JUDGMENT 1. - Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned public prosecutor and the learned counsel for non- petitioner No.2. 2. This petition under Section 482 Cr.RC. is directed against the order dated 23-11-1992 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh in criminal case No. 28/91 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge rejected the revision petition and affirmed the order dated 14-6-90 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2 Hanumangarh in criminal case taking cognizance of the offence under Section 379 IPC against the petitioners. 3. I have heard the arguments and perused the original record of the case No. 136/90, Kamal Prakash v. Ratan Bihari and others , it appears that Shri Kamal Prakash filed a complaint in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2 Hanumangarh against four persons, namely, Ratan Bihari, Rameshwar Lal, Amru Ram and 5-6 other persons whose names have not been disclosed, alleging the commission of offences under Sections 379, 411, 382 and 149 IPC. In short the allegations contained in the complaint were to the effect that accused persons without the consent/permission excavated salt petre ore and away the same. The complaint was sent to the police under sub- section(3) of Section 156-Cr.PC . for investigation. After investigation the police submitted a final report in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2 Hanumangarh. After the submission of the final report another complaint alleging the same facts was filed by Kamal Kishore in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2 Hanumangarh. On the basis of that complaint the learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and proceeded to examine the complainant Kamal Prakash under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Kamal Prakash was examined on 17-5-90 and his witness Basanta Ram was examine on 19-5-90. On 19- 5-90 one other witness Hari Singh was examined and on 22- 5-90 Ladhu Ram was examined. Some documents were also filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate. After hearing complainant, his counsel and the documents placed before him the learned Judicial Magistrate vide his order dated 14-6-90 took cognizance of the offence under Section 379 IPC and directed the issue of bailable warrants against the accused persons. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 14-6-1990 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate the accused persons filed a criminal revision petition. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 14-6-1990 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate the accused persons filed a criminal revision petition. The revision petition was made over to the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Hanumangarh and there it was registered at 28/91. On 23-11-1992 the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the revision petition on the ground that the learned Judicial Magistrate had rightly taken cognizance of the offence under Section 379 IPC. 5. The Learned counsel for the petitioner has made two submissions. The first is that the cognizance of the offence under Section 379 IPC. is barred by Rule 50 of the Rajasthan Miner Mineral Concession Rules, 1986. The second submission is that even if the facts mentioned in the complaint are taken to be true no offence under Section 379 IPC. is made out. 6. The learned public prosecutor has opposed this petition and the learned counsel for the non-petitioner No.2 has supported the orders passed by the courts below. 7. The first submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Rule 50 of the Rajasthan Miner Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 provides that no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under these rules except upon a complaint in writing made by a person not below the rank prescribed by the rule and, therefore, the learned Judicial Magistrate was not justified in taking cognizance of the offence under Section 379 IPC. without a complaint contemplated by rule 50 of the Rajasthan Miner Mineral Concession rules. His argument is based on the premises that the offences of theft of which cognizance has been taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate in respect of the same material, which is salt petre ore, which is dealt with by Rajasthan Miner Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 and therefore, Rule 50 was applicable to this case. I am. afraid this submission cannot be accepted. A bare reading of Rule 50 of the Rajasthan Miner Mineral Concession Rules shows that Rule 50 is applicable to those offences only which are punishable under the Rajasthan Miner Mineral Rules. This is evident by use of expression "any offence punishable under these rules". The offence under Section 379 IPC. I am. afraid this submission cannot be accepted. A bare reading of Rule 50 of the Rajasthan Miner Mineral Concession Rules shows that Rule 50 is applicable to those offences only which are punishable under the Rajasthan Miner Mineral Rules. This is evident by use of expression "any offence punishable under these rules". The offence under Section 379 IPC. is an offence under the Indian Penal Code and not under the Rajasthan Miner Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 and therefore, Rules 50 of the Rajasthan Miner Mineral Rule does not bar the taking of the cognizance under Section 379 IPC. by the Magistrate. The first submission is, therefore, rejected. 8. The second submission is that no offence under section 379 IPC. is made out against the accused petitioners. This submission has two rulings, The first is that no offence of theft is prima facie made out and secondly even if an offence of theft is made out by the allegations contained in complaint, there is no ground to proceed against the petitioner under Section 204 Cr.P.C. I have considered both the parts of the above submission. It is alleged in the complaint that without the permission of the competent authority salt petre ore was excavated and was taken away inspite of protest. The salt petre ore which was taken away was prima facie the property of the Government and it may be said that prima facie the taking of the salt petre ore was with dishonest intention and of course, without the permission as no permission to take away the same is available on record. Therefore, the allegations contained in the report disclose the commission of offence under section 379 IPC. The finding of the learned Additional Sessions Judge to that extent do not call for any interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 9. Whether there were sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused-petitioners, is another matter which needs consideration. I have perused the statement of Kamal Prakash PW-1 and the witness produced by him. Their statements prime facie shows that the allegations contained in the complaint are supported by their statements on oath, whether their statements are true or false cannot be adjudicated finally at this stage. I have perused the statement of Kamal Prakash PW-1 and the witness produced by him. Their statements prime facie shows that the allegations contained in the complaint are supported by their statements on oath, whether their statements are true or false cannot be adjudicated finally at this stage. The case has been instituted on complaint which will have to be disposed of in accordance with the procedure laid down in Criminal Procedure Code for inquiry and trials of warrant cases instituted on a complaint. During the course of hearing the accused-petitioners will have the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses ana test their veracity. In case the learned Judicial Magistrate finds sufficient reasons to discharge the accused persons after the arguments on charge are heard, he would be within his legal rights to pass appropriate orders and if a trial is conducted after framing of the charge the accused persons will not only have the right to cross-examine the witness but they will further have the right to adduce such version in defence as they are advised. Suffice it to say that at this stage, under Section 482 Cr.PC. It cannot be finally decided whether the statement made by Kamal Prakash and the witnesses are false or true all that can be considered is whether there is prima facie case to proceed against the accused persons or not. 10. For above reasons this petition has no force it deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed with the above observations.> Petition dismissed. *******