Case Background
The dispute arose from sand mining operations at Ramdihra Sand Ghat in Rohtas district, Bihar.
M/s Aditya Multicom Private Limited was the settlee of sand ghats in Rohtas and Aurangabad districts. The company had obtained the settlement for five years under a work order issued by the Department of Mines and Geology through letter no. 28 dated 23.01.2015, after being the highest bidder pursuant to a tender notice dated 08.01.2015.
Petitioner no. 1 in the writ case was the company itself. Petitioner no. 2 was its Chief Executive Officer.
On 06.01.2016, officials conducted a drive to check vehicles allegedly overloaded with sand near Ramdihra Sand Ghat under Rohtas (Amjhor) Police Station. On 07.01.2017, the Assistant Director, Mines and Geology, Rohtas (respondent no. 5) submitted a written report to the Officer-in-Charge, Rohtas (Amjhor) Police Station.
In that report, it was alleged that 59 trucks were found carrying sand in quantities much higher than what was permissible or what was shown on their challans. It was also alleged that terms of the work order had been violated, causing loss of revenue to the State and breach of rules framed to prevent illegal mining and transportation.
On the basis of this written report, Rohtas (Amjhor) P.S. Case No. 05 of 2017 was registered under rules 6, 7 and 8 of the Bihar Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation & Storage) Rules, 2003, commonly referred to as the 2003 Rules.
The FIR named petitioner no. 2, the Chief Executive Officer of the company. The company itself was not made an accused.
After investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet no. 61 of 2017 against petitioner no. 2 and one Mahesh Prasad Singh, stated to be Manager of petitioner no. 1. On 27.02.2018, the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dehri took cognizance of offences under rules 6, 7 and 8 of the 2003 Rules.
Meanwhile, the petitioners had already filed a criminal writ petition before the Patna High Court in 2017, seeking quashing of the FIR. After cognizance was taken, they filed an interlocutory application (I.A. No. 01 of 2019) to also challenge the order of cognizance dated 27.02.2018.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Patna High Court, through Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashwani Kumar Singh, examined both the factual allegations and the legal framework under which the case had been registered.
According to the FIR, during the checking drive near Ramdihra Sand Ghat, 59 trucks loaded with sand over and above their capacity were intercepted. For 10-wheeler and 12-wheeler trucks, challans were supposed to be issued for 400 and 500 cubic feet of sand respectively. However, on inspection, each such truck was found to be loaded with about 800–900 cubic feet of sand on average.
The informant alleged that this excess loading, beyond what was mentioned in the challans, was done with the complicity of the settlee of the sand ghat and its manager. It was also alleged that clause 9 of the work order, which required the value of sand to be mentioned on the transit challan, had not been followed, and that clause 16, which required that water should not spill on the roads from trucks laden with sand, had also been violated because water was spilling from all 59 trucks.
On these facts, the police registered the FIR under rules 6, 7 and 8 of the 2003 Rules, which deal with check-posts, barriers, inspection of minerals in transit, storage beyond leasehold area, and penalties.
On behalf of the petitioners, it was argued that even if the facts in the FIR were fully accepted, no criminal offence was made out against them in the manner alleged.
First, counsel for the petitioners explained that petitioner no. 1 was the settlee company and petitioner no. 2 was its Chief Executive Officer. According to them, the alleged overloading of trucks was the act of transporters and truck owners, not the company or its CEO.
They submitted that the claim that every truck was loaded with 800–900 cubic feet of sand was only an eye estimate and not based on proper measurement.
More importantly, they argued that rule 6 of the 2003 Rules relates to establishment of check-posts, barriers, and weighment and inspection of minerals in transit. Any overloading or excess quantity of mineral at the time of checking attracts proceedings against the person in charge of the carrier, not automatically against the settlee company or its officers.
Even if overloading had occurred with the knowledge of the settlee, the petitioners submitted that, at most, the remedy lay in recovery of extra royalty under Rule 26 of the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1972, read with clause 22 of the settlement agreement. They contended that no criminal liability could be fastened on that basis.
The petitioners further contended that the entire criminal process was bad in law because of Section 22 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (the 1957 Act) and rule 9 of the 2003 Rules. Under these provisions, no court can take cognizance of any offence punishable under the Act or the rules except upon a complaint in writing made by a person authorised by the Central or State Government. In other words, criminal proceedings cannot start with an FIR and police charge-sheet; they must start with a complaint presented before a Magistrate by an authorised officer.
