C. Y. SOMAYAJULU, J. ( 1 ) THE Mandal Revenue Officer, Yadagirigutta, gave a report to the station House Officer, Yadagirigutta P. S. , stating that Madothu Bheemudu excavated the land in S. No. 311/9 at the outskirts of jangampally village with the help of petitioners and others for treasure-trove hunt illegally by using explosive substances and so necessary action may be taken against the petitioners. The said report was registered under Sections 3 and 5 of explosive Substances Act and Section 20 of treasure Trove Act as Crime No. 87 of 2001. The Sub-Inspector of Police during the course of investigation arrested some of the persons mentioned in the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer and produced them before the Additional Judicial first Class Magistrate, Bhongir, for offence under Section 20 of Indian Treasure Trove act read with Sections 34 and 511 IPC. This petition is filed by the petitioners to quash the FIR, in Crime No. 87 of 2001 against them. ( 2 ) THE contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that though the FIR, was originally registered under sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances act also, the said sections are deleted in the remand report, and the offence alleged now is only under Section 20 of the Treasure trove Act read with Section 34 and 511 ipc. It is his contention that Sections 34 and 511 IPC, cannot be invoked with sections 20 of the Treasure Trove Act and since the provisions of Section 20 of treasure Trove Act have no application to the facts and circumstances of the case, the further proceedings against the petitioners are liable to be quashed. Heard the learned public Prosecutor. ( 3 ) SECTION 20 of Treasure Trove Act as applicable to Andhra Pradesh reads:"20 (1) If the finder or the purchaser of any treasure fails to give the notice or fails to make the deposit or give the security as required by Section 4 or alters or attempts to alter such treasure so as to conceal its identity, the share or interest in such treasure or any right to which the finder or the purchaser, as the case may be, would otherwise be entitled shall vest in the State Government. (2) For the offence of such failure or alteration the finder or purchaser shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to one or with fine or with both. "in this case even according to the investigation no treasure trove was found and what was found was only some pots containing earth. So, the provisions of section 20 of the Treasure Trove Act have no application at all in this case. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners Sections 34 and 511 IPC cannot be made use of with reference to offences committed under enactments other than IPC, i. e. , Sections 34 and 511 of IPC can be invoked when the offences under IPC are committed, but not in respect of offences committed under Special Laws in view of sections 40 and 511 IPC. Penal provisions under Special enactments only govern the cases arising under those enactments in respect of common intention and attempt to, commit the offence under those enactments. Therefore quoting of Sections 34 and 511 ipc, in the remand report with reference to the alleged offence under Treasure Trove aet is redundant. Since no Treasure Trove was found during excavation. Section 20 of the Treasure Trove Act has no application co the facts of this case. If and when the petitioners find a treasure and they do not follow the procedure prescribed under the Treasure Trove Act, would the Mandal Revenue Officer be entitled to initiate proceedings against them. In the circumstances of the case, since the instances mentioned in the complaint do not disclose any offence under Section 20 of the Treasure Trove Act, further proceedings against the petitioners are unsustainable and hence are liable to be quashed and are hereby quashed. Petition is ordered accordingly.