Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. M.P. No. 1271 of 2012
1. Binod Kumar Bhukania @ Binod Kumar Shoknia
2. Braj Kishore Pandey
3. Pankaj Kumar Giri
4. Asit Kumar Mahanta @ Ajit Kumar Mohanto @ Ajit @ Asit Kumar
Mohanty
5. Md. Siraj
6. Riyaz @ Md. Riyaz
7. Kalandi Charan Mohonta @ Kalindi Charan Mohanty
... ............. Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ............ Opp. Party
......
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.R.PRASAD
......
For the Petitioners : Mr. P.K. Deomani, Advocate
For the State : Mr. APP
......
5./18.02.2013Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the State.
This application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 10.01.2011 passed by the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa in Gua P.S. Case No.15 of 2006 G.R. No.119 of 2006 whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 447/467/468/120B of the Indian Penal Code, Section 4/21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, Sections 37/38/39/40 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and also under Section 3/4 of the S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities ) Act, 1989 has been taken against these petitioners.
Before adverting to the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners, the case of the prosecution needs to be taken notice of.
It is the case of the prosecution that when the informant -a Junior Environment Engineer, Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board along with others, laid a raid over seven premises of crushers units including the petitioners' unit named as Pawan Minerals and found that iron ore was being crushed, without having no objection or consent letter from the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board.
On such allegation, a case was registered under Sections 447/467/468/120B of the Indian Penal Code, Section 4/21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, Sections 37/38/39/40 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and also under Section 3/4 of the S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities ) Act, 1989.
The police, having investigated the case, submitted the charge sheet, upon which, cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 447/467/468/120B of the Indian Penal Code, Section 4/21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, Sections 37/38/39/40 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and also Section 3/4 of the S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities ) Act, 1989 has been taken against these petitioners vide order dated 10.01.2011, which is under challenge.
Mr. P.K. Deomani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the court, has committed illegality in taking cognizance of the offences as aforesaid, as no cognizance could have been taken for contravention of the provision of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, in absence of any complaint being filed by a person authorized by the Central Government or the State Government.
Similarly, the prosecution under the provision of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, cannot be maintained, in absence of complaint being filed by either by the Board or any officer authorized in this behalf.
Here in the instant case, complaint has never been filed rather a first information report has been filed by one Kamla Kant Thakur, Junior Environment Engineer, Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board, who has never been authorized by the Board to lodge the complaint and thereby, the court, has committed illegality in taking cognizance of the offence under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and also under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981.
It was further submitted that there has been no allegation whatsoever, regarding commission of the offence of forgery as well as commission of the offence under Section 3/4 of the S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities ) Act, 1989 and, thereby, the court, has also committed illegality in taking cognizance of the aforesaid offences. Thus, it was submitted that the entire order taking cognizance of the offences, is fit to be quashed.
Counter affidavit though has been filed on behalf of the State, but no statement is there as to whether Junior Environment Engineer has been authorized on behalf of the Board to lodge a complaint for contravention of the provision of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981.
In the context of the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioners, one needs to take notice of the relevant provision of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 as well as Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.
Section 43 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, reads as follows:- [43. Cognizance of the offences.-(1) No court shall take cognizance of any offence under this Act except on a complaint made by-
(a) a Board or any officer authorised in this behalf by it; or
(b) any person who has given notice of not less than sixty days, in the manner prescribed, of the alleged offence and of his intention to make a complaint to the Board or officer authorised as aforesaid, and no court inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence punishable under this Act.
(2) Where a complaint has been made under clause (b) of sub- section (1), the Board shall, on demand by such person, make available the relevant reports in its possession to that person: Provided that the Board may refuse to make any such report available to such person if the same is, in its opinion, against the public interest.] Similarly, Section 22 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 reads as follows:-.
22. Cognizance of offences.- No court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act or any rules made thereunder except upon complaint in writing made by a person authorised in this behalf by the Central Government or the State Government.
From the perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it does appear that only a person authorised by the Central Government or the State Government can lodge the complaint for contravention of the provision of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.
Similarly, person authorised by the Board can be said to be a competent person to lodge the case for contravention of the provision of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981.
Here in the instant case, it has been specific stand of the petitioners that Junior Environment Engineer, has never been authorised by the Board to lodge the case for contravention of the provision of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981.
This has never been denied on behalf of the State.
Similarly, the person, who has lodged the case, is not the competent person to lodge the case for contravention of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and, thereby, the court has committed illegality in taking cognizance of the offences punishable under Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and well as under Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981.
Further the court seems to have committed illegality in taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 447/467/468/120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities ) Act, 1989, as the fact upon which, case has been registered, never discloses about the commission of the offence either under Sections 447/467/468/120B of the Indian Penal Code or under Section 3/4 of the S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities ) Act, 1989 and, thereby the court also seems to have committed illegality in taking cognizance of the aforesaid offences.
Under the circumstances, the order dated 10.01.2011 under which cognizance of the offences as aforesaid, has been taken, is hereby quashed.
In the result, this application stands allowed.
(R.R.Prasad, J) Ravi/-