Supreme Court Grants Bail to Man After One Year in Jail, Bars Social Media Contact with Complainant Supreme Court Grants Bail to Teen, Emphasizes Consensual Relationship in POCSO Case Involving 16-Year-Old Once Decided, Forever Closed: Himachal Pradesh High Court Bars Appeal Citing Res Judicata Supreme Court Halts Trial, Calls Continuing Proceedings a "Travesty of Justice" in ₹50 Crore Corruption Case A Married Woman's Consensual Relationship Does Not Attract Section 376 IPC in Absence of False Promise: Kerala High Court Grants Pre-Arrest Bail to Lawyer Mere Possession of Proceeds of Crime Sufficient for Money Laundering Charges: Madras High Court Upholds Money Laundering Case Against Former Trustee of All India Overseas Bank Employees Union Age Is Not a Measure of Competence - But Public Safety Prevails: Calcutta High Court Upholds Age Restrictions for Electrical Supervisor Certification Landlord Cannot Claim Eviction Without Proving Genuine Need: Bombay High Court Overturns Eviction Decree Future Prospects Must Be Considered for Deceased Below 40 Years with a Permanent Job: Andhra Pradesh High Court Enhances Compensation NDPS | Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Granted When Accused Have Absconded and Failed to Cooperate in Investigation: Delhi High Court Continuing Prosecution in Light of Genuine Compromise Would Not Serve Justice:  Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes FIR for Attempt to Murder Allahabad High Court Denies Bail, Cites Lack of Extradition Treaty with China: ‘High Flight Risk’ in Fraud Case Custodial Interrogation Necessary for Effective Investigation: Anticipatory Bail Denied by Punjab & Haryana High Court in ₹1.19 Crore Cheating 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