Usha Martin Limited v Union of India
In the High Court of Jharkhand
 Cr.M.P. 1334/2021
Before Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwidevi
Decided on November 3, 2021

Relevancy of the case: Prevalence of special law over general law

Statutes and Provisions Involved

• The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Section 120B, 420)
• The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 120B, 499)
• The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (Section 44, 45, 50)
• The Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (Rule 22(1), 59, 22(3))
• The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (Section 11(3), 5(1))
• The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1960 (Section 13(2), 13(1)(d))

Relevant Facts of the Case

• The company filed this petition on the grounds of violating an undertaking of captive mining it had submitted in its application under Rule 22(1) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. The officials of the Ministry of Environment and Forest allegedly violated mining and environmental rules while granting the forest clearance and the mining lease to the petitioner. The State Government notified the Gazette to re-grant a mining lease for the mines.
• In this case, the petitioner sought to quash an impugned order issued by the Special Judge-CBI, Ranchi, which summoned the petitioner and the other accused to appear for a proceeding.

Prominent Arguments by the Advocates 

• The petitioner’s counsel argued that the concerned court summoned the petitioner and other co-accused, which is against the well-settled provisions of the law.
• The counsel also submits that for any contravention of the Mines and Minerals Act 1957, there is a provision of action if any violation occurs by any leaseholder. He submitted that there is a complete Code for offences under Mines and Minerals under the Act of 1957. When a special act exists, the provision of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, will not apply.
• To strengthen this argument, the counsel cited the case of Sharat Babu Digumarti v. Government (NCT of Delhi)” (2017) 2 SCC 18. The court here held that since Section 67 deals with obscenity in electronic records, this Section read with Sections 67A and 67B is a complete code that governs offences related to the same, and it shall take precedence over the general law such as Section 292 IPC. 
• The respondent counsel, citing State (NCT of Delhi) v. Sanjay (2014) 9 SCC 772, submitted that the Supreme Court has considered the wordings of Section 22 of the 1957 Act and concluded that the provision is not particularly a complete and absolute bar for taking action by the police for illegal and dishonestly committing theft of minerals.

Opinion of the Bench

• The application of special law and IPC must be in light of the facts and circumstances of each case. Section 2(1)(y) of the 2002 Act defined the scheduled offences under the Act in Part-A and Part-B. In the schedule, Section 120B and Section 420 are provided. Thus, it cannot be said that cheating is not prescribed under the Schedule of Section 2(1)(y) of the Act. Furthermore, the cases put forth by the respondent prove the absence of an absolute bar. Thus, that argument is negated.

Final Decision

• Finally, the court quashed the petition as it did not make out a prime facie case.