Karnataka High Court

Ravi @ Ravindra S/O. Subbarao Shetty vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 February, 2019

Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 KAR 332

Author:
H.P.Sandesh

Bench:
H.P. Sandesh

R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101274/2018
C/W.
CRIMINAL PETITION NOS.101815/2018,
101986/2018, 102023/2018, 102059/2018,
102060/2018, 102061/2018, 102062/2018,
102107/2018, 102122/2018, 102126/2018
& 102281/2018

IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101274/2018

BETWEEN:

1. RAVI @ RAVINDRA S/O. SUBBARAO SHETTY,
AGE:48 YEARS, OCC:ENGINEER,
R/O. MALASAWADA, BINAGA,
KARWAR, DIST:UTTAR KANNADA.

2. ATYANARAYANA S/O. RAMASHETTY,
AGE:51 YEARS, OCC:ENGINEER,
R/O. B/29, MADHURA ESTATE,
KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI.
...PETITIONERS

(BY SMT.SUMANGALA A CHAKALABBI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH GANGAVATHI
RURAL POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI PRAVEEN K UPPAR, HCGP)

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PRESENT PETITION BY
QUASHING THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS PENDING BEFORE THE
PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC IN C.C.NO.502/2017 ARISING
OUT OF GANGAVATI RURAL POLICE CRIME NO. 230/2015 FOR
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 379, 511 OF THE

IPC
R/W SECTIONS 42, 44(1), 44(2) OF THE KARNATAKA MINOR
MINERAL CONSISTENT RULES 1994 IN SO FAR AS THE
PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED.

IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101815/2018

BETWEEN:

1. MR. SADDAM S/O ISMAIL ANKALI,
AGE.25 YEARS,
OCCCUPATION. PRIVATE SERVICE,
R/O INGALI,
TALUK. HUKKERI,
DISTRICT. BELAGAVI-591 107.

2. MR. RASOOL S/O AKBAR ANKALI,
AGE.23 YEARS,
OCCUPATION. PRIVATE SERVICE,
R/O INGALI,
TALUK. HUKKERI,
DISTIRCT.BELAGAVI-591 107.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.PRASHANT F GOUDAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY
YAMAKANAMARDI POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH.

2. MR.J.B.PUJERI,
ASSISTANT SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
AGE: MAJOR,
YAMKANMARDI POLICE STATION.
V/O/D 16.11.2018 R2 IS DELETED.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.PRAVEEN K UPPAR, HCGP FOR R1,
R2 DELETED)

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DATED
30.08.2018 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HUKKERI
AT HUKKERI IN P.C.R. NO.136/2018 PRODUCED VIDE
ANNEXURE-C-1 ORDERING FOR ISSUANCE OF PROCESS
AGAINST THE PETITIONERS (ACCUSED NO.1 AND 2) FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 4(1), 4(1A) AND 21
OF THE MINES AND MINERALS (DEVELOPMENT AND
REGULATION) ACT, 1957 AND ORDERING FOR THE
REGISTERING OF THE P.C.R.NO. 136/2018 AS A CRIMINAL
CASE AND TO QUASHING THE FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN
C.C.NO.869/2018 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC, HUKKERI AT HUKKERI AS AGAINST THE
PETITIONERS / ACCUSED NO.1 AND 2.

IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101986/2018

BETWEEN:

1. MR. BALESH S/O. KALLAPPA NAIK,
AGE:27 YEARS,
OCC:PRIVATE SERVICE,
R/O. WADISHIDLYAL,
TALUK:HUKERI,
DISTRICT:BELAGAVI-591 107.
2. MR SATTEPPA S/O. MARUTI NAIK,
AGE:23 YEARS,
OCC:PRIVATE SERVICE,
R/O. WADISHIDLYAL,
TALUK:HUKERI,
DISTRICT:BELAGAVI-591 107.
...PETITIONERS

(BY SRI.PRASHANT F GOUDAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY YAMAKANAMARDI
POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL SPECIAL
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH.

