G H KANWAR PAL SINGH versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2019] 18 S.C.R. 1158 · Decided: 18-12-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. ABDUL NAZEER, SANJIV KHANNA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 9 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1158
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 18 S.C.R.
KANWAR PAL SINGH
v.
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER
(Criminal Appeal No. 1920 of 2019 )
DECEMBER 18, 2019
[S. ABDUL NAZEER AND SANJIV KHANNA , JJ.]
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957
– ss.4, 21 and 22 – Penal Code, 1860 – s.379 – Uttar Pradesh
Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules, 1963 – rr.3, 7 and 57 –
Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 – ss.3 and 4 –
The appellant was granted rights to excavate sand vide mining lease
over a plot – It was alleged that the appellant was mining outside
the permitted area and had illegally excavated a pit – Consequent
to which, FIR was registered u/s.379 IPC, rr. 3, 57 and 7 of the
Rules 1963, ss. 4, 21 of the Act, 1957 and ss.3 and 4 of the Act,
1984 – The Magistrate took cognizance and summoned appellant
for trial – Petition filed by the appellant u/s. 482 CrPC before the
High Court to quash criminal proceedings was dismissed – On appeal
before the Supreme Court, the appellant contended that he was
wrongly charge-sheeted by the police for the offences, as at the
best there was violation of s.4 which was punishable u/s. 21 of the
Act, 1957 – It was further contended that the Act, 1957 is a special
statute, the prosecution for an offence u/s. 379 IPC was not
maintainable – Held: In the State (NCT of Delhi) v. Sanjay, it was
observed that considering the principles of interpretation and
wordings used in s.22 of the Act, 1957, the provision is not a complete
and absolute bar for taking action by the police for illegal and
dishonestly committing theft of minerals including sand from the
riverbed – Further, the said judgment specifically referred to s.26
of the General Clauses Act and stated that the offence u/s.4 r/w.
s.21 of the Mines Regulation Act is different from the offence
punishable u/s.379 of IPC – Thus, they are two ‘different’ and not
the ‘same offence’ – Therefore, contentions of the appellant were
rejected – There was no bar on the Court from taking cognizance
of offence u/s.379 IPC – And violation of s.4 of the Act, 1957,
being a cognizable offence, the police could have investigated the
same – However, it was clarified that prosecution and cognizance
[2019] 18 S.C.R. 1158
1158
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1159
u/s. 21 r/w. s.4 of the Act, 1957 will not be valid and justified in
absence of authorisation – In view thereof, the order of the High
Court refusing to set aside the prosecution and cognizance of the
offence u/s.379 of the IPC and ss.3 & 4 of the Prevention of Damage
to Public Property Act was upheld – General Clauses Act – s.26.
Jeewan Kumar Raut and Another v. Central Bureau of
Investigation – distinguished – The State Police filed the charge-
sheet/complaint against the appellant u/s.379 IPC, rr. 3, 57 and 7
of the Rules 1963, ss. 4, 21 of the Act, 1957 and ss.3 and 4 of the
Act, 1984 – Appellant contended that the State police was not
authorised and therefore, could not have filed the charge-sheet/
complaint and strongly placed reliance on the Jeewan Kumar Raut
case – Held: In Jeewan Kumar Raut case reference was made to
cl.(iv) of Sub-section (3) to s.13 of the Transplantation of Human
Organs Act, 1994 which states that the appropriate authority shall
investigate any complaint of breach of any of the provisions of the
said Act or any rules made thereunder and take appropriate action
– However, there is no similar provision under the Mines Regulation
Act, 1957 – The issue raised in the Jeewan Kumar Raut case was
entirely different from the one raised in the present case – No merit
in the contention of the appellant – The violation of s.4 of the Act,
1957 being a cognizable offence, the police could have investigated
the same, there being no bar under the Act, 1957 – Mines and
Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 – Penal Code,
1860 – Uttar Pradesh Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules, 1963 –
Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. In the written submissions the appellant has relied
upon Belsund Sugar Company Limited v. State of Bihar, Sharat
Babu Digumarti v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Suresh Nanda
v. Central Bureau of Investigation to contend that where there is
a special act dealing with a special subject, resort cannot be taken
to a general act.  The said submission has no force in view of the
ratio in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Sanjay  which specifically refers to
Section 26 of the General Clauses Act and st

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.