Munni Devi and ors. Vs. the State of West Bengal

.....dated 15.03.2003.[para 42] d) whether rule 35 of the mc rules justify the recommendation of the state government in favour of the respondents-jindal and kalyani -- as discussed above, rule 35 only permits the state government to take additional factor of the "end use" of the minerals and not the existing investments made by the applicants. moreover, relying on the existing investments made, the respondents also does not satisfy the requirements under section 11(3)(d) which talks solely about proposed investments to be made and not the existing ones.[para 44] e) whether the criterion of "captive consumption" referred to in tata iron and steel co. ltd. vs. union of india, (1996) 9 scc 709, have any application in this case despite not being one of the factors referred to in section 11 (3) of the mmdr act or rule 35 of the mc rules -- we have already held that section 11(3) specifies the matter relevant for purposes of second proviso to section 11(2). we also referred to the committee's report. in accordance with the recommendation in the said report, section 11(3)(d) was added as part of the substitution of section 11 in the year 1999. sub-section (d) provides that "the investment which the applicant proposes to make in the mines and in the industry based on minerals" and it speaks about investment proposed to be made and not past investments. thus it confines the concept of "captive consumption of minerals to proposed investment and not past investments". even the residuary clauses in section 11(3)(e) are limited to "matters as may be prescribed", which would necessarily mean matters prescribed by rules. this is fortified by decision of this court in bsnl ltd. & anr. vs. bpl mobile cellular ltd. & ors., (2008) 13 scc 597, para 45.[para 35] f) whether factors such as the past commitments by the state government to applicants who have already set up steel plants, matter for consideration for grant of lease despite the mmdr act and the mc rules constituting a..........prayer for bail on the ground that charge-sheet has already been submitted. the petitioners challenged the said order in this criminal revision.2. heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the materials on record as well as the case laws cited by them.3. in the case at hand, the charge-sheet has been submitted against the petitioners for an offence punishable under sections 20(b)(ii)(b)/29 of the n.d.p.s. act, which is punishable with an imprisonment that may be extended upto 10 years, meaning thereby the imprisonment can be for a period of 10 years or less. therefore, in terms of clause (ii) of proviso (a) to section 167(2) of the code of criminal procedure, a magistrate is authorized to permit detention of an accused in custody who has been charged with such an offence for a maximum period of 60 days and on the expiry of such period of 60 days an indefeasible right accrued in favour of the accused for being released on bail if the investigating agency failed to complete investigation. however, in this case the investigation was completed within the statutory period and the charge-sheet was submitted on the very next day, i.e., on the 61st day, thus the authority of the magistrate to remand the petitioner after filing of the charge-sheet remain survived and the petitioner is not entitled to statutory bail.this criminal revision has no merit and, accordingly, stands dismissed.criminal section is directed to deliver urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment to the parties, if applied for, as early as possible.