Summary
Illegal-mining allegations could sustain police investigation and prosecution for theft and damage to public property even where statutory authorisation for cognizance under the mining enactment was absent. The offences have distinct ingredients. The Court preserved the IPC and public-property proceedings but clarified that mining-law prosecution and cognizance were not valid without the required authorisation, leaving factual guilt for trial.
Issues
- Whether Section 22 of the mining enactment barred police action or IPC prosecution.
- Whether excavated sand could be stolen.
- Which parts of the prosecution and cognizance could survive.
Provisions considered
- Section 22, Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957Cognizance of offences under the Act or its rules requires a written complaint by an authorised person; the restriction does not extend to distinct IPC offences or bar police investigation. (¶¶ 5, 11, 12)
- Section 4, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The ordinary investigative and trial procedure applies subject to a special enactment’s specific contrary provisions. (¶¶ 5, 9, 11)
- Section 26, General Clauses Act, 1897Different statutory offences may be prosecuted notwithstanding a common factual act; the rule bars double punishment for the same offence. (¶¶ 6, 7, 11)
Held
- Mining-law contravention and theft have distinct ingredients. The special enactment does not exclude IPC prosecution for dishonest removal of State minerals, and the cognizance restriction cannot invalidate that separate prosecution. (¶¶ 5, 6, 7, 11)
- Once excavated, sand loses attachment to the earth and is movable property capable of theft. Holding a mining lease did not remove the alleged extraction outside the permitted area from consideration under the distinct offences. (¶¶ 3, 4, 5, 8)
- Police may investigate the cognizable mining offence because the enactment contains no separate exclusive-investigation bar comparable to the organ-transplantation statute relied on by the appellant. Statutory authorisation remains necessary for mining-law cognizance. (¶¶ 9, 10, 11, 12)
- The Court upheld theft and public-property-damage proceedings, while clarifying the defect in mining-law prosecution and cognizance absent authorisation. Its legal conclusions were not findings on the disputed facts, which remained for independent trial adjudication. (¶ 12)
Result
Appeal partly allowed without costs. Prosecution and cognizance under Section 379 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act were upheld. Proceedings under Section 21 read with Section 4 of the mining enactment were clarified to be invalid without authorisation. Factual charges remain for trial.