2. MR B S TALAWAR,
POLICE SUB INSPECTOR,
YAMAKANAMARDI POLICE STATION.
...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI PRAVEEN K UPPAR, HCGP)

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C.
SEEKING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 12.09.2018
PASSED BY THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC COURT,
SANKESHWAR AT SANKESHWAR IN P.C.R NO.147/2018
(CONVERTED TO C.C.NO.1058/2018) PRODUCED VIDE
ANNEXURE-C ORDERING FOR ISSUANCE OF PROCESS
AGAINST THE PETITIONERS(ACCUSED NO.1 & 2) FOR THE
OFFENCES P/U/S F4(1)4(1A) AND 21 OF THE MINES AND
MINERALS (DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATION) ACT, 1957 AND
ORDERDING FOR THE REGISTERING OF THE PCR NO.147/2018
AS A CRIMINAL CASE BEARING C.C.NO.1058/2018 AND
QUASHING THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.1058/2018,
PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC
COURT, SANKESHWAR AT SANKESHWAR, AS AGAINST THE
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 & 2.
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102023/2018

BETWEEN:

SHIVAPPA IRAPPA KUDARIMANI,
AGE:35 YEARS,
OCC:AGRICULTURE/OWNER OF THE TRACTOR,
R/O. CHIPPALKATTI,
TQ:RAMDURG, DIST:BELAGAVI.
...PETITIONER

(BY SRI.HARSHAWARDHAN M PATIL, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY KATKOL POLICE,
REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENCH AT DHARWAD.

2. S. N. NAIK,
P.S.I. KATAKOL P.S.
TQ: RAMDURG, DIST: BELAGAVI.
...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.PRAVEEN K UPPAR, HCGP)

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS
PENDING UNDER C.C.NO.634/2018 BEFORE THE CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC, RAMDURGA FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTION 4(1A), R/W SEC.21 OF MMRD ACT 1957 AND
UNDER RULE 3, 32, 44 OF KMMC RULES 1994.

IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102059/2018

BETWEEN:

SRI. SHIVAJI LAXMAN DHABLE,
AGE:52 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE,
R/O:H.NO.42, ZANDANKALE,
IDDALHOND, TAL:KHANAPUR,
DIST:BELAGAVI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH BELAGAVI RURAL POLICE STATION,
BELAGAVI DISTRICT,
NOW REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD,
BENCH AT DHARWAD.

2. SRI NARAYAN SWAMI,
POLICE INSPECTOR, BELAGAVI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.PRAVEEN K UPPAR, HCGP)

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C.
SEEKING TO QUASH THE P.C.NO.66/2018 DATED 26.08.2018
REGISTERED BY ASI, KHANAPUR CIRCLE, BELAGAVI, FOR THE
OFFENCES /U/S 379 OF
IPC
AND U/S 4(1)A, 21, 22 OF MMRD
(MINES AND MINERALS REGULATION OF DEVELOPMENT) ACT,
1957 AND U/S 3, 32, 44 OF KMMC RULES (KARNATAKA MINOR
MINERAL CONSISTENT RULE) 1994, INSOFAR AS PETITIONER
HEREIN IS CONCERNED.

IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102060/2018

BETWEEN:

SRI. ANIL MANOHAR PATIL,
AGE:30 YEARS,
OCC:AGRICULTURE,
R/OH.NO.159 PATIL GALLI,
NANDIHALLI,
TAL & DIST:BELAGAVI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH BELAGAVI RURAL POLICE STATION,
BELAGAVI DISTRICT,
NOW REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD,
BENCH AT DHARWAD.

2. SRI NARAYAN SWAMI,
POLICE INSPECTOR, BELAGAVI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.PRAVEEN K UPPAR, HCGP)

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C.
SEEKING TO QUASH THE P.C.NO.66/2018 DATED 26.08.2018
REGISTERED BY ASI, KHANAPUR CIRCLE, BELAGAVI, FOR THE
OFFENCES /U/S 379 OF
IPC
AND U/S 4(1)A, 21, 22 OF MMRD
(MINES AND MINERALS REGULATION OF DEVELOPMENT) ACT,
1957 AND U/S 3, 32, 44 OF KMMC RULES (KARNATAKA MINOR
MINERAL CONSISTENT RULE) 1994, INSOFAR AS PETITIONER
HEREIN IS CONCERNED.

IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102061/2018

BETWEEN:

SRI. SUNIL ASHOK KUMBAR,
AGE:29 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE,
R/O:H.NO.57 PETI ONI,
POST:PARISHWAD, TAL:KHANAPUR,
DIST:BELAGAVI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH BELAGAVI RURAL POLICE STATION,
BELAGAVI DISTRICT,
NOW REPRESENTED BY STATE
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT FO KARNATAKA DHARWAD,
BENCH AT DHARWAD.

2. SRI NARAYAN SWAMI,
POLICE INSPECTOR, BELAGAVI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.PRAVEEN K UPPAR, HCGP)

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C.
SEEKING TO QUASH THE P.C.NO.66/2018 DATED 26.08.2018
REGISTERED BY ASI, KHANAPUR CIRCLE, BELAGAVI, FOR THE
OFFENCES /U/S 379 OF
IPC
AND U/S 4(1)A, 21, 22 OF MMRD
(MINES AND MINERALS REGULATION OF DEVELOPMENT) ACT,
1957 AND U/S 3, 32, 44 OF KMMC RULES (KARNATAKA MINOR
MINERAL CONSISTENT RULE) 1994, INSOFAR AS PETITIONER
HEREIN IS CONCERNED.

IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102062/2018

BETWEEN:

SRI. RATAN NARAYAN PATIL,
AGE25 YEARS,
OCC:AGRICULTURE,
R/O:WAGWADE,
TAL & DIST:BELAGAVI.
...PETITIONER

(BY SRI.JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH BELAGAVI RURAL POLICE STATION,
BELAGAVI DISTRICT,
NOW REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD,
BENCH AT DHARWAD.

2. SRI NARAYAN SWAMI,
POLICE INSPECTOR, BELAGAVI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.PRAVEEN K UPPAR, HCGP)

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C.
SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN P.C. CRIME
NO.66/2018 DATED 26/08/2018 REGISTERED BY ASI
KHANAPUR CIRCLE, BELAGAVI, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S
379 OF
IPC
& U/S 4(1)A, 21, 22 OF MMRD (MINES AND
MINERALS REGULATION OF DEVELOPMENT) ACT, 1957 AND
U/S 3, 32, 44 OF KMMC RULES (KARNATAKA MINOR MINERAL
CONSISTENT RULE) 1994; INSOFAR AS PETITIONER HEREIN IS
CONCERNED.

IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102107/2018

BETWEEN:

MR. YALLAPPA S/O BHARAMAPPA GURAV,
OWNER/DRIVER OF TRACTOR
NO.KA-36/T-8231,
AGE: 75 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: BASAPUR, TQ: HUKKERI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591 122.
...PETITIONER

(BY SRI.PRASHANT F GOUDAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY
YAMAKANMARDI POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY
ADDITIONAL STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH.

2. MR.K.B. KANTI,
STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
YAMKANMARDI POLICE STATION,
TQ: HUKKERI,
DIST: BELAGAVI,
PIN CODE: 591 246.
...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.PRAVEEN K UPPAR, HCGP)

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C.
SEEKING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 06.10.2018
PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC COURT, HUKKERI, AT
HUKKERI IN P.C.R. NO.155/2018 PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE-
C ORDERING FOR ISSUANCE OF PROCESS AGAINST THE
PETITIONER WHO IS THE DRIVER/OWNER OF THE VEHICLE
MENTIONED IN P.C.R. NO.155/2018 FOR THE OFFENCES
P/U/S 4(1), 4(1A) AND 21 OF THE MINES AND MINERALS
(DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATION) ACT, 1957 AND ORDERING
FOR THE REGISTERING OF THE P.C.R. NO.155/2018 AS A
CRIMINAL CASE AND QUASHING THE FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
IN C.C.NO.1018/2018 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL
JUDGE & JMFC COURT, HUKKERI, HUKKERI AS AGAINST THE
PETITIONER.

IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102122/2018

BETWEEN:

1. MR. LAGAMANNA @ LAGAMAPPA S/O.
YALLAPPA BASARAGI,
BEARER OF VEHICLE NO KA-25-B-1484,
AGE:37 YEARS,
OCC:AGRICULTURE,
R/O. AT/P KARIKATTI TALUK,
HUKKERI, DIST:BELAGAVI-591 122.