The petitioners relied on judgments of the Jharkhand High Court, Allahabad High Court, and Punjab and Haryana High Court where FIRs alleging violations of the 1957 Act and rules framed under it were quashed because they had not been initiated through such a complaint.
They also submitted that petitioner no. 1, the settlee company, had not been arrayed as an accused at all, while petitioner no. 2, an officer of the company, was prosecuted without there being any concept of vicarious liability under the 1957 Act or the 2003 Rules.
The State, on the other hand, supported the FIR and subsequent proceedings. It argued that vehicles carrying sand in excess of the permissible limit were intercepted and inspected, and that the sand was taken from Ramdihra Sand Ghat settled with the petitioner company. It was contended that the petitioners had violated clauses 9 and 16 of the work order and rules 6, 7 and 8 of the 2003 Rules, thereby causing loss to the State exchequer.
The State argued that since investigation had been completed, a charge-sheet submitted under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), and cognizance taken, it would not be proper for the High Court to interfere with the FIR at this stage.
Respondent no. 5, the Assistant Director, Mines and Geology, also argued that the petitioners had repeatedly violated the terms of the agreement, moved overloaded vehicles, and failed to establish a weighbridge as required. She claimed that challans showing lesser quantities than those actually loaded were issued, and that investigation had confirmed the allegations.
After hearing both sides, the Court first analysed the scheme of rules 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the 2003 Rules. Rule 6 empowers the State Government to set up check-posts and barriers for checking transport and storage of minerals without lawful authority. It authorises officers at such check-posts to check carriers, demand valid transit passes, inspect documents, and, if necessary, recover the value of mineral and royalty with other taxes from the person in charge of the carrier. It also gives power to seize mineral and carrier in certain situations.
Rule 7 deals with storage of major and minor minerals beyond leasehold areas and provides for licensing of stockists. Rule 8 lays down penalties, including imprisonment and fine, for contravention of specific sub-rules of rule 6 and rule 7, and makes such offences cognizable. Rule 9 clearly states that no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under these rules except upon a complaint in writing made by a person authorised by the State Government or by persons described in rules 5 and 7.
The Court then linked these rules to Section 23C of the 1957 Act, under which the State is empowered to make rules for preventing illegal mining, transportation and storage of minerals. Section 23C must be read with Section 22 of the 1957 Act, which contains an explicit bar that no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under the Act or any rules made thereunder except upon a complaint in writing made by a person authorised in this behalf.
Crucially, the Court noted that the expression “complaint” is not defined in the 1957 Act or the 2003 Rules. Therefore, one must refer to the definition in Section 2(d) of the CrPC, which defines a complaint as an allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under the Code, that some person has committed an offence, but specifically excludes a police report.
On this basis, the Court held that an FIR lodged at a police station cannot be treated as a “complaint” under Section 22 of the 1957 Act or rule 9 of the 2003 Rules. Once an FIR is registered, the law requires police investigation and submission of a final report under Section 173(2) CrPC. Such a police report also cannot be treated as a complaint.
Therefore, in cases alleging violation of the 2003 Rules framed under Section 23C of the 1957 Act, criminal proceedings cannot be initiated through an FIR at a police station. They must be initiated by filing a complaint directly before a Magistrate by an authorised officer.
In the present case, the entire process—starting from the institution of the FIR, investigation by police, submission of charge-sheet, and taking of cognizance by the Magistrate—had proceeded contrary to Section 22 of the 1957 Act and rule 9 of the 2003 Rules.
The Court supported this conclusion by referring to similar decisions of other High Courts. The Jharkhand High Court in Pancham Singh v. State of Jharkhand, following the Supreme Court’s decision in Jeewan Kumar Raut v. CBI, had quashed proceedings initiated on the basis of an FIR under the mining law framework. The Allahabad High Court in Mahendra Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P., and the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Jagjit Singh v. State of Punjab and Harmela Ram v. State of Haryana, had also taken the view that FIRs alleging contravention of the 1957 Act and related rules were not maintainable.
The Court also addressed the State’s argument that the writ petition had become infructuous due to the filing of the charge-sheet and taking of cognizance. Referring to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Anand Kumar Mohatta v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), and earlier in Joseph Salvaraj A. v. State of Gujarat, the Court noted that the High Court’s power to prevent abuse of process of court or miscarriage of justice is not confined to the stage of FIR alone. The High Court can still examine whether offences are prima facie made out and can quash proceedings even after filing of charge-sheet.
