Dismissed

Idrish Ansari v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC1 Oct 2021Cr.M.P./306/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi dismissed a quashing application challenging criminal proceedings for mining violations. The court refused to quash the case but directed the Superintendent of Police to investigate forgery, revenue loss, and procedural irregularities.

What did the court decide?

The quashing application was dismissed; interim order vacated; and investigation directed regarding challan forgery and revenue loss.

Idrish Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand — Land Acquisition | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI (Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction) Cr.M.P. No. 306 of 2015

Idrish Ansari

….. Petitioner

Versus

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

….. Opposite Party

¶7

--------CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO (Through : Video Conferencing)

¶8

For the Petitioner : Mr. Randhir Kumar, Advocate. For the Opposite Party : Mr. Shekhar Sinha, P.P. : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, A.P.P. ---------

¶9

12/Dated: 01/10/2021

¶10

Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Randhir Kumar and learned counsel for the State, Mr. Shekhar Sinha, P.P. assisted by learned counsel, Mr. Rakesh Kumar, A.P.P.

¶11

The petitioner has preferred this quashing application for quashing the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Lohardaga P.S. Case No. 129/2014, dated 16.09.2014 corresponding to G.R. No.512/2014 registered under Section 414 of Indian Penal Code, Sections 4/54 of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 and further for quashing the order dated 09.12.2014 whereby and whereunder the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga has taken cognizance for offences under Section 414 of Indian Penal Code, Sections 4/54 of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 against the petitioner.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that pursuant to lodging of the FIR, the police submitted chargesheet against the petitioner without proper investigating of the case in accordance with law. The statement of owner of the crusher, Irshad Ali has been recorded in paragraph-38 of the case diary, but even then the investigating officer has submitted chargesheet against the petitioner & driver vide Chargesheet No.153/2014 dated 30.11.2014 under Section 414 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 4/54 of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards the statement made by the owner of the crusher Irshad Ali, who has disclosed that on 16.09.2014, Tractor No.

¶14

-2-

¶15

JH08B-1283 and Trailer No. JH08B-1758 was loaded with stone chips on 16.09.2014 at 12.00 noon, but because of internet failure, the challan could not be issued and the same has been issued on 18.09.2014. Irshad has further submitted that he has valid Registration bearing No.42/2008 and the same has been renewed on 29.04.2014 for five years and the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Department issued letter bearing No. PC/RNC/C-119/13G 4526/22.11.13, which was valid till 30.09.2014, as such, petitioner has submitted that entire criminal proceeding is a vacuous proceeding initiated against the petitioner, who was carrying valid chips on his tractor and the same has been seized by the police by the lodging an FIR as the Challan was not found at the time of lodging of the FIR, which was subsequently investigated by Investigating Officer and found to be genuine, as such, entire criminal proceeding may be quashed.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that if there is any dispute with regard to the genuineness of the challan then it was incumbent upon the police to lodge an FIR against the owner of the crusher namely, Irshad Ali, S/o Arshard Ali, R/o Ajad Basti, Bangla Raod, P.O. & P.S.- Lohardaga, whose statement was recorded in paragraph-38 of the case diary.

¶17

Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Shekhar Sinha, P.P. assisted by learned counsel, Mr. Rakesh Kumar, A.P.P. has submitted that police has submitted chargesheet against the driver and owner of the tractor bearing registration No. JH08B-1283 and Trailer No. JH08B-1758 under Section 414 of Indian Penal Code, Sections 4/54 of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 on the direction of the superior officer.

¶18

Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Shekhar Sinha has further submitted that Assistant Mining Officers, Ram Nath Ray, S/o Sri Bhaw Saga Ray has filed counter affidavit on 22.09.2021 stating therein at paragraphs-6, 7 & 8, which may profitably be quoted hereunder:-

¶19

“6. That the deponent states that it has categorically been stated by the petitioner in Paragraph 8 of petition that

¶20

-3-

¶21

the Challan could not be downloaded for the reason that then internet was down but the requisite fee have already been paid meaning thereby that the driver was not having any Challan at the time of inspection i.e. 16.09.2014. It is submitted that the Challan as annexed in the present petition appears to be of 18.09.2014 and not of 16.09.2014 and therefore there is no question of payment of royalty on 16.09.2014.

