order made thereons, on 20.07.2016, dismissed the apposite application claiming therein, relief qua the petitioner herein being discharged of the petition offences.

4. The petitioner became aggrieved therefrom, and, proceeded to constitute a challenge thereto, through his instituting criminal revision petition No.24/12.08.2016, before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar, Mohali. The above criminal revision petition became decided, on 10.04.2017. Upon the above criminal revision petition, the learned Revisional Court after affirming the verdict, as initially made by the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned, obviously dismissed the above criminal revision petition.

5. The petitioner becomes aggrieved from the afore concurrently made verdicts of dismissal, as, made upon his discharge application, therefore, he is led to institute thereagainst the instant petition, cast under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

6. The learned State counsel has vehemently argued before this Court, that the concurrent orders, as made against the petitioner herein, by both the learned Courts below, are not ingrained with any inherent vice. Therefore, he argues that the concurrent verdicts, as drawn by both the learned Courts below, upon the petitioner's application for discharge, do not merit any interference.

7. Since during the pendency of the instant petition before this Court, there was a direction, made upon, the learned trial Judge concerned, to not draw any further proceedings, upon the petition FIR, thereupon no evidence yet has been adduced by the prosecution, upon the charges, as became framed by the learned trial Judge concerned, for an offence punishable under Section 21(1)(2) of the Mines Act.

8. A reading of the reply filed to the instant petition, at the instance of the respondent, discloses, that the petitioner herein had removed ordinary earth from his land, and, that he had hence breached the mandate of Section 4(1) of the Mines Act. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued, that since Annexure P-3 appended with the petition, makes candid echoings, that when the Inspecting Officer, made an inspection of the site concerned, it becoming detected, that at the site, the land is level, and, also no mining activity apparently taking place at the site concerned. Furthermore, since it is also echoed therein, that when the visit was made to the site concerned, rather wheat crop being seen to be sown thereons. Moreover, when it is also clear from a reading of Annexure P-5, that the SHO of the Police Station concerned, had made a proposal to his superiors, for the filing of a cancellation report in respect of the petition FIR.

9. Therefore, on the basis of the above annexures, the learned counsel for the petitioner argues, that prima-facie the allegations made in the petition FIR are false, and/or, are contrived, and, thereupon the concurrent dismiss