JUDGMENT :

VIVEK AGARWAL, J.

1. Sri. A.K.S. Bais, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri. Vikas Goswami, learned AGA for the State.

2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant- Abdul Rashid seeking quashing of the entire proceedings of the Criminal Case No. 2927 of 2020 (State vs. Saleem and Another) arising out of impugned charge sheet dated 17.02.2020 submitted in Case Crime No. 17/2020, under Section 379, 411 IPC and 2/3, Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, Police Station Chilkana, District Saharanpur.

3. Applicant has also challenged the impugned order of cognizance dated 20.07.2020 passed by learned A.C.J.M. 1st, Saharanpur on two grounds, namely, as per the provisions contained in Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, it is submitted that where an act or omission constitutes an offence under two or more enactments, then the offender shall be liable to be prosecuted and punished under either of any of those enactments but shall not be liable to be punished twice for the same offence.

4. It is further submitted that there are elaborate provisions under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 for instituting a complaint in the matter of illegal mining and, therefore, present case originating from an FIR needs to be quashed.

5. Sri. Vikas Goswami, learned AGA, in his turn, submits that provisions of Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 will not be applicable at this juncture inasmuch as applicant is not being punished under several acts but right now trial has to take place which will determine culpability of the applicant and, thereafter, at the time of sentencing, this provision can be invoked and be brought to the notice of the concerned court so to enlighten it to not to punish the delinquent under more than one enactments.

6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, as far as the provisions of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 are concerned, it is for the authorities to choose whether they want to proceed against the provisions of General Law or under Special Law or under both. For the present, when prosecution has decided to prosecute the accused under the provisions of General Law, then that can also be not faulted with in the light of the provisions contained in Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.

7. Before embarking upon the applicability of provisions of Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, it will be appropriate to refer to certain important provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.

8. Section 21 deals with penalties. It reads as under:-

“Penalties:

(1) Whoever contravenes the provisions of sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A) of section 4 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees per hectare of the area.

(2) Any rule made under any provision of this Act may provide that any contravention thereof shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two year, or with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees, or with both, and in the case of a continuing contravention, with additional fine which may extend to fifty thousand rupees for every day during which such contravention continues after conviction for the first such contravention.

(3) Where any person trespasses into any land in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 4, such trespasser may be served with an order of eviction by the State Government or any authority authorised in this behalf by that Government and the State Government or such authorised authority may, if necessary, obtain the help of the police to evict the trespasser from the land.

(4) Whenever any person raises, transports or causes to be raised or transported, without any lawful authority, any mineral from any land, and, for that purpose, uses any tool, equipment, vehicle or any other thing, such mineral tool, equ