The principle of double jeopardy does not bar subsequent trial, prosecution, and punishment if the ingredients of the two offences are distinct, and the provisions of different laws operate in different fields.

JUDGMENT

Virender Singh, J. - The petitioners have invoked the inherent powers of this Court conferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the aforementioned FIRs registered against them for illegal mining/transportation of sand.

2. As common question of law is involved in all these petitions, therefore, they are heard together and are being decided by this common order.

3. The question involved is whether even after compounding the case of illegal mining of minerals like sand/stone/yellow soil etc. by the competent authority, the wrongdoer can be prosecuted again for the same act done in respect of the same mineral under the penal provisions of several other statues making mining/transportation/storage of minor mineral without permit/license illegal e.g. Section 379, 414 IPC, Rule 18, M.P. Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2006 (for brevity hereinafter referred to as Rules, 2006), Section 4/21, The Mines & Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as MMDR, Act) and Section 247(7) M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959?

4. Facts giving rise to the present petitions, in brief, are that on a surprise inspection on the dates mentioned in the table above, the respective Mining Inspectors checked the tractor-trolleys of the petitioners along with the minor mineral (sand/stone/yellow soil etc.) loaded in them. They handed over the tractor-trolleys to the concerned police stations to keep them in safe custody. Finding the petitioners indulged in illegal mining/transportation of those minor mineral, they prepared their respective cases under Rule 53, M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 and submitted them before the Mining Officer with a proposal of compounding the same for the amount calculated according to the concerned Rules (M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996). The concerned Mining Officers submitted those cases before the Collector, who approved the proposal. The violators accepted the decision and deposited the amounts determined by the Collector for compounding the case. Their tractor-trolleys along with the minerals, which were illegally excavated/transported, were released.

5. After some time; a news was published in a daily news paper. The Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Mandsaur took suo-moto cognizance and called for a report regarding the cases registered and compounded during the period April, 2019 to October, 2019, from Mining Officer, Mandsaur. As per report submitted, 157 cases of illegal transportation, 19 cases of illegal excavation and 14 cases of illegal storage of sand; total 190 cases of illegal mining between the period started from April, 2019 up to the period ended on 16th October; 2019 were registered and in all these cases, adopting the same procedure, the violation was compounded and after taking the compounding fee, all the cases were closed. Neither any action under any other enactment, making the act punishable was proposed nor was taken against any perpetrator. The learned JMFC considered it illegal and vide impugned order dated 23.10.2019, directed the police to register FIRs under Section 379, 414 IPC, Rule 18, M.P. Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2006, Section 4/21, The Mines & Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and Section 247(7) M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 in addition to the action already taken under Rule 53, M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996, Rule 23, M.P. Sand Rules, 2018, Rule 20 M.P. Sand Rules, 2019 against the persons, whose cases were falling under his territorial jurisdiction and investigate the same (6+61 cases of illegal excavation/ transportation).

6. At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner asserted that the impugned order as well as their prosecution is contrary to the law, blatantly against the principle of 'double jeopardy' and infringes their right of not to be prosecuted again for the same act of violation allegedly committed by them, for which they have al