Manash Dutta Vs. the Union of India (Uoi)

.....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..........in this case total 180 grams of brown coloured sticky substance alleged to be opium, was recovered from the possession of the present petitioner. however in chemical test it was found that net opium content was 9.2%. therefore, the actual quantity of opium would be maximum 16.56 grams which is a small quantity and accordingly if at all the petitioner shall be liable to be charged under section 18(a) of the n.d.p.s. act and not under section 18(c) of the n.d.p.s. act.3. the contention of the learned advocate of the petitioner was vehemently resisted by the learned additional solicitor general, mr. farook m. razack, appearing on behalf of the necrotic control bureau. he drew the attention of this court to the chemical analysis report which was the part of this revisional application, at page 24 and submitted actually in the sample morphine 9.2 percent by weight has been found.4. i have given my anxious and thoughtful considerations to the respective submissions made on behalf of the parties. i find in this case total 180 grams of brown coloured sticky substance was recovered from the possession of the accused person. out of the said seized article 25.5 grams were sent for chemical test and on analysis the morphine content was found to be 9.2 percent by weight. thus, in total 180 grams the morphine content would be about 16.56 grams which is of course more than the small quantity of morphine. in such premises the learned trial court has very rightly framed charge under section 18(c) of the n.d.p.s. act against the petitioner. the order of framing charge does not suffer from any illegality.this criminal revision has no merit and accordingly stands dismissed.criminal section is directed to deliver urgent photostat certified copy of this judgement to the parties, if applied for, as early as possible.