IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.12553 of 2005 SHEO KUMAR SAW & ORS Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 8 04-07-2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 6.6.2002 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram in official Complaint case no. 49/02 whereby and where under he has taken cognizance u/ss 40 and 41 of the Mining Act and 379 of the Penal Code. Shortly stated the case of the prosecution is that on 6.6.2002 O. P. no.2. who is Assistant Mining Officer, Rohtas at Sasaram, filed complaint case before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sasaram alleging therein that Shri Sachidanand Singh, who is Mining Inspector, on 29.5.2002 inspected the premises of the petitioners and found that they had illegally stored the mining stone after crushing it without obtaining valid permission under Rule 49 of Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rule, 1972. Thus, it is said that they have violated the above rules and are guilty for the alleged offences. Learned counsel submitted that the Mining Inspector never inspected the premises of the petitioners as alleged in the report and the whole report against the petitioners has been prepared by him at his residence in collusion and conspiracy with Assistant Mining Officer, Rohtas at Sasaram. He further submitted that in similar nature of cases in respect of other accused persons cognizance by the - 2 - Magistrate has been quashed by this court in Cr. Misc. no. 21512/2002 as well as in Cr. Misc. no. 29071/2005. Examined the prosecution report as well as other materials available on the record. Also perused the order dated 3.3.2005 passed in Cr. Misc. no. 21512/02 (annexure-3 to the application). It appears that prosecution report has been lodged without making any seizure of the stone chips at the spot. There is only allegation of storage of stone chips by the petitioners at their respective premises. There is no allegation in the prosecution report that the storage was for the purpose of sale nor such report indicates the allegation of theft of mineral constituting offence u/s 379 of the Penal Code. In face of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and also in view of decision of this court given in Cr. Misc. no. 21512/2002 this court finds that impugned order of cognizance cannot be sustained in the eye of law. This application is, accordingly, allowed and impugned order of cognizance dated 6.6.2002 against the petitioners is hereby quashed. BKS/ (M. Saran,J.)