IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.22626 of 2005 UDAY SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 04/ 09-07-2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 5.6.2002 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas in Official Case No. 28 of 2002 whereby and whereunder he has taken cognizance against the petitioner for offences under Rules 40 and 41 of Bihar Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1972 (in short as the ‘Rules’) and Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. Shortly stated the prosecution case is that complainant- opposite party no. 2 Triveni Das filed Official Complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram with the allegation that Sachida Nand Singh, Mining Inspector, Rohtas on 24.5.2002 inspected the premises of the petitioner and found that he was stocking stone materials in violation of the Rule 49 and stock of 9000 c.ft. was found at the site. On receipt of the Official Complaint the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by order dated 5.6.2002 took cognizance against the petitioner under Rules 40 and 41 of the Minings Rules and Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. Against the said order dated 5.6.2002 the petitioner has preferred the present application for quashing. Learned counsel submitted that there is no allegation that the petitioner had committed theft of the stones. There is also no 2 allegation that he was ever seen disposing of the same by any body. He submitted that the storage of the stones at the site would not constitute any offence. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner is a lease holder and the lease was executed in his favour on 20.4.2001. In this connection he referred to Annexure-2 to the application. He further submitted that no plot no. or khata no. has been mentioned in the prosecution report or the inspection note of the Mining Inspector. Learned counsel pointed out that in several other cases of similar nature this Court has quashed the order of cognizance. In this connection he referred to the order dated 20.12.2005 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 22902 of 2004 by this Court. Thus the position is that the petitioner is a lease holder. In the prosecution report the khata and plot no. of the premises of the petitioner has not been mentioned. There is no evidence of sale and purchase against him. The mere storage of the stones would not constitute any offence. The inspection note and prosecution report are in printed form and their columns have not been filled up properly. The allegation appears to be vague. Rule 41 describes the offence as cognizable whereas Rule 40 provides penalty for unauthorized extraction and removal of minor minerals. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this application is allowed and the order of cognizance dated 5.6.2002 against the petitioner is hereby quashed. S.Sb/- (Madhavendra Saran, J.)