Point of law: As per the provisions contained in section 22 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957, The Magistrate can not take cognizance for the offence under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957 on the police report/charge-sheet under Section 173 of The Criminal Procedure Code, but can taken cognizance for the offence under Indian Penal Code, if any on the basis of same police report without awaiting the receipt of complaint that can be filed by the offcer concerned for taking cognizance regarding contravention of provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957

Headnote:
Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 – Section 22 – Code of Criminal Procedure – Sections 482 – Indian Penal Code – Sections 147, 148, 149, 336, 353, 307, 379 – Constitution of India – Article 20(2) –Foreign Exchange Regulation Act – Section 23 – Sea Customs Act – Section 167(8) – General Clauses Act, 1897 – Section 26 – Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 – Charge Sheet Issue – Cognizance – Whether a person can be prosecuted simultaneously for one set of offence under two or more different acts –
Facts of the case : Whether prosecution of accused for the offence under Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act as well as under Indian Penal Code, on the basis of police report (charge-sheet) is barred by Section 22 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act – Whether in absence of filing of complaint, the Magistrate can take cognizance on police report (charge-sheet) submitted for the offence under Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act as well as under Indian Penal Code.
Finding of the court:
Court is of the view that so far the cognizance taken by the Judicial Magistrate concerned on the impugned charge-sheet for the offences under the Indian Penal Code is concerned, it cannot be said to be illegal and without authority, but so far as the cognizance taken for the offence under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act on the impugned charge-sheet is concerned, the same is not liable to be sustained in the eyes of law on account of categorical bar contained in Section 22 of the the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957 – Accordingly further proceeding of criminal case pursuant to impugned charge-sheet arising out of case so far as offence under section 4/21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act only is hereby quashed with liberty to the prosecution/officer concerned to file complaint against the applicants under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act – It is made clear that so far as order taking cognizance under Sections 147, 148, 149, 336, 353, 307, and 379 under Indian Penal Code are concerned, that has not been interfered by this Court and the concerned court below is at liberty to proceed in accordance with law against the applicants pursuant to charge-sheet.
Result: Order Accordingly

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Kumar Singh, J.

Heard Mr. S.M. Faraz I. Kazmi, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. N.D. Rai, Mr. Ravindra Kumar Singh, Mr. Ravi Prakash Bhatt, learned Additional Government Advocates appearing on behalf of opposite party No. 1/State of U.P. and perused the record with the assistance of learned counsels for the parties.

Relief sought for :-

2. By means of this application under sections 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing of the charge sheet No. 357-A of 2017 dated 14.4.2018, cognizance order dated 24.12.2018 as well as entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1520 of 2018 (State vs. Sarvar @ Babar and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 461 of 2017, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 336, 353, 307, 379 IPC and Section 4/21 Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, Police Station Behat, District Saharanpur pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate-III, court No. 20, Saharanpur mainly on the ground that Section 22 of the Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as MMDR Act) prohibits registration of FIR and cognizance on police report with regard to offence punishable under said Act 1957.

3. Since pure legal issues are involved in this case and the facts as emerges on record are not disputed,therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the instant case is being decided at the admission stage itself without calling counter affidavit.

Issues:-

4. The principal issues, which arise for consideration by this Court are as follows :-

(i). Whether Section 22 of the Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred as MMDR Act) prohibits registration of FIR?

(ii). Whether a person can be prosecuted simultaneously for one set of offence under two or more different acts?

(iii). Whether prosecution of accused for the offence under Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 as well as under Indian Penal Code, on the basis of police report (charge-sheet) is barred by Section 22 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 ?

(iv). Whether in absence of filing of complaint, the Magistrate can take cognizance on police report (charge-sheet) submitted for the offence under Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 as well as under Indian Penal Code ?

Basic Facts:-

5. Filtering out unnecessary details, the brief facts as per prosecution case, as emerges on record are that the opposite party No. 2 (Mahendrapal, Station Officer, Police Station Behat, District- Saharanpur) lodged first information report on 4.10.2017 registered as Case Crime No. 461 of 2017, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 336, 353, 307, 379 IPC and Section 4/21 Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, at Police Station Behat, District-Saharanpur against five named accused persons, namely, Sarvar, Sonu, Banta, Anil, Jagdish and sixty to seventy unknown persons alleging inter-alia that on 04.10.2007 he along with constable Dipendra Singh and driver Jhalak Singh were on patrolling duty. When they reached towards bank of Yamuna river, they saw that some people were doing illegal mining of sand by J.C.B. machine and some tractor trolley, dumper, etc loaded with minerals were also standing at the spot. In the meantime Khadak Singh, Platoon Commander of P.A.C. alongwith his team also reached at the spot. On giving warning people present there with common aim and object started pelting stones and also opened fire by country made pistol at the police personnel. Any how police personnel saved their life . On firing by the police personnel in their self defence, they escaped towards Haryana along with their J.C.B. Tractor trolly and dumper. The Investigating Officer after investigation submitted two charge sheets in this case. First charge sheet No. 357 of 2017 was filed on 12.12.2017 against seven accused persons namely Nawab, Gurmeet, Sompal, Vi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2019 Supreme(All) 2521

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABADSANJAY KUMAR SINGH, J.Imran And Others — AppellantVersusState of U.P. And another — RespondentApplication U/S 482 No. 16700 of 2019Decided on : 10-07-2019

Cases Referred (14)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SANJAY KUMAR SINGH, J.
Imran And Others — Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. And another — Respondent
Application U/S 482 No. 16700 of 2019
Decided on : 10-07-2019