Patna High Court Quashes FIRs Against Sand Mining Company Over Procedural Irregularities

 


Simplified Explanation of the Judgment

The Patna High Court recently delivered a significant judgment by quashing two FIRs registered against a private sand mining company for alleged illegal sale and transportation of sand worth nearly Rs. 39 crores without valid e-challans.

The FIRs were registered at Daudnagar and Dehri Town Police Stations based on complaints from Mining Officers who relied on data provided by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). The ED, in turn, based their findings on documents seized during Income Tax raids on a different company.

The petitioner, a valid sand settlee in Aurangabad and Rohtas districts from 2015 to 2021, surrendered its lease in April 2021 but continued to store royalty-paid sand under valid K licenses. After lease surrender, the company sought permission to sell the remaining sand, but instead, their licenses were cancelled and FIRs were lodged.

The Court observed that:

  1. Both FIRs were nearly identical and based on the same ED letter, making the second FIR (Dehri Town PS) unsustainable.

  2. There was no independent verification by the Mining Department before lodging the FIRs.

  3. As per Rule 39(3) of the 2019 Bihar Mining Rules (pre-amendment), transporting sand without e-challans was a non-cognizable offence and punishable with a maximum fine of Rs. 10,000.

  4. Criminal prosecution required sanction from the District Collector, which was not obtained.

The Court ruled that since the offence, if any, was non-cognizable and no fraud or deceit (required for IPC sections 420 and 379) was alleged, continuing with criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process.

Significance of the Judgment

This judgment is crucial as it protects legitimate mineral concessionaires from arbitrary criminal prosecution. It reaffirms that regulatory breaches must follow due process, especially when they relate to non-cognizable economic offences. For the government, it signals the need to verify and assess revenue losses through proper administrative channels before launching criminal proceedings.

Legal Issues Decided

  • Whether duplicate FIRs can be filed on the same facts.

  • Applicability of Rule 56 (amended) to violations before its enforcement.

  • Requirement of prior approval from the Collector for prosecution.

  • Whether failure to issue e-challans constitutes a cognizable offence.

Judgments Referred by Parties

  • CBI v. V.C. Shukla, (1998) 3 SCC 410

  • Manohar Lal Sharma v. Union of India, (2017) 11 SCC 731

  • State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335

  • T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181

  • Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. CBI, (2013) 6 SCC 348

  • Tarak Dash Mukharjee v. State of U.P., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2121

Judgment Relied Upon by the Court

  • M/s Harsh Construction v. State of Bihar & Ors, CWJC No. 111 of 2023

Case Title Aditya Multicom Private Limited v. State of Bihar & Others

Case Number Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case Nos. 1597 and 1613 of 2024

Citation(s) 2024(4)PLJR

Coram and Names of Judges Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arvind Singh Chandel

Names of Advocates

  • For the Petitioner: M/s Suraj Samdarshi, Avinash Shekhar, Vijay Shankar Tiwari

  • For the State: Mr. SC XIX & Mr. SC XX

  • For the Mines Department: Mr. Naresh Dixit

Link to the Judgment;

https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTYjMTU5NyMyMDI0IzEjTg==-y4Pf--ak1--5tKhWo=



0 Comments

WhatsApp Call