Gajpal Bhatt vs State of Uttaranchal

Dharam Veer, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record.

By means of this application, the applicant has prayed to quash the order dated 1.6.2004 passed by the CJM, Rudraprayag in Criminal Case No. 644 of 2004, State v. Gajpal Bhatt and judgment and order dated 20.7.2004 passed by the Sessions Judge, Rudraprayag in Crl. Revision No. 21 of 2004, Gajpal Bhatt v. State.

In brief the facts of the case are that an FIR was lodged on 9.11.2003 at PS Ukhimath, Distt. Rudraprayag with the averments that on the information of an informant, when the police rushed to the river of Mandakini on 8.11.2003 at 9:40 PM, some labourers were found loading the stand in the truck without any licence for doing so and when the police tried to arrest the labouers, then they along with the driver of the Truck fled away from the spot taking advantage of darkness. On the basis of this, a case crime No. 422/2003 u/s 379/411 IPC and 3/57 of the U.P. Minor Minerals [Concession] Rules, 1963 (hereinafter to be referred as the Rules) {wrongly written as Minor Mineral Concession Act}. After completing the investigation, the I.O. submitted the charge sheet against the petitioner u/s 379/411 IPC and 3/57 of the Rules, on which the learned Magistrate took cognizance on 12.4.2004 and directed for registration of case against the petitioner. Thereafter the case was fixed on 1.6.2004 for framing the charges against the petitioner against which the petitioner filed his objection, which was rejected vide order dated 1.6.2004 passed by CJM, Rudraprayag. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a revision before the Sessions Judge, who too vide order dated 20.7.2004 dismissed the same and affirmed the order passed by the trial court. Assailing those orders, the instant petition has been preferred.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that if the charge u/s 3/57 of the Rules is framed, in that case, framing of charge u/s 379/411 IPC is irrelevant. I do not find any force in this argument for the reason that on 8.11.2003 when the said Truck was caught by the police party, the sand was found being loaded in the said Truck for which the petitioner was having no valid mining lease or mining permit. Since this mining work has been performed on the government property, as such this act committed by the petitioner comes within the definition of Mining Operation. Thus, it is proved that the petitioner dishonestly committed theft of the sand after deriving it out from the government property and as such the offence punishable u/s 379 IPC is proved. The mining work can only be permitted only after obtaining the prior mining lease or mining permit for the same and that too, after depositing the required royalty. The punishment for violation has been provided u/s 57 of the Rules i.e. taking out the mines and minerals from the riverbed without paying the prescribed royalty to the government. But so far as the question of recovery of mines and minerals is concerned, just after the minerals are taken away from the river, Section 411 IPC comes into picture. The nature of the offence on the one hand violates the provisions of the Rules of 1963 while on the other hand, it is the violation of provisions of Sections 379/411 IPC. In view of the above discussion, I find that the trial court has rightly rejected the objection filed by the petitioner and the revisional court, too was justified in affirming the order passed by the trial court.

At this stage, I do no find any illegality or impropriety in the impugned judgments passed by the courts below. Therefore, the application C482 is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. Interim order dated 16.11.2004 is vacated.