https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464320 Excess sand excavation by a valid settlee was treated as a breach of settlement conditions attracting extra royalty, not illegal mining by itself. For offences under the MMDR Act, the Bihar Minor Minerals Concession Rules, and the Environment (Protection) Act, cognizance was said to depend on a complaint by the authorised statutory authority or a prescribed complainant, so an FIR could not replace that special complaint procedure. The text also states that the facts did not disclose theft, cheating, or criminal breach of trust under the IPC, and that mere directorship does not create vicarious criminal liability without a statutory basis and specific role attribution. Civil liability for excess excavation was left open. en-us Mon, 26 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 18 Oct 2025 10:18:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464320 Excess sand excavation by a valid settlee was treated as a breach of settlement conditions attracting extra royalty, not illegal mining by itself. For offences under the MMDR Act, the Bihar Minor Minerals Concession Rules, and the Environment (Protection) Act, cognizance was said to depend on a complaint by the authorised statutory authority or a prescribed complainant, so an FIR could not replace that special complaint procedure. The text also states that the facts did not disclose theft, cheating, or criminal breach of trust under the IPC, and that mere directorship does not create vicarious criminal liability without a statutory basis and specific role attribution. Civil liability for excess excavation was left open. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 26 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464320