Jhumari Telaiya, P.O. Telaiya, P.S. Telaiya, District Koderma, Jharkhand v. The State of Jharkhand
Case Details
[2025:JHHC:33984] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.1750 of 2025 ------ Mukul Modi, aged about 34 years, son of Late Mahendra Prasad Barnwal, resident of 462, Patna Transport Lane, Near Bank of India, Ward No.11, Jhumari Telaiya, P.O. Telaiya, P.S. Telaiya, District Koderma, Jharkhand. Versus The State of Jharkhand … ------ … Petitioner Opposite Party For the Petitioner For the State : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah, Advocate : Mrs. Laxmi Murmu, GP-I Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, AC to GP-I ------ P R E S E N T
Legal Reasoning
of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bihar MICA Exporters Association vs. State of Jharkhand & Others reported in 2012 SCC OnLine Jhar 608 and submits that whether a mineral remains a mineral or has undergone a change in its fundamental nature into a mineral product is a question of fact to be determined in each individual case by the competent authority under the Act and the Rules. It is then 3 Cr. M.P. No.1750 of 2025 [2025:JHHC:33984] submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that therein, it was also held by the Division Bench of his Court that the validity of the Jharkhand Mineral Dealers Rules, 2007 has been upheld by the Division Bench subject to reading down of the provision relating to mineral products used in the impugned rules. Hence, it is submitted that as the seized material is a mineral product, so no offence is made out against the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the allegations against the petitioner are false. The prosecution has been instituted with ulterior motive. The learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Giridih in most mechanical and casual manner, has framed charges against the petitioner that the petitioner’s firm obtained Consent to Operate under Section 25/26 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. It is then submitted that the property stolen is a pre-requisite for invocation of Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, be allowed. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition and submits that it is a settled principle of law that for making out an offence punishable under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code, it is not necessary that it must be traced out that someone has committed offence of theft. It is next submitted that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner has assisted in concealing the stolen property. It is then submitted that no document could be produced during the investigation of the case as 4 Cr. M.P. No.1750 of 2025 [2025:JHHC:33984] to the ownership of the property seized by any of the accused persons. So, the natural corollary is that the same is a stolen property. Hence, it is submitted that the material available in the record is sufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code. It is further submitted that as the petitioner did not file any petition for discharge, there was no occasion for the learned trial court to discuss the material in details by mentioning relevant paragraphs of the case-diary and other materials available in the record to suggest as to how the offence punishable under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code and Rule 13 of the Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017 is made out. Hence, it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, be dismissed. 8. Having heard the rival submission made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the records, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ajendra Nath vs. State reported in AIR 1964 SC 170 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that it is not necessary for a person to be convicted under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code, that some other person must be traced out and convicted for an offence of committing theft, the offence punishable under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code can be made out, if the prosecution simply proves that the property recovered is stolen property and that an accused extended help in concealment and disposal of the same. So, this Court do not find any merits in the contention of the petitioner that to make out the offence 5 Cr. M.P. No.1750 of 2025 [2025:JHHC:33984] punishable under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code, it must be traced out that an offence of committing theft was made by someone. 9. It is also a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Lalu Prasad @ Lalu Prasad Yadav vs. State of Bihar reported in (2007) 1 SCC 49 that charge may be framed without recording any reason. The undisputed fact remains that the petitioner did not file any petition for discharge. The learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Giridih after considering the material available in the record, found prima facie case to constitute the offence punishable under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Rule 13 of the Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017. 10. It is also a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Md. Abrar & Others vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir & Others reported in AIR 1981 SC 1548 that at the stage of framing of charges, meticulous consideration of the evidence and other materials is not necessary. 11. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner of assisting in concealment of stolen mica dust which was seized by the concerned authority while being stealthily transported. This, in the considered opinion of this Court, is sufficient to prima facie constitute the offence punishable under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that there is no justifiable reason to accede to the prayer of the petitioner made in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition in exercise of the power under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023. 6 Cr. M.P. No.1750 of 2025 [2025:JHHC:33984] 12. Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 13th of November, 2025 AFR/ Saroj Uploaded on 19/11/2025 7 Cr. M.P. No.1750 of 2025
Arguments
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 14.02.2025 arising out of Giridih (T) P.S. Case No. 102 of 2023 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1840 of 2023 in which after investigation of the case, charge sheet has been submitted inter alia against the petitioner and charge for the offence punishable under Section 414 of Indian Penal Code and Rule 13 of the Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017 has been framed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Giridih on 14.02.2025. 3. The brief fact of the case is that on the basis of the written report submitted by the Mining Inspector, District Mining Office, Giridih, 1 Cr. M.P. No.1750 of 2025 [2025:JHHC:33984] police registered Giridih Town P.S. Case No. 102 of 2023. The allegations made in the FIR is that stolen Mica dust while being unloaded in the godown of an accused person of the case, the forest officials asked for the tax invoice and connected documents to be produced by the driver of the vehicle, from which the said material was unloaded. No e-transportation challan could be found in respect of the Mica dust/powder loaded in the concerned truck. Hence, considering the same to be stolen property, the police seized the same. On verification of the godown of Kritika Enterprises, where the said stolen Mica dust was unloaded, the owner of the godown did not appear before the police officers. Verification of the godown disclosed that 3483 bags of mica dust each bag containing about 25 Kg. of mica dust was illegally kept therein and the same was seized from the said godown. The computer operator could not produce the e-transportation challan in respect of the said articles. On verification from JIMMS portal, it was found out that the license of Kritika Enterprises was valid till 31.03.2022. Alleging that the illegal mining and storage was made, the FIR was lodged. Police after investigation of the case, found the allegations against the petitioner and the co-accused persons to be true and submitted charge sheet inter alia against the petitioner for having committed the offence punishable under Section 414 of Indian Penal Code as well as Rule 13 of the Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017. The petitioner after summoning, appeared before the trial court but did not file any petition to discharge him in the case. The learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Giridih found that there is sufficient material available in the record to 2 Cr. M.P. No.1750 of 2025 [2025:JHHC:33984] frame charges against the petitioner for having committed the offence punishable under Section 414 of Indian Penal Code and Rule 13 of the Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017 and framed charges alleging that on 02.05.2023 at 12:30 PM at godown of Kritika Enterprises, inter alia the petitioner assisted in concealing the property namely 120 bags of mica dust around 30 Kg. per bag; which the petitioner knew to be stolen property. The charge in respect of Rule 13 of the Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017 was alleged to have been committed by the petitioner as the petitioner purchased, sold and stored minerals, without having any proper license. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Gujarat & Others vs. Jayeshbhai Kanjibhai Kalathiya & Others reported in (2019) 16 SCC 513 and submits that therein it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that no power flows from Section 23-C of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 to make rule by the State Government for regulating transportation of the legally excavated minerals. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the Judgment