2. MR SATTEPPA S/O. YALLAPPA BASARAGI,
BEARER OF VEHICLE NO KA-27-5115,
AGE:33 YEARS,
OCC:AGRICULTURE,
R/O. AT/P KARIKATTI TALUK,
HUKKERI,
DIST:BELAGAVI-591 122.
...PETITIONERS

(BY SRI.PRASHANT F GOUDAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,,
REPRESENTED BY YAMAKANAMARADI POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY
ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH.
...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI.PRAVEEN K UPPAR, HCGP)

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C.
SEEKING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 23.10.2018
PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC COURT, HUKKERI IN
P.C.R.NO.160/2018 PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE-C ORDERING
FOR ISSUANCE OF PROCESS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS WHO
ARE THE BEARERS OF THE VEHICLE MENTIONED IN P.C.R.
NO.160/2018 FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 4(1), 4(1A) AND 21 OF
THE MINES AND MINERALS (DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATION
ACT, 1957 AND ORDERING FOR THE REGISTERING OF THE
P.C.R. NO.160/2018 AS A CRIMINAL CASE AND QUASH THE
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.1037/2018 PENDING ON
THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC COURT, HUKKERI AT
HUKKERI AS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS.
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102126/2018

BETWEEN:

BASAPPA S/O IRAPPA NIRVANI,
AGE: ABOUT: 21 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: SALABANNAVAR TOT WARD NO.6
SASALATTI, TQ: JAMAKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.K.ANAND KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT, DHARWAD
KUDACHI POLICE STATION, DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.PRAVEEN K UPPAR, HCGP)

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C.
SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN KUDACHI
P.S. CRIME NO.154/2018 (CRIME NO.154/2018 OF KUDACHI
POLICE STATION) ON THE FILE OF ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC
COURT, RAIBAG REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 379
OF
IPC
U/S 4(1), 4(1A), 21, 42 R/W 22 OF MMRD ACT, 1957,
SOFAR THIS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED.

IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102281/2018

BETWEEN:

KEMPANNA S/O APPANNA MALLAHOLI,
AGE:35 YEARS, OCCUPATION:AGRICULTURE,
R/O WADISHIDLYAL, TALUK:HUKKERI,
DISTRICT:BELAGAVI 591 107.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.PRASHANT F GOUDAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY YAMAKANMARDI POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH.

...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.PRAVEEN K UPPAR, HCGP)

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C.
SEEKING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 14.11.2018
PASSED BY THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC COURT,
SANKESHWAR AT SANKESHWAR IN P.C.R.NO.197/2018
PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE-C, REGISTERING A CRIMINAL
CASE AGAINST THE PETITIONER-ACCUSED FOR THE
OFFENCES P/U/S 4(1), 4(1A) AND 21 OF THE MINES AND
MINERALS (DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATION) ACT, 1957 AND
ALSO ORDERING FOR ISSUANCE OF PROCESS AGAINST THE
PETITIONER (ACCUSED).

RESERVED FO R O RDERS ON : 09.01.2019.

ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 06.02.2019.

THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, TH E
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
COMMON ORDER

Though these matters are listed for

admission, with the consent of the petitioners'

counsel and the learned HCGP, they are taken up

for final disposal.

2. Heard the petitioners' counsel and also

the learned HCGP for the respondent-State.

3. Though, all these cases arise out of

different crime numbers of different police

stations and pending before different Court, since

issue involved in the cases is only question of law

and the same is common in all these cases, they

are taken up together for disposal by this common

order.

4. The prayer sought in the petitions by

invoking
Section 482
of Cr.P.C. is to quash the

entire proceedings pending before the different
Courts since the respective cases are registered

for both the offences under the
MMRD Act
and

Rules and Under
IPC
.