Having found that there was a clear legal bar to taking cognizance on the basis of an FIR and police report, the Court held that allowing the prosecution to continue on such a footing would amount to abuse of process of court. The ends of justice required that the proceedings be quashed.
Since the Court decided the case on this legal bar, it found it unnecessary to go into the additional argument about absence of vicarious liability of company officers.
Accordingly, the Patna High Court set aside the FIR of Rohtas (Amjhor) P.S. Case No. 05 of 2017, the charge-sheet no. 61 of 2017, and the order dated 27.02.2018 by which the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dehri had taken cognizance of offences under rules 6, 7 and 8 of the 2003 Rules. The writ petition was allowed.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is significant for sand ghat settlees, contractors, transporters, and government officers involved in mining regulation in Bihar.
It clearly explains that criminal cases for alleged illegal mining, illegal transportation or storage under the 1957 Act and the 2003 Rules cannot begin with a simple FIR at a police station. Only a complaint filed before a Magistrate by an authorised officer can trigger criminal prosecution in such matters.
This protects people from being dragged into criminal trials through a wrong procedure. It also reminds mining officers and police that they must follow the specific route laid down in the mining law, not general criminal law, when dealing with such offences.
At the same time, the judgment does not prevent the State from taking action altogether. It can still act by filing a proper complaint or by using other remedies like recovery of royalty, but the procedural safeguards must be respected.
Legal Issues and Answers
-
Issue: Can an FIR and police charge-sheet form the basis of prosecution for offences under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and the Bihar Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation & Storage) Rules, 2003?
Answer: No. The Court held that Section 22 of the 1957 Act and rule 9 of the 2003 Rules bar courts from taking cognizance of such offences except on a written complaint by an authorised person. An FIR and police report cannot be treated as such a complaint, so proceedings based on them are invalid. -
Issue: Does the High Court lose power to quash proceedings once a charge-sheet is filed and cognizance is taken?
Answer: No. Relying on Supreme Court decisions in Anand Kumar Mohatta and Joseph Salvaraj A., the Court held that it can exercise its powers to prevent abuse of process even after filing of a charge-sheet, and quash proceedings if they are legally unsustainable.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Jeewan Kumar Raut v. CBI, (2009) 7 SCC 526
- Anand Kumar Mohatta and Another v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) Department of Home and Another, AIR 2019 SC 210
- Joseph Salvaraj A. v. State of Gujarat, (2011) 7 SCC 59
- Pancham Singh v. State of Jharkhand, Cr. Rev. No. 312 of 2004, Jharkhand High Court
- Mahendra Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P., Cr. Misc. Writ Petition No. 14971 of 2014, Allahabad High Court
- Jagjit Singh v. State of Punjab, Cr. Misc. No. M-18815 of 2014, Punjab and Haryana High Court
- Harmela Ram v. State of Haryana, Cr. Misc. No. M-526 of 2012, Punjab and Haryana High Court
Case Details
Case Number: Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 140 of 2017; arising out of Rohtas (Amjhor) P.S. Case No. 05 of 2017
Case Title: M/s Aditya Multicom Private Limited & Anr. v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Citation: 2019 (3) PLJR 433
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashwani Kumar Singh
Date of Judgment: 18.02.2019 (uploading date 09.03.2019)
Advocates for Petitioners: Mr. Suraj Samdarshi, Advocate; Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate
Advocates for the State: Mr. Parth Sarthi, GA-4; Mr. Mrigendra Kumar, AC to GA-4; Mr. Mithlesh Pd. Singh, AC to GA-4
Advocate for Respondent No. 5: Miss Kalpana, Advocate
Respondents: The State of Bihar through the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna; Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Bihar, through its Principal Secretary; District Magistrate, Rohtas, Sasaram; Superintendent of Police, Rohtas, Sasaram; Assistant Director, Mines and Geology, Rohtas, Sasaram; Officer-in-Charge, Rohtas Amjhor Police Station, District Rohtas
Nature of Case: Criminal writ petition seeking quashing of FIR, charge-sheet and order taking cognizance under the Bihar Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation & Storage) Rules, 2003
Link to Judgment: Official Patna High Court judgment
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
