Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Jaswinder Singh, sought anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 80 dated 09.07.2022, registered at Police Station Nurpur Bedi, District Rupnagar, under Sections 21(1) and 4(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation of Development) Act, 1957, as recorded in the judgment.

According to the prosecution, a Junior Engineer-cum-Mining Inspector, Sri Anandpur Sahib, submitted a written complaint after inspecting the premises of BNW Screening Plant at village Bainhara, stated to belong to the petitioner. Although the crusher was not operational at the time of inspection, approximately 11,415 cubic feet of processed material was allegedly found lying at the premises.

The material was stated to include approximately:

  • 1,520 cubic feet of “Gatka”;
  • 2,356 cubic feet of “Bajri”; and
  • 7,540 cubic feet of sand.

The prosecution further alleged that at a location about two acres away from the crusher, deep digging and extraction of mining material through machinery had taken place. Upon measurement, the extracted quantity was stated to be approximately 1,25,100 cubic feet. However, ownership of the land from which the excavation had allegedly occurred was yet to be verified from the Revenue Department.

The complaint also recorded details of a generator found at the spot.

Issues Involved

The principal issues before the Court were:

  1. Whether the petitioner had made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail in the alleged illegal mining matter.
  2. Whether the substantial quantity of Gatka, Bajri and sand found at the petitioner-owned crusher premises could reasonably be explained as construction material purchased for construction adjacent to his house.
  3. Whether the purchase bills relied upon by the petitioner could be treated as genuine and sufficient to explain lawful possession of the mining or building material.
  4. Whether inclusion or payment of a GST component in the disputed bills was sufficient to establish the authenticity of those bills.
  5. Whether the petitioner’s previous involvement in multiple criminal cases was relevant while considering the request for anticipatory bail.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner contended that the crusher where Gatka, Bajri and sand were found was admittedly not operational at the time of inspection.

It was argued that the petitioner was undertaking construction of a building adjacent to his house in the village and had stored the building material at his crusher premises. Photographs of the construction were relied upon in support of this explanation.

The petitioner further submitted that the entire construction material, including Gatka, Bajri and sand, had been duly purchased from M/s Vishal Stone Crusher against receipts annexed with the petition.

It was also argued that the petitioner could not be connected with the excavation or digging allegedly undertaken in fields adjoining the crusher because the concerned land did not belong to him.

During arguments, reliance was also placed on the contention that GST had been duly paid in respect of the bills and, therefore, their authenticity should not be disputed.

On these grounds, the petitioner sought anticipatory bail.

Respondent’s Arguments

The State opposed the anticipatory bail petition.

The State argued that the petitioner’s explanation regarding storage of construction material at the crusher premises was not acceptable because the crusher was situated approximately one kilometre away from the construction site near the petitioner’s house.

According to the State, if the petitioner had genuinely purchased the material for construction, it would ordinarily have been stored at the construction site itself rather than at another location, because transporting it again from the crusher premises to the construction site would involve additional cost.

The State further challenged the authenticity of the receipts allegedly issued by M/s Vishal Stone Crusher. It was submitted that the receipts appeared to have been procured after registration of the case in order to create a defence.

The State also informed the Court that the petitioner had been involved in multiple previous cases, although he had been acquitted in several of them.

Court’s Findings and Order

The High Court considered the rival submissions and examined the surrounding circumstances.

The Court noted that the premises from where Gatka, Bajri and sand were recovered were owned by the petitioner and were situated approximately one kilometre away from the construction site adjacent to his house.

Upon examining the photographs placed on record, the Court observed that construction was not taking place over the entire plot and that sufficient space appeared to be available at the construction site for storing building material.

In these circumstances, the petitioner’s explanation that he had purchased the material from M/s Vishal Stone Crusher and then stored it approximately one kilometre away from the construction site did not appeal to reason. The Court observed that such an arrangement would involve additional transportation cost.

The Court further considered the quantity of material found at the crusher premises. In particular, it observed that the quantity of Gatka appeared inconsistent with the comparatively limited construction reflected in the photographs, especially because Gatka is used in the foundation of a building.

The Court clarified that, at that stage, the prosecution might not be able to connect the petitioner with the excavation or digging undertaken in the plot adjacent to the crusher site. Nevertheless, the presence of a substantial quantity of Gatka, Bajri and sand tended to indicate that the material was the result of illegal mining.

Court’s Examination of the Purchase Bills

The petitioner attempted to justify possession of the material by relying upon bills allegedly issued by M/s Vishal Stone Crusher.

The Court closely examined the dates and serial numbers of those bills. It found that during the five-day period from 19.06.2022 to 23.06.2022, the bills relied upon by the petitioner ran continuously from Serial No. 459 to Serial No. 468.

The Court found it significant that all those consecutively numbered bills were issued only to the petitioner and that, during the relevant period, no intervening bill appeared to have been issued to any other customer.

The Court considered this circumstance unusual and held that the continuous serial numbering of the bills issued exclusively to the petitioner over the five-day period clearly indicated that the bills were procured ones.

Important Clarification on GST Component in Bills

A significant clarification made by the Court concerned the petitioner’s argument that GST had been duly paid in respect of the bills and, therefore, their authenticity could not be disputed.

The Court did not accept this contention.

It observed that GST collected by a vendor is not deposited with the concerned authorities on a day-to-day basis. Therefore, the mere fact that the bills included a GST component did not advance the petitioner’s case.

Accordingly, the presence of a GST component in a bill was not treated as conclusive proof of the genuineness of the underlying transaction, particularly where surrounding circumstances and the pattern of consecutive bill numbers created serious doubt regarding authenticity.

Previous Criminal Record Considered by the Court

The Court also took note of the petitioner’s previous involvement in multiple criminal cases, details of which had been placed on record by the State.

The judgment recorded that the petitioner had a chequered record involving several cases. The previous matters included cases under provisions of the Indian Penal Code, the MMDR Act and the Arms Act, with different outcomes including acquittal, conviction, disposal and pending trial.

This background was considered along with the other circumstances while examining whether a special case for anticipatory bail had been made out.

Final Order

The High Court held that no special case for grant of anticipatory bail was made out.

Accordingly, the Court found the petition to be without merit and dismissed it.

Important Legal Clarification

The decision is significant for the following propositions emerging from the Court’s reasoning:

  • Mere possession of bills containing a GST component does not automatically establish that the underlying purchase transaction is genuine.
  • GST inclusion in an invoice cannot, by itself, neutralise suspicious surrounding circumstances concerning the origin, timing, continuity or authenticity of bills.
  • Consecutively numbered invoices issued exclusively to one person over several days may be closely scrutinised where their genuineness is disputed.
  • At the anticipatory bail stage, the Court may examine the overall factual circumstances, including the quantity and location of allegedly mined material, plausibility of the explanation offered, documentary inconsistencies and previous criminal involvement.
  • Even where the prosecution is not yet able to directly connect an accused with a particular excavation site, other surrounding circumstances may remain relevant for deciding anticipatory bail.
  • The observations were made in the context of adjudicating the anticipatory bail petition and must be understood within the factual setting of the case.

Sections Involved

Section 21(1), Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957: Concerns contravention of the statutory framework governing mining operations and related penal consequences under the Act.

Section 4(1), Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957: Restricts undertaking reconnaissance, prospecting or mining operations except in accordance with the authority contemplated under the statutory framework.

Anticipatory Bail Jurisdiction: The proceedings concerned a request for pre-arrest protection in the criminal case arising from the alleged illegal mining activity.

Link to Download the Order  https://www.mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1783327350_1227compressed.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.