ORDER
D.K. Sinha, J.
1. The present criminal revision application has been directed against the order impugned passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Bermo at Tenughat in Sessions Trial No. 226 of 2004 on 14.7.2005, whereby and whereunder the discharge petition, filed on behalf of the petitioners under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was rejected and the charge was directed to be framed against the petitioners for the offence under Sections 413 and 414 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 30 of the Mining Act.
2. The prosecution story in brief is that a coal loaded truck bearing Registration No. BR-23B-4483 was intercepted by the Area Security Officer on the date intervening between 23/24.2.2002 on suspicion. On demand no paper was produced about the transportation of coal by the driver (petitioner No. 1) or the cleaner of the truck. They explained that the relevant papers of transportation of coal by the said truck were lying with the owner of coal Mukesh Kumar. For want of the relevant papers, the said truck loaded with coal thereon was seized and Gomia P.S. Case No. 33 of 2002 was registered against the petitioners and others for the offence under Sections 413 and 414 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 30 of the Mining Act, 1952.
3. Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that even though there was no criminal antecedent against the petitioners, the case was registered under Section 413 I.P.C., which is illegal. Petitioner No. 1 is the” driver, petitioner No. 2 is the cleaner and the petitioner No. 3 is the owner of the said truck. As a matter of fact, the coal, in question, which was seized from the said truck was purchased by M/s. Mukesh Kumar of Swang from Harijan Adivasi Wholesale Coal at Hazaribagh on 23.3.2002 at 6.00 p.m. and after purchase it was carried to Swang. Since it was late in night, the coal loaded on the said truck could not be unloaded on 23.3.2002 and, therefore, the truck was standing in the campus of M/s. Mukesh Kumar and when the truck was proceeded to its destination in the early morning of 24.3.2002, it was intercepted and seized.
4. Mr. Mazumdar further submitted that the driver as well as the cleaner of the said truck clearly mentioned and explained that the relevant papers of purchase and transportation of coal were lying with the owner of the coal and the said documents were produced before the Court below, which were sent to the Investigating Officer for verification and the documents were found genuine, which can be apparent from Paragraphs 45, 46 and 47 of the case diary. Besides verification by the Investigating Officer, the Court below by forwarding the said documents directed the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Hazaribagh Circle, Hazaribagh for verification of Form 28 ‘Kha’ and missing of the signature of competent officer on the said form relating to transportation of coal. The Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Hazaribagh Circle, Hazaribagh by his Letter No. 498 dated 18.4.2002 after verification with his office record submitted to the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat that on 2.3.2001 as many as 145 forms were issued and that there was possibility of missing of his signature on any one of those forms out of his inadvertence but on verification, he found the Forum 28 ‘Kha’ genuine, issued from his office on the given serial number.
5. Mr. Mazumdar further submitted that the petition of the petitioners under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for their discharge was rejected mainly on the ground that the police after investigation submitted charge-sheet and that no document was produced immediately after the said truck with the coal loaded thereon was intercepted. The explanation made by the driver that the papers were lying with the coal owner Mukesh Kumar was ignored though the said truck as well as the coal loaded thereon were released later on in favour of Mukesh Kumar.
6. In view of the verification report of the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Hazaribagh Circle, Hazaribagh that the forms were issued from his office, the rejection of discharge petition of the petitioners is hot sustainable Mr. Muzumdar submitted.
7. Learned A.P.P. submitted and conceded that the documents, in question, which were subsequently, produced in the Court below in respect of transportation of coal by truck bearing Registration No. BR-23B-4483 was found genuine by the Investigating Officer and that the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Hazaribagh Circle. Hazaribagh has given clean chit and affirmed that Form No. 28 ‘Kha’ (permit) was issued by his office, therefore, appropriate order may be passed.
8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the petition of the petitioners under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was rejected solely on the ground that no valid papers regarding carrying of coal was produced by the petitioners on demand and that the police after investigation had submitted charge-sheet. The suspicion of the Court below has been negatived by the verification report of Sri Albert Minz, Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Hazaribagh Circle, Hazaribagh vide his letter No. 498 dated 10.8.2002 and he has affirmed that Form No. 28 ‘Kha’ was issued to M/s. Mukesh Kumar for carrying 18.2 M. Tonnes of steam coal by truck bearing Registration No. BR-23B-4483 vide Serial No. B.G./2-0268094, as contained in Form 28 ‘Kha’ which was genuine,
9. In view of the above facts, the prosecution of the petitioners under Sections 413 and 414 of the Indian Penal Code without any criminal antecedent is unsustainable. Similarly, Section 30 of the Mining Act is also not attracted against the petitioners. This criminal revision application is allowed. The petitioners hereto are discharged from their criminal prosecution in the instant case.