Patna High Court
Anil Sah vs The State Of Bihar on 20 January, 2025
Author: Jitendra Kumar
Bench: Jitendra Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.34709 of 2016
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-66 Year-2009 Thana- SAHODARA District- West Champaran
======================================================
1. Anil Sah Son of Late Lagan Sah, resident of Village- Turkauliya, Police
Station- Matiyaria, District- West Champaran.
2. Bijay Prasad son of Shivji Sah, resident of Village- Bhelwa, Police Station-
Gaunaha, District- West Champaran.
3. Guddu Sahani Son of Sitaram Sahni, resident of Village- Bhelwa, Police
Station- Gaunaha, District- West Champaran.
4. Madan Sah Son of Hiraman Sah, resident of Village- Barwa, Police Station-
Sahodra, District- West Champaran.
5. Hal Babu Son of Mumtaz Ahmad, resident of Village- Maheshpur, Police
Station- Sikarpur, District- West Champaran.
6. Rajiv Kumar Yadav son of Ramesh Yadav, resident of Village Paraun, Police
Station- Sahodra, District- West Champararn.
7. Raju Prasad Chaurasiya, son of Rajendra Bhagat, resident of Village- D.K
Sikarpur, Police Station- Sikarpur, District- West Champaran.
8. Vaidya Nath Sah son of Late Nathuni Sah Resident of Village- Dhanauji
Balua, Police Station- Sahodra, District- West Champaran.
9. Shankar Sah Son of Dukhi Sah, resident of Belbagicha, Police Station-
Sikarpur, District- West Champaran.
10. Dharmendra Sah @ Dharmnath Sah Son of Nathuni Sah, resident of Village-
Balua Dhanauji, Police Station- Sahodra, District- West Champaran.
11. Nandlal Sah Son of Nagina Sah, resident of Village- Lachhnauta, Police
Station- Gaunaha, District- West Champaran.
12. Khublal Sah @ Rabbu Lal Sah, Son of Nagina Sah, resident of Village-
Lachhnauta, Police Station- Gaunaha, District- West Champaran.
13. Munna Sah son of Khublal Sah, resident of Village- Lachhnauta, Police
Station- Gaunaha, District- West Champaran.
14. Shivji Prasad son of Ram Prasad Sah, Resident of Village- Belwa, Police
Station- Gaunaha, District- West Champaran.
15. Umesh Sharma Son of Madan Thakur, resident of Village- Majhariya, Police
Station- Gaunaha, District- West Champaran.
16. Sainullah Mian son of Mohan Mian, resident of Village- Dewar, Police
Station- Sahodra, District- West Champaran.
17. Dhrup Bihari Mahto @ Dhrup Mahto son of Late Chokat Mahto, resident of
Village- Bethaniya, Police Station- Sahodra, Post -Jamuniya, District- West
Champaran.
18. Om Prakash Chaurasiya, son of Late Sadari Bhagat, resident of Mohalla
Masjid Road, Narkatiyaganj, Ward NO. 15, Police Station- Narkatiyaganj,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34709 of 2016 dt.20-01-2025
2/7
District- West Champaran.
19. Rajan Kumar Son of Bhutkun Mahto, resident of Village- Majhauliya Babu
Colony, Police Station- Majhauliya, District- West Champaran.
... ... Petitioners
Versus
The State Of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Chandra Sen Prasad Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 20-01-2025
The present petition, under Section 482 Cr.PC, has
been preferred by the petitioners for quashing and setting aside
the impugned order dated 02.05.2013, passed by learned C.J.M.,
West Champaran at Bettiah in Sahodra P.S. Case No. 66 of 2009
(G.R. No. 2715 of 2009), whereby learned C.J.M. has taken
cognizance against the petitioners of the offence punishable
under Sections 379 and 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code and Sections 33 and 41 of the Indian Forest Act and
Sections 4(1) and 40(10) of Bihar Minor Mineral Concession
Rules, 1972.
2. The prosecution case as per the FIR is that Mining
Inspector, District Mining office, West Champaran at Bettiah
seized 20 vehicles loaded with soil and stone and the same were
handed over to the Police Station along with written report for
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34709 of 2016 dt.20-01-2025
3/7
lodging the FIR. The vehicles belong to the petitioners and
released to them by the confiscation authorities under the Forest
Act.
3. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted
against the accused persons and thereafter, cognizance was
taken against the petitioners by learned C.J.M. by the impugned
order.
4. I heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned APP for the State.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this
case. He further submits that the alleged vehicles were not
found to be transporting any mineral. They were standing in
front of the houses of their owners. He further submits that all
the vehicles have been also got released by Confiscating
Authority in favour of the petitioners, finding no commission of
the offence under the Indian Forest Act. He further submits that
the falsity of the case emerges from the fact that some of the
vehicles shown to be loaded with minor minerals were not
attached with engines. As such, there is no question of
transporting alleged minor minerals. He further submits that as a
matter of fact, all the vehicles were standing in front of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34709 of 2016 dt.20-01-2025
4/7
houses of the petitioners and no offence has been committed by
them. He further claims that in fact, there was nothing loaded in
the alleged vehicles. He further submits that under the Bihar
Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1972, prosecution can be
initiated only by lodging complaint by the competent authority.
Hence, FIR is not maintainable and liable to be quashed.
6. However, learned APP for the State defends the
impugned order submitting that there is no illegality or infirmity
in it and the present petition is liable to be dismissed. He further
submits that as per the uncontroverted allegation made in the
FIR, the offences as taken cognizance of by the impugned order,
are clearly made out. He further submits that the prosecution
can be initiated under IPC and Indian Forest Act even by
lodging FIR or even under the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession
Rules, 1972. The proceeding cannot be quashed only on account
of FIR to have been filed by the competent authority.
7. I considered the submissions advanced by both the
parties and perused the materials on record.
8. I find that, the allegedly seized soil and stone come
under the definition of minor minerals. Hence, the alleged acts
of the accused persons are to be governed by Bihar Minor
Mineral Concession Rules, 1972. Rule 4 prohibits mining
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34709 of 2016 dt.20-01-2025
5/7
operation without permit or mining lease, whereas Rule 40
provides for penalty for unauthorized extraction and removal of
minor minerals. Rule 41 provides that no Court can take
cognizance of any offence under the Rules except upon a
complaint made in writing by the competent officer or Deputy
Director of Mines or Additional Director of Mines or Director of
Mines or any other officer empowered by the Government.
9. In the alleged facts and circumstances, I find that
there is no allegation of illegal mining by the petitioners, nor
were they found to be transporting the alleged minor minerals. It
also appears that all the vehicles were in standing position
loaded with alleged minor minerals. As such, no offence is made
out under the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1972.
10. However, as per the uncontroverted allegation of
the prosecution, they have been found in possession of minor
minerals without any documents in support of such illegal
possession. But there is no allegation of theft of these minerals
by the petitioners. In such situation, the seized minor minerals
may be treated as stolen property. Hence, offence punishable
under Section 414 IPC is made out against the petitioners.
11. Moreover, in view of Section 41 of the Bihar
Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1972, prosecution for any
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34709 of 2016 dt.20-01-2025
6/7
offence under the Rules can be initiated only by filing complaint
by the competent authority. Hence, any cognizance of offence
punishable under the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules,
1972 is not sustainable in the eye of law. However, as per the
uncontroverted alleged facts and circumstances, Section 414 of
IPC is attracted against the petitioners.
12. As far as application of Sections 33 and 41 of the
Indian Forest Act is concerned, as per the facts and
circumstances, the petitioners were not found quarrying any
stone or soil from the forest area. The Confiscating Authority,
under the Forest Act, has clearly held that no offence has been
committed by them in the forest area and hence, he has released
the vehicles in question in favour of the petitioners. Hence, no
penal provisions of the Forest Act are attracted as per the
alleged facts and circumstances of the case.
13. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
I find that prima facie case is made out only under Section 414
IPC against the petitioners for which prosecution may be
initiated by lodging FIR.
14. The plea of learned counsel for the petitioners that
the vehicles were not loaded with any minerals whatsoever,
cannot be considered at this stage.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34709 of 2016 dt.20-01-2025
7/7
15. Accordingly, the present petition is partly allowed,
modifying the impugned order to the effect that prima facie
offence only under Section 414 of IPC is made out against the
petitioners.
16. The petitioners are at liberty to raise their plea of
defence during trial.
(Jitendra Kumar, J.)
shoaib/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 22.01.2025. Transmission Date 22.01.2025.
[ad_1]
Source link