5. For the purpose of brevity and

convenience, the particulars of the crime number,

police station, name of the complainant and his

designation are set out in the tabular column

below:

Sl. Case Number Crime Police Complainant's Offences
No. Number Station name and invoked
designation
1 Crl.P.101274/ 2018 Crime Gangavathi Manjunath V 379, 511 of
230/2015 P.S. Hiremath
IPC
, 42, 44(1),
(Revenue 44(2) of KMMC
Inspector) Rules, 1994
2 Crl.P.101815/ 2018 PCR 136/18 - J.B.Pujeri (ASI 4(1), 4(1A), 21
(CC 869/18) Yamakanamar of MMDR Act,
adi P.S.) 1957
3 Crl.P.101986/ 2018 PCR 147/18 - B.S.Talwar,PSI, 4(1), 4(1A), 21
(CC Yamakanamar of MMDR Act
1058/2018) adi P.S.)
4 Crl.P.102023/ 2018 PCR 34/18 - S.N.Nayak (PSI 4(1A), 21 of
(CC 634/18 Katakol) MMDR Act &
Rules 3, 32, 44
of KMMC Rules
5 Crl.P.102059/ 2018 P.C.Crime ASI, Narayanswami, 379 of
IPC
,
No.66/2018 Khanapur, (P.I. Belagavi 4(1A), 21, 22 of
Belagavi Rural P.S.)
MMDR Act
&
Rules 3, 32, 44
of KMMC Rules
6 Crl.P.102060/2018 P.C.Crime ASI, Narayanswami, 379 of
IPC
,
No.66/2018 Khanapur, (P.I. Belagavi 4(1A), 21, 22 of
Belagavi Rural P.S.)
MMDR Act
&
Rules 3, 32, 44
of KMMC Rules
7 Crl.P.102061/2018 P.C.Crime ASI, Narayanswami, 379 of
IPC
,
No.66/2018 Khanapur, (P.I. Belagavi 4(1A), 21, 22 of
Belagavi Rural P.S.)
MMDR Act
&
Rules 3, 32, 44
of KMMC Rules
8 Crl.P.102062/2018 P.C.Crime ASI, Narayanswami, 379 of
IPC
,
No.66/2018 Khanapur, (P.I. Belagavi 4(1A), 21, 22 of
Belagavi Rural P.S.)
MMDR Act
&
Rules 3, 32, 44
of KMMC Rules
Crl.P.102107/2018 PCR - Gajanan K 4(1), 4(1A), 21

9 No.155/201 Nayak (PSI of MMDR Act

8 (CC Yamakanamar
No.1018/20 adi P.S.)

18)
10 Crl.P.102122/2018 PCR - Gajanan K 4(1), 4(1A), 21
No.160/201 Nayak (PSI of MMDR Act
8 (CC Yamakanamar
No.1037/20 adi P.S.)

18)
11 Crl.P.102126/2018 P.S.Crime Kudachi P.S. Z.N.Mokashi 4(1), 4(1A), 21,
No.154/201 (PSI, Kudachi 42, 22 of
8 P.S.)
MMDR Act

12 Crl.P.102281/2018 PCR - J.B.Pujeri (ASI, 4(1), 4(1A), 21
No.197/201 Yamakanamar of MMDR Act
8 (CC adi P.S.)

No.1141/20

18)

6. The main contention of the petitioners

is that the complaint is filed in respect of

violation of the Minor and Minerals (Development

and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to

as the 'Act, 1957 for brevity), the Karnataka Minor

Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 (hereinafter

referred to as the 'Rules, 1994' for brevity). The

respondent had no authority to register a

complaint in respect of the said offences. The

complaint could be filed only in accordance with
Section 22
of the Act, 1957 and the said

complaint ought to have been filed before the

jurisdictional Court by a person authorized in this

behalf by the State or the Central Government.

Section 22
of the Act, 1957 is mandatory it cannot

be circumvented under any circumstances and

merely because provisions under the
Indian Penal

Code
are invoked against the petitioners,

jurisdictional Court does not get jurisdiction to

try the offences in the absence of a formal

complaint by the competent person authorized in

this behalf as the Act, 1957 is a special enactment

and hence the very initiation of the proceedings

has to be quashed against these petitioners in

view of non-compliance of
Section 22
of the Act,

1957.

7. The counsel appearing for the

petitioners in their arguments, vehemently
reiterated the grounds urged in the petitions and

further contended that the complaint is filed by

the incharge Revenue Inspector, ASI, PSI, PI and

mahazar was conducted. It is also contended that

the offences invoked are not only under the

MMRD Act, 1957
, KMMC Rules, 1994 and
Indian

Penal Code
, 1860, against the petitioners and

further contended that the Court below has

entertained the complaint even for the offences

under the special enactment and hence the

proceedings is liable to be quashed. In support of

their contentions, the counsels also relied upon

the judgment of this Court passed in

Crl.Pet.No.200131/2014 connected with other

matters vide order dated 18th June, 2014 and

contended that those cases are arising out of the

Act, 1957 and Rules, 1994 and also for the

offences punishable under
Section 379
of IPC and

also
Sections 4(1)
and
4(1A)
of the Act, 1957 and
contended that this Court quashed the initiation

of the very proceedings however given the liberty

to the State to proceed in accordance with law in

respect of the offences alleged against the

persons.

8. Per contra, the learned HCGP in his

argument contends that in the present cases, the

offences not only invoked under
MMDR Act, 1957

and the Rules, 1994 and also invoked under

Section 379 read with
section 511
of IPC and

there cannot be quashed by invoking
Section 482

of Cr.P.C. He also contends that the Hon'ble Apex

Court in the judgment reported in (2014) 9 SCC

772 in the case of S tate (
NCT of Delhi Vs. S
anjay

held that both the offences are distinct and in a

case where there is theft of sand and gravel from

the Government land, the police can register a

case, investigate the same and submit a final
report under
Section 173
of Cr.P.C. before the

Magistrate having jurisdiction for the purpose of

taking cognizance as provided in
Section 190(1)(d)

of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The

contravention of terms and conditions of mining

lease or doing mining activity in violation of

Section 4
of the Act is an offence punishable

under
Section 21
of the Act, 1957, whereas

dishonestly removing sand, gravel and other

minerals from the river, which the property of the

State, out of the State's possession without the

consent, constitute an offence of theft. Hence,

merely because initiation of proceeding for

commission of an offence under the Act, 1957 on

the basis of complaint cannot and shall not debar

the police from taking action against persons for

committing theft of sand and minerals in the

manner mentioned above by exercising power

under the
Code of Criminal Procedure
and submit
a report before the Magistrate for taking

cognizance against such persons and further held

that on receipt of the police report, the Magistrate

having jurisdiction can take cognizance of the

said offence without awaiting the receipt of the

complaint that may be filed by the Authorized

Officer for taking cognizance in respect of the

violation of various provisions of the Act, 1957

and hence prayed this Court to dismiss the

petition.

9. Having heard the arguments of the

petitioners' counsel and the learned HCGP for the

respondent, this Court has to analyze and

examine what would be the course of action if

both the offences are invoked under the
MMDR

Act, 1957
and under the KMMC Rules and any

proceedings is initiated under the
IPC
and

whether this Court can exercise powers under
Section 482
of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings if

a case is registered by the Police both under the

provisions of the
IPC
as well as the provisions of

the
MMDR Act, 1957
.

Before adverting to the penal provisions

and procedures to be adopted by the

prosecuting agency, I would like to make a

mention the very object of the
MMDR Act
and

Rules. The policy and object of the Mines and

Minerals Act and Rules have a long history and

are the result of an increasing awareness of the

compelling need to restore the serious

ecological imbalance and to stop the damages

being caused to the nature. At the same time,

the Court also cannot lose sight of the fact

that adverse and destructive environmental

impact of sand mining. The mining of

aggregates in rivers has led to severe damage
to river, including pollution and changes in

levels of the river. Removing sediment from

rivers causes the river to cut its channel

through the bed of the valley floor, or channel

incision, both upstream and downstream of the

ex traction site. Incision can also cause the

alluvial aquifer to drain to a lower level,

resulting in a loss of aquifer storage. It can

also increase flood frequency and intensity by

reducing flood regulation capacity. In order to

combat the menace in the society, the very

enactment was brought in keeping to protect

the natural resources which are public property

and national assets. There should be a balance

between the conservation of natural resources

and urban development. The provisions of the

Rules also amended in respect of Rule 43 (5

to 8) and made the owners of the vehicle to

furnish the bank guarantee double the value of
the vehicle in order to combat the menace of

mining mafia.

10. The very object and policy of the State

has to be taken care while dealing with the

matters under the special enactment and to serve

the very object and purpose and policy of the

State, this Court would like to discuss the case on

hand in order to safeguard the same and in order

to avoid the anomalