IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 25’ DAY OF JANUARY 2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY CRIMINAL PETITON No.805612010 BETWEEN: Chandabasha S/o Rajasab, Age 33 years, 0cc: Business. Rio Sheelavanth Stret, Kampli, Hospet, Hospet Taluk, Dist: Bellary. Petitioner (By Shri S. M. Kaiwad, Advocate) AND: 1. The State of Karnataka, Rep. by its PSI Gadiganur P.S. Through Addi. SPP, High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad. 2. The Geologist. Department of Mines and Geology, Hospet, Bellary District. ... Respondents (By Sri Anand Kumar Navalgimath, GP) This Criminal Petition is tiled under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.771/2008 pending on the file of the Court of Civil Judge(Jr.Dn), and JMFC, Sandur, and etc. This petition coming on for admission this day, the Court made the following: ORDER Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. The petition coming on for admission, is considered for final disposal having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. It is claimed that the petitioner is resident of Hospet Taluk, On the basis of the complaint said to have been lodged as respondent No.2, the Geologist, Department of N’lines and Geology, Hospet, Bellary District, the ls respondent Police Inspector, of Gadiganur Police Station, had registered a case 3 against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner had stored iron ore powder illegally and unauthorisedly in the land belonging to one Kumargouda. On the basis of the complaint, the 1st respondent had registered a case against the petitioner in Crime No.34/2008 for the offences punishable under Sections 4(1XA) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, and the 1 respondent had filed a charge sheet against the petitioner in Criminal Case No.771/2008 for the alleged offences. 3. The learned Magistrate has then taken cognizance of the offences and registered case against the petitioner and directed issuance of summons. The case was posted for framing ofcharges when the present petition is filed. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit, that Section 22 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, specifically lays down that, no court shall take cognizance of any offence 3 4 punishable under this Act or any rules made thereunder, except upon the complaint in writing made by a person authorised in this behalf by the Central Government or the State Government. In that background, the learned Magistrate having thought it fit to take cognizance and issued process against the petitioner on the basis of charge sheet filed by the police, is not in consonance with the above said Section. 5. The learned Counsel would submit that the question is settled having regard to the reported judgment in the case of Abtiul Samad Mulla Vs. State of Karnataka, 2007(5) Kar.L.J. 121, in this regard while interpreting the scope of Section 22 of the Act. Having regard to this legal position, the learned Magistrate having taken cognizance on the basis of the report of the police, is without jurisdiction. 6. From a reading of Section 22 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, it is only on a written complaint by the State Government, that such cognizance could have been taken as laid by the aforesaid judgment. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The proceedings taking cognizance and issuing process against the petitioner is set aside. It is open for the State Government to initiate fresh action against the petitioner, if the la so permits. Sd! jUDGE Sub!