IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION Present:- HON’BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS). CRR NO.2390 of 2025 + IA NO:CRAN/1/2025 SHREYA SHARMA VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL For the Petitioner : Mr. Sabir Ahmed, Adv., Mr. Sunil Kumar Gupta, Adv., Mr. Dhiman Banerjee, Adv. For the State : Mr. Pritam Roy, Adv., Ms. Kritika Jain, Adv. Last heard on : 28.09.2026 Judgement on : 28.09.2026 Uploaded on : 05.10.2026 CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS), J. :- 1. The instant criminal revisional application has been filed by the present petitioner in connection with the criminal proceeding initiated pursuant to a FIR being Kulti Police Station Case No.585 of 2023 for allegedly dealing with the stolen consignment. 2. The case of the present petitioner is that sometime around the month of November, 2024, the petitioner received a Warrant of Arrest issued against her in connection with the above-mentioned case and came to know that she has been implicated in the criminal proceeding emanated from a complaint lodged under Sections 379/411/413/414/120B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 30(ii) of the Coal Mines (Nationalization) Act, 1973 and Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. On enquiry, she further came to learn that an order has been passed issuing warrant against her and immediately thereafter, she surrendered before the court and subsequently enlarged on bail. 3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that her family has got a flourishing business of manufacturing and supplying of hard coke across the country through their own logistics. The said Company in usual course of its business acquires raw coal from Bharat Coking Coal Limited and upon processing such raw coal and converting the same into hard coke for Industrial utilization, the said company supply the same to their respective consignees across different geographical verticals. The father of the petitioner manages logistic aspects and particularly, transportation, whereas the petitioner’s granduncle was assigned with production aspect at their hard coke factory situated at Dhanbad. It is the further case of the present petitioner that since the father of the petitioner had started logistic business and having a fleet of trucks, to provide logistic support not only to their family business at Dhanbad but also independently and deals with other business entities by providing logistic support. While acquiring such large fleet of trucks, Sri Sanwar Mal Sharma had bought a heavy goods vehicle being TATA LPT 2518 in the name of the petitioner sometime in the year 2013. The said truck was principally operated under the instructions of the petitioner’s father for his business requirements. The uncle of the present petitioner was looking into the family coal business and holds the position of Director at Maithon Coal Company Private Limited. He also owns the factory situated at Tetulia, PO-Barwa (East), Dist.-Dhanbad, Jharkhand. 4. The further case disclose that on 29th October, 2023, the company engaged the said vehicle bearing registration no.NL-02-N-1983 for supply of 16 metric ton of hard coke to one of its consignee, namely, M/s. Friends Casting. The said consignment was duly covered by the purchase order dated October 25, 2023 raised by M/s. Friends Casting to supply 20 metric ton of hard coke, Tax Invoice No.M/2023-24/0298 dated 29th October, 2023 issued by Maithan Coal Company Private Limited in favour of M/s. Friends Casting in respect of 18 MT of hard coke, E-way Bill dated 29th October, 2023 for supply of 18.31 MT of hard coke through the said vehicle from the said company’s factory at Tetulia, Dhanbad to M/s. Friends Casting. Weigh Bridge Challan bearing no.571 dated 29th October, 2023 was also generated through Weitex Electronic Weighing Machine. It is the case of the present petitioner that the entire allegation levelled against the present petitioner is false and concocted as the vehicle never carried any coal and it was throughout a hard coke and the Investigating Officer has wrongly and incorrectly mentioned as coke and thereafter filed this case when the driver of the vehicle produced all the relevant documents as required. 5. The Learned Advocate argued on behalf of the petitioner that the said company took all steps to complete the legal formalities and no illegality was there as alleged. In course of investigation also, the investigating authority took the sample which was sent verification and describe it as coke. Despite such revelation the charge sheet has been submitted against the present petitioner against the aforesaid provisions. The owner of the vehicle produced all necessary papers. The concerned company where the products were to be delivered admitted the purchase order and, therefore, no charge of Sections 379/411/413/414 can be made against the present petitioner. 6. It is further submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the Coal Mines (Nationalization) Act, 1973 has been repealed and, therefore, no charge can be framed under the said Act which has not been considered. The Investigating has miserably failed to establish that there is any ingredients to attract any of the penal provision and or MMDR ACT 1957 when found the article is not coal but burnt coke which is a processed coal and mechanically submitted the charge sheet by flouting the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In this regard, reliance has been placed upon the decision of Shariff Ahmed vs State of U.P1. 7. On behalf of the prosecution the Case Diary has been handed over and candidly submits that the supplementary charge sheet has been submitted 1 2024 INSC 363 where it was established that the vehicle was carrying burnt coal so it is not coming within the purview of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957. More so when all other papers were duly examined no suspicious circumstances could be found for which the petitioner has been implicated and further admitted that the chargesheet failed to show the opinion expressed by the I.O as to how the aforesaid chargesheet was submitted after the detection of burnt coke. 8. Having heard the submissions advanced by the learned advocates for both the parties, it is apparent that the complaint was lodged before the Inspector- in-Charge, Kulti Police Station, on 29th October, 2023 whereas specific description was mentioned that the truck was loaded with illegal coal coming from Jharkhand side. The said vehicle along with its articles were seized vide the seizure list dated 29th October, 2023 where it has been described in column no.5 that the truck was loaded with approximately 60MT of coal. Out of which 2.2kg was taken as sample. After that from the order passed by the learned trial Court it is evident that on December 06, 2023 the learned court considered the report which stated that the ownership of the vehicle belonged to Sreya Sharma in respect of the truck bearing No.NL02N1983. It is further found that a power of attorney was executed by the owner of the vehicle in favour of the accused driver which is also seized by the seizure list dated 05- 11-2023. It can be found subsequently from the order dated 11th December, 2023 that the Investigating Officer confirmed the ownership of the seized hard coke in favour of one Vednidhi Sharma. 