RANCHI, India, Nov. 6 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Oct. 6:

1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. This revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 23.11.2023, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Garhwa, in Ranka P.S. Case No. 83 of 2022 corresponding to G.R. No. 353 of 2023, whereby the learned court has been pleased to frame the charge under Sections 379 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and Rule-54 of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 against the petitioner, the case is pending before the same court.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the F.I.R. was registered by the District/Assistant Mining Officer, Garhwa as against the persons operating the brick-kiln without mining clearances for the offences under Sections 379 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4/30 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, Rule-54 of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004. He submits that the petitioner has entered into an agreement with Saheb Mahto, Shiv Mahto and Naresh Mahto for renting 4.16 acres of land at Khata No. 86. Plot No. 827 at village Puregada, P.S. Ranka, District Garhwa for a period of 10 years on a consideration amount of Rs. 33,000/- per year for the purpose of establishing brick kiln. He further submits that subsequent thereto the petitioner has established his brick kiln in the said plot of land and he has applied for necessary clearances and thereafter started the production of bricks. He then submits that upon a secret information, the District / Assistant Mining Officer, Garhwa along with the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ranka, Circle Officer, Ranka and Officer-InCharge, Ranka Police Station conducted a raid upon the premises and seized 3.50 lakhs of pucca bricks and 3 lakhs of kachha bricks. He submits that on the basis of written information, the FIR has been registered stating that it has come to the knowledge that the brick kiln belongs to Ashish Agrawal and he was operating the same.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the only law point involved in the present criminal revision is with regard to framing of charge by the learned magistrate on the basis of FIR under the provisions of Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, Rule-54 of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004. By way of referring Section 22 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, he submits that cognizance / charge can only be framed on the basis of complaint, however, in the case in hand, the learned court has been pleased to frame the charge on the basis of police report. To buttress his argument, he relied in the case of Jayant & Ors. Versus State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in (2021) 2 SCC 670 and further in the case of Kanwar Pal Singh Versus State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., reported in (2020) 14 SCC 331.

5. Relying on the above two judgments, he submits that only on the basis of the complaint, the cognizance can be taken and also the charge can be framed. On these grounds, he submits that the part of the order of framing charge so far as Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and Rule-54 of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 are concerned, may kindly be set aside.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=bzPoyUlszYLCUcCpirIpqNCc0kH%2BTOoUy2jXo5ytKMziCzqTEFSeb8xuXBkDzAZ8&caseno=Cr.Rev./119/2024&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010032762024&state_code=7&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.