¶22

7. That the deponent states that the return submitted by the crusher owner for the month of September discloses that the crusher owner has not added any stock nor has dispatched any stock leading to the conclusion that the crusher owner has not issued any Challan in the month of September 2014 and Challan presented by the petitioner appears to be of same month which is contrary to each other and concludes that the Challan is not genuine. It is also submitted that as it appears from the office record that the Challan as annexed in the present petition have never been produced before the then Mining Officer nor deponent at any point of time and also before I.O. of the case as claimed in the counter affidavit filed by I.O. of the case in the present case. It is submitted that the statement made in the present petition regarding the valid licence and NOC does not entitled the crusher owner to Sale and transport stone chips without Challan.

¶23

Photocopy of the return submitted by the crusher owner for the month of September 2014 is annexed and marked as Annexure-A to this affidavit.

¶24

8. That it is stated and submitted that the Challan as annexed in the present petition also finds mention that the mode of transportation is railway which is also contrary to the fact that petitioner is claiming from the tractor. It is also relevant to mention that deponent also tried to verify it from that sale Tax office as earlier the Challlans were supposed to be issued from sale tax web site but it has been brought to the knowledge of deponent that the link is not active and cannot

¶25

-4-

¶26

be verified but since the return of the crusher owner discloses that no Challans have been issued in the month of September therefore the Challan as annexed by the present petitioner appears not to be genuine. More over the Challan as produced in the petition is dated 18.09.2014 and not 16.09.2014 and the dated 16.09.2014 mentioned in the Challan may not be correct and might have obtained after submitting wrong details while issuance Challan as the same is computer generated.”

¶27

Learned counsel for the State has thus submitted that the application may be dismissed and interim order may be vacated.

¶28

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it appears that State has brought three vital facts:-

¶29

Firstly with regard to non-payment of requisite fee and the challan appears to be of dated 18.09.2014 and not of 16.09.2014.

¶30

Secondly, in the month of September the crusher owner has disclosed that he has not added any stock nor has dispatched any stock leading to the conclusion that crusher owner has not issued any challan in the month of September, 2014, as such, the challan which has been produced is a fake one, which cause financial revenue loss to the State.

¶31

Thirdly, the mode of transportation is mentioned as a railway in the challan with registration number of Tractor.

¶32

This Court has perused the same, which has been appended with the quashing application and it is found that in the challan both thing have been mentioned in column no.6, mode of transport / vehicle type is railways, vehicle registration No. JH08B-1283 and date of consignment is 16.09.2014 with mobile number of the driver.

¶33

Under the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is not inclined to exercise its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶34

However, petitioner may raise this issue at appropriate stage.

¶35

Before parting with this order, this Courts direct the Superintendent of Police, Lohardaga to look into such matters where the challan shows both railway and the number of the tractor, secondly if the challan is forged then whether the royalty has been

¶36

-5-

¶37

paid to the State or not? And thirdly, whether there is any connivance of the Mining Officer in such transaction or not?

¶38

The Superintendent of Police, Lohardaga shall also look into the matter whether the investigation in this case was proper by not arraying the crusher owner as an accused, who has admitted before the Mining Department that he has not transported any chips in the month of September, 2014, whereas he has stated before the Investigating Officer that he has issued the challan on 18.09.2014 as there was internet problem on 16.09.2014.

¶39

The Superintendent of Police, Lohardaga shall also look into the such matters as the same causes revenue loss to the State.

¶40

Accordingly, the instant Cr.M.P. No.306/2015 is hereby dismissed.

¶41

The interim order earlier granted is also vacated.

¶42

I.A. No.1931/2021 is closed.

¶43

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)

¶44

Jay/-

Idrish Ansari v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Idrish Ansari v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jharkhand Geenral Mazdoor Unio Vs Labour Superintendent, Office

Ram Chandra Ojha Vs the State of Jharkhand

Corporate Power Limited Reprr Thr Its Chief Executive Officer Ravindra Kumar Singh And Anr. Vs Arcil And Anr.

Mosmat Munni Devi And Anr. Vs National Insurance Co.Ltd. And O

Sandeep Vs the State of Jharkhand

Linus Kerketta Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.