9. Necessary Communication was made with the Maithan Coal Company Private Limited by the Officer-in-Charge and a notice under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also sent and reply to the same, also it was intimated that it was hard coke. 10. While filing the said charge sheet prayer was made to file the supplementary charge sheet due to nonavailability of the report regarding sample. As can be gathered from the Case Diary that supplementary charge sheet was also being submitted on 15th November, 2025 after receiving the report and it is evident that the report received established that it was burnt coke, not coal. Hence, on the face of the complaint, it is found that there was huge confusion regarding the article which was seized at the initial point of time whether it was coal, hard coke or burnt coke. When in the seizure list mentioned about coal, in the order sheet of the Learned Magistrate it was mentioned as hard coke and when the seized goods were returned also describe the goods as burnt coke. 11. However, subsequently, in course of investigation, all the materials were collected, different communications were made, reply to the notices was given by the authority, the ownership of the vehicle was proved and the necessary document that the goods were transported for delivery on the basis of purchase order. 12. Therefore, the question of applicability of The Coal Mines (Nationalization) Act also cannot be made applicable when Coal Mines (Nationalization) Act, 1973 was repealed on May 30, 1973 and it has been published in the Gazette Notification. 13. The definition of “minor minerals” in the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 is as follows:- (e) “minor minerals” means building stones, gravel, ordinary clay, ordinary sand other than sand used for prescribed purposes, and any other mineral which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare to be a minor mineral; (ea) “notified minerals” means any mineral specified in the Fourth Schedule; 14. Therefore, chargesheet submitted under Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, where the penalties for contravention of Sub -section (1) of (1A) of Section 4 are stated. Section 4 of the said Act deals with prospecting or mining operations to be under licence or lease and termination of prospecting licenses, exploration licneses or mining leases. In the proviso clause it was mentioned that no person shall transport or store or cause to be transported or stored any mineral otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the Rules made thereunder .In terms of the said Act of 1957 burnt coke or the hard coke does not come in the definition of mineral since burnt coke is a manufactured industrial product .None of the above situation are developed over here as it was very much evident that those articles of hard coke or burnt coal was carried through the said truck which was seized from a particular company on the basis of a purchase order to be supplied to the company who has given the order for the purpose of the delivery of the same. 15. In the case of Shariff Ahmed vs State of U.P (Supra) as relied upon it is observed in paragraph 27,28, 29 &30 ; 27. The object and purpose of the police investigation is manyfold. It includes the need to ensure transparent and free investigation to ascertain the facts, examine whether or not an offence is committed, identify the offender if an offence is committed, and to lay before the court the evidence which has been collected, the truth and correctness of which is thereupon decided by the court. In H.N. Rishbud and Inder Singh v. State of Delhi AIR 1954 SCC 934, this Court notes that the process of investigation generally consists of: 1) proceeding to the concerned spot, 2) ascertainment of facts and circumstances, 3) discovery and arrest, 4) collection of evidence which includes examination of various persons, search of places and seizure of things, and 5) formation of an opinion on whether an offence is made out, and filing the chargesheet accordingly. Page 7 of 9 The formation of opinion is therefore the culmination of several stages that an investigation goes through. This Court in its decision in Abhinandan Jha and Others v. Dinesh MishraAIR1968 SC 117 states that the submission of the chargesheet or the final report is dependent on the nature of opinion formed, which is the final step in the investigation’. 28. The final report has to be prepared with these aspects in mind and should show with sufficient particularity and clarity, the contravention of the law which is alleged. When the report complies with the said requirements, the court concerned should apply its mind whether or not to take cognisance and also proceed by issuing summons to the accused. While doing so, the court will take into account the statement of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code and the documents placed on record by the investigating officer. 29. The final report has to be prepared with these aspects in mind and should show with sufficient particularity and clarity, the contravention of the law which is alleged. When the report complies with the said requirements, the court concerned should apply its mind whether or not to take cognisance and also proceed by issuing summons to the accused. While doing so, the court will take into account the statement of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code and the documents placed on record by the investigating officer. 30. Therefore, the investigating officer must make clear and complete entries of all columns in the chargesheet so that the court can clearly understand which crime has been committed by which accused and what is the material evidence available on the file. Statements under Section 161 of the Code and related documents have to be enclosed with the list of witnesses. The role played by the accused in the crime should be separately and clearly mentioned in the chargesheet, for each of the accused persons.’ In the present case the investigating agency while filing the supplementary chargesheet even did not follow the above and failed to make any clear observation that on what material evidence available in the case diary which can attract the provisions under which the Chargesheet has been submitted . Therefore, this revisional application has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of the entire proceeding. 16. Therefore, this Court on careful scrutiny of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, does not find any material from either of the above provisions for which the entire proceeding is allowed to be continued. Accordingly, this revisional application stands allowed. The proceedings stand quashed in respect of the present petitioner. 17. The criminal revisional application and the connected application are disposed of. 18. All parties shall act on the server copies of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. 19. Criminal Section is directed to supply certified copies of this order to the parties, if applied for, upon compliance of all necessary formalities. [CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS), J.]