1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 721 of 2016 Subhash Chandra S/o Savant Ram Gore Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Ram Nagar, Doundilohara, P.S. Doundilohara, District Balod, Chhattisgarh. --- Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Suregaon, District Balod, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent CRR No. 709 of 2016 Satyesh Das S/o Kamandas Josh Aged About 27 Years R/o Sambalpur, Police Station - Doundilohara, District- Balod Chhattisgarh ---Applicant Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Suregaon, District - Balod Chhattisgarh, --- Respondent CRR No. 722 of 2016 Smt. Munni Sahu W/o Prem Lal Sahu Aged About 25 Years R/o. Village Chilhatikala, P.S. And Tahsil Doundilohara, District Balod Chhattisgarh --- Applicant Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Suregaon, District Balod Chhattisgarh --- Respondent For Applicants in CRR 721/2016 &722/2016 : Ms. Mahima Chandra appears on behalf of Smt. Hamida Siddiqui, Advocate. For Applicant in CRR No. 709/2016 : Shri Vidya Bhushan Soni appears on behalf of Shri B.P.Singh, Advocate. For Respondent/State : 1) Shri Atanu Ghosh, Deputy Government Advocate in CRR No.721/2016. 2) Shri Amiya Bhushan, P.L. in CRR No.709/2016. Digitally signed by ALLENA ANJANI KUMAR Date: 2026.01.16 16:26:38 +0530 2 3) Shri Himanshu Yadu, P.L. in CRR No.722/2016. (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL) Order on Board 15/01/2026 1. Since all the above captioned revisions arise out of the same impugned judgment dated 24.06.2016, they are being heard together and disposed of by this common order. 2. The present revisions have been filed by the respective above applicants under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. seeking setting aside the common judgment dated 24.06.2016 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Balod, Dist. Balod C.G. in Criminal Appeal No.82/2015 (CRR No.722/2016 Smt. Munni Sahu vs. State), Criminal No.83/2015 (CRR No.709/2016 Satyesh Das vs. State) and Criminal Appeal No. 87/2015 (CRR No.721/2016 Subhash Chandra vs. State). The learned appellate Court allowed all the appeals in part and, while setting aside the conviction of the applicants under Sections 336, 337 (three counts) and 304-A (three counts) of IPC and the sentence imposed thereunder, affirmed the conviction of the applicants under Rule 53 of the Madhya Pradesh Minor Minerals Rules, 1996 (for short, “the Rules, 1996) and modified the sentence to till the rising of the Court and enhanced the fine amount from Rs. 5,000/- instead of Rs.200/-, as against the judgment dated10.08.2015 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balod, Dist. Balod, in Criminal Case No.546/2014. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment dated 24.06.2016, the petitioners/applicants have preferred the present revisions before this Court. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred 3 to herein as they were arrayed before the trial Court. 3. Brief facts as projected by the applicants are that on 20.05.2014 at 5.00 am, the work of laying Morum on a newly earthen road was getting supervised by village Sarpanch Mrs. Sarita Khurshyam under the MNREGA programme wherein several women and nine men were working in that programme. Suddenly, on account of collapse of Morum quarry at 7:30 am, Komal Singh, Basanti Bai and Jago Bai, who were working there, were buried under that Morum quarry after sustaining serious injuries over their bodies and other labourers sustained injuries. The matter was reported to the Police Station Suregaon where F.I.R. vide Ex.P.27 and spot map was prepared vide Ex.P.53, merg intimations were recorded vide Ex.P.47 to Ex.P.49, inquest reports vide Ex.7 to Ex.P.9 were prepared and dead bodies were sent for post-mortem to C.H.C. Dondilohara and the Doctor who conducted post-mortem examination, opined that the death was accidental in nature. 4. Learned counsels for the respective applicants submit that the finding of conviction under Section 53 of Rules, 1996, without appreciating the evidence in its true perspective, is not sustainable in law. They further submit that no evidence has been brought on record by the prosecution with respect to unauthorised extraction of Morum by the applicants and that, not even a single witness from the Mining Department has been examined by the prosecution and there is no such evidence to connect the applicants in crime in question. Further, they also submit that there is no document on record to show that the execution of work for approach road by filling up the Morum was actually done by the applicants/accused persons and in fact, the 4 applicants have nowhere played any role, therefore, no prima facie case has been made out against them. 5. On the other hand, learned counsels for the State oppose the submissions made by the learned counsels for the applicants and support the impugned judgment passed by the appellate Court, while submitting that no separate appeals have been preferred against the impugned judgment. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record. 7. Before proceeding further, it would be apt to quote Rule 53 (1) of the Rules, 1996 which deals with illegal extraction of mineral and punishment thereof and reads as under: 53 (1). Penalty for unauthorised extraction and transportation.--- (1) Whenever any person is found extracting or transporting minerals or on whose behalf such extraction or transportation is being made otherwise than in accordance with these rules, shall be presumed to be a party to the illegal extraction of minerals and every such person shall be punishable with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees or with both. xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx 8. A perusal of Article A-4 reveals that a work order was issued by the Office of Janapad Panchayat, Dondilohara, District Balod on 06.05.2014, whereby, under the MNREGA scheme, the work of construction of the approach road from village Bhedi to Gadaindeeh was duly sanctioned and entrusted to the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Bhedi, for execution. Further, as per Article A-3, the Gram Panchayat, Bhedi (Suregaon), informed the Police In-charge, Suregaon, that the work of excavation of Murum and laying the same for the approach road from village Bhedi to Gadaindeeh under MNREGA was 5 sanctioned. Though no formal permission had been obtained from the Mining Department, the work of excavation of Murum was being carried out pursuant to Proposal No. 4 passed by the Gram Sabha on 28.01.2014. 9. Now, the question that arises for consideration is whether the applicants can be held to be the authors of the alleged offence. From the statements of P.W.2 Kamleshwari, P.W.11 Draupadi Bai, P.W.12 Lalti Bai, as well as the merg intimations Ex.P-24, Ex.P-25 and Ex.P- 26, it is evident that the work of excavation of Murum and laying the same for the approach road was being executed under the directions of Sarpanch Sarita Khurshyam. Moreover, P.W.9 Smt. Sitabai has categorically admitted in her cross-examination that the applicants were not present at the place of incident and that no employment guarantee work was being carried out at the spot at the relevant time. There is no evidence on record to establish the presence of the applicants at the place of occurrence or to show that they were engaged by the Gram Panchayat for excavation or laying of Murum for the construction of the approach road. 10. Additionally, there is no documentary evidence to demonstrate that the execution of the work of construction of the approach road by filling up Murum was actually carried out by the applicants. The prosecution has also failed to examine any witness from the Mining Department to establish that the excavation of Murum and its use for road construction was carried out without the requisite permission, or to show the extent of the area permissible for such excavation and that, there is no such evidence to show that after excavation of Murmu, it was transporting for construction of the approach road. Thus, the 6 prosecution has failed to substantiate its case by cogent and reliable evidence and has also failed to prove violation of Rule 53 of the Rules, 1996 by the applicants. Accordingly, Rule 53 of the Rules, 1996 is also not proved against the applicants. 11. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned judgment dated 24.06.2016, whereby the applicants/accused persons were convicted and sentenced under Rule 53 of the Rules, 1996, is perverse and erroneous. Consequently, the said judgment is hereby set aside. The applicants are accordingly acquitted of the offence under Rule 53 of the Rules, 1996. 12. In the result, all the above captioned criminal revisions are liable to be and are hereby allowed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Anjani