Panchayat Law | Mandatory Compliance With Section 34 And Rule 3 Is Non-Negotiable In Resignation Cases: Bombay High Court Quashes Resignation Of Upa-Sarpanch Recovery of Bullet Fired from Accused’s Weapon Crucial: PH High Court Reaffirms Conviction in Murder Case Injured Witness Evidence Carries Built-in Reliability Unless Contradicted Significantly: Kerala High Court Partly Allows Appeal in Murder Case Civil Dispute with Criminal Elements Cannot Be Quashed Under Section 482 Cr.P.C.: Karnataka High Court Issuance of Summons Under Section 91 CrPC During Preliminary Verification is Without Jurisdiction: High Court of J&K and Ladakh Article 21 Prevails Over NDPS Act’s Section 37 Restrictions in Cases of Prolonged Incarceration: Delhi High Court Once a Property is Waqf, It Remains Waqf Perpetually: Calcutta High Court Affirms No Secular Ownership Can Derive from Waqf Properties Surveillance Without Opportunity to Object Violates Articles 14, 19, and 21: Allahabad High Court Quashes Class-B History Sheets Mandatory Provisions of Order XXI CPC Were Violated, Rendering the Auction Sale Illegal: Punjab and Haryana High Court Unreasonable Assumptions Cannot Deny Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Enhances Compensation in Motor Accident Claim National Security Cannot Be Compromised: Orissa High Court Denies Bail in ISI-Linked Conspiracy Case Specific Performance is a Discretionary Relief; Delay and Inaction Will Disentitle Relief: Karnataka High Court Agreement to Sell Does Not Confer Any Title or Interest in Property: Gujarat High Court FIR Quashed | Breach of Contract Does Not Attract Criminal Prosecution for Cheating Unless Fraudulent Intention Exists at the Outset: Calcutta High Court Strict Compliance with Advertisement Terms Mandatory - Submission of PAP Certificate Along with Application is a Mandatory Requirement: Bombay High Court Termination of Judicial Probationer Quashed: Principles of Article 311(2) and Natural Justice Upheld by Punjab & Haryana High Court Mere Presence at the Scene Is Insufficient to Prove Common Intention Under Section 34 IPC: Kerala High Court Acquits Two Co-Accused in Murder Case

Mere Seizure of Equipment Does Not Establish Illegal Extraction of Minerals: Calcutta High Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings

07 October 2024 4:00 PM

By: sayum


Calcutta High Court in Bhanu Pratap Singh v. State of West Bengal (C.R.R. 637 of 2017) quashed criminal proceedings initiated against Bhanu Pratap Singh, a brickfield owner, for alleged illegal mining and theft of minerals. The Court ruled that the proceedings lacked sufficient evidence and constituted an abuse of process, emphasizing that the seizure of trucks and equipment alone did not prove illegal activity.

The case arose from an incident on February 13, 2017, when police officers, acting on a complaint from the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, raided Bhanu Pratap Singh’s brickfield. They seized two earth removers and six trucks, alleging illegal extraction of brick earth. An FIR was lodged under Sections 379/411/414 of the Indian Penal Code, along with violations of the West Bengal Minor Minerals Concessions Rules, 2016, and the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. Singh contested the charges, claiming that he had paid all required royalties and was operating his brickfield legally under the High Court's orders.

The main issue was whether the FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings were justified based on the evidence of alleged illegal mining. Singh argued that he had paid all royalties and obtained the necessary permissions to operate his brickfield. Furthermore, no actual minerals or illegally extracted brick earth had been found during the raid—only empty trucks and equipment were seized.

The Court noted that Singh had been complying with prior High Court orders, had paid all dues, and had been issued a "No Due Certificate" by the authorities for the year 2016-2017. Despite these facts, the police filed a charge sheet against him, which the Court found unjustified.

Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta held that the seizure of empty trucks and earth removers did not constitute sufficient evidence of illegal mining or theft. The Court emphasized that there was no proof of unauthorized extraction or removal of minerals, nor any indication that Singh had violated the terms of his permissions. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal, the Court ruled that the criminal proceedings were an abuse of process and should be quashed.

“Mere seizure of earth removers and empty trucks kept in the brickfield does not establish or constitute any offence of illegal extraction of brick earth.”

The Court also stressed that the allegations made in the FIR did not prima facie constitute any offense under the Indian Penal Code or the relevant mining laws. As such, continuing the proceedings would be a misuse of judicial resources.

The Calcutta High Court quashed the FIR and all related criminal proceedings, ruling that the case against Bhanu Pratap Singh was frivolous and lacked legal merit. The judgment reaffirmed the importance of evidence in proving allegations of illegal mining and underscored the protection against arbitrary criminal charges.

Date of Decision: October 4, 2024

Bhanu Pratap Singh v. State of West Bengal

Similar News