Transportation of manufactured hard coke does not attract the MMDR Act’s mineral-transport provisions.

The petitioner sought to quash proceedings arising from Kulti Police Station Case No. 585 of 2023, in which she was implicated in alleged offences under Sections 379, 411, 413, 414 and 120B of the IPC, Section 30(ii) of the Coal Mines (Nationalization) Act, 1973, and Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.

The case concerned a truck registered in the petitioner’s name that was intercepted while carrying a consignment initially described as coal. The petitioner relied on the purchase order, invoice, e-way bill and weighbridge challan to assert that the consignment was hard coke being transported for delivery to a purchaser

The seizure record described the load as coal, but subsequent investigation and testing identified it as burnt coke; the company also confirmed that the consignment was hard coke

After a supplementary charge sheet was filed, the petitioner applied for quashing. The State acknowledged that the test report identified burnt coke and that the charge sheet did not explain the basis for continuing the charges

Whether the investigation and charge sheets disclosed material connecting the petitioner to the alleged offences concerning the seized consignment.

Whether the alleged offences under the MMDR Act and the Coal Mines (Nationalization) Act could be sustained where the consignment was found to be burnt or hard coke and the court found the cited provisions inapplicable.

The court considered the alleged offences under Sections 379, 411, 413, 414 and 120B of the IPC, Section 30(ii) of the Coal Mines (Nationalization) Act, 1973, and Section 21 of the MMDR Act, 1957.

It referred to Section 4 of the MMDR Act, which regulates prospecting and mining operations and prohibits transport or storage of minerals otherwise than in accordance with the Act and its rules; the court held that burnt or hard coke, as a manufactured industrial product, did not fall within the relevant definition of “mineral”.

The court also relied on *Shariff Ahmed v. State of U.P.*, 2024 INSC 363, for the principle that a final report must clearly identify the alleged contravention, the accused’s role and the supporting evidence so the court can meaningfully apply its mind.

The judgment further treated the Coal Mines (Nationalization) Act as repealed.

The court found that the investigation produced materially inconsistent descriptions of the seized goods: the initial seizure record called them coal, while later records and the test report identified them as hard or burnt coke.

The documentary material supported the petitioner’s account that the truck was carrying a consignment for delivery pursuant to a purchase order, and the investigation confirmed the vehicle’s ownership and the consignment’s commercial context.

Given the finding that burnt or hard coke was a manufactured product rather than a mineral within the relevant MMDR provisions, the court found no basis for sustaining the charge under Section 21 of that Act.

It also found that the supplementary charge sheet did not clearly explain the evidence or the petitioner’s role so as to support the alleged offences, contrary to the requirements discussed in *Shariff Ahmed*.

It allowed the criminal revision and quashed the proceedings in respect of the petitioner; the revision and connected application were disposed of accordingly.