Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2086 (ALL)

Jai Pal v. State Of U. P.

2018-09-28

DILIP B.BHOSALE, YASHWANT VARMA

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Hans Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pradeep K. Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for respondents-State. 2. This petition is preferred for the following reliefs: “(i) A Writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent no.2 to compound the offence of section 4(1A) of the Act, 1957 against the petitioner in persuant to the Seizure Memo dated 11.6.2014. (Annexure ‘1’). (ii) A Writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent to released sand lying over Gata No.92 duly seized by the authorities of the Respondent no.2 in accordance with rules within a period stipulated by this Hon’ble Court.” 3. Counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, invited our attention to Section 4(1-A) and Section 23-A of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, [for short ‘Act, 1957’] and submitted that the petitioner is entitled for release of the confiscated minerals (sand) on payment of royalty/penalty. In other words, he submits that under Section 23-A, compounding of an offence means that on payment of royalty/penalty, a person is entitled to a return of the confiscated minerals. 4. We have perused the provisions contained in Sections 4(1-A) and 23-A. Section 4(1-A) provides that no person shall transport or store or cause to be transported or stored any mineral otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. Section 21 of the Act, 1957 provides for penalties while Section 23-A deals with compounding of offences. Counsel for the petitioner placed heavy reliance on Section 23-A, which reads thus: “23-A. Compounding of offences. - (1) Any offence punishable under this Act or any rule made thereunder may, either before or after the institution of the prosecution, be compounded by the person authorised under section 22 to make a complaint to the court with respect to that offence, on payment to that person, for credit to the Government, of such sum as that person may specify: 5. Provided that in the case of an offence punishable with fine only, no such sum shall exceed the maximum amount of fine which may be imposed for that offence (2) Where an offence is compounded under sub-section (1), no proceeding or further proceeding, as the case may be, shall be taken against the offender in respect of the offence so compounded, and the offender, in custody, shall be released forthwith.” 6. From a perusal of this provision, it is clear that only an offence punishable under the Act or any Rule made thereunder can be compounded by the person authorised under Section 22 to make a complaint to the Court with respect to that offence, on payment to that person, for credit to the Government, such sum as that person may specify: provided that in the case of an offence punishable with fine only, no such sum shall exceed the maximum amount of fine which may be imposed for that offence. Thus it is clear from the language employed in that provision that it is only the offence which can be compounded in terms thereof. On its bare reading it is manifestly clear that Section 23A neither specifically provides for a return of confiscated minerals nor can it be construed as contemplating a return or release thereof in favour of the person who is alleged to have committed the offence. In other words, even after compounding of an offence punishable under the Act or any Rule made thereunder, the confiscated mineral is not liable to be returned to the persons against whom the offence has been registered. 7. We would also like to make a reference to the provisions contained in Section 21(5) of the Act, 1957, which clearly provide that whenever any person raises, without any lawful authority, any mineral from any land, the State Government may recover from such person the mineral so raised, or, where such mineral has already been disposed of, the price thereof, and may also recover from such person, rent, royalty or tax, as the case may be, for the period during which the land was occupied by such person without any lawful authority. This provision also does not carry the case of the petitioner any further since evidently it is restricted in its application to only those contingencies where a person is found to have “raised” minerals without any lawful authority or illegally occupied land for the purposes of extracting minerals. The allegation against the petitioner, it becomes pertinent to note, is not of having extracted the mineral but of illegal storage. Notwithstanding the fact that this provision would, therefore, have no application to the petitioner, even under section 21 (5) the power or discretion vested in the State is confined to a recovery of rent, royalty, tax or price of the mineral concerned. Even this provision does not contemplate a release of the minerals in favour of the person who is alleged to have committed an offence. 8. It is thus clear that under any circumstance, the person from whose possession such minerals are confiscated, is not entitled to seek possession thereof even if the offence is compounded or in any case, after punishment has been inflicted. 9. In the circumstances, the prayers as made, in particular, prayer clause (ii) cannot be granted and deserves to be rejected outright. Insofar as compounding of offences is concerned, it is always open to the authorities concerned to deal with the petitioner’s application strictly in accordance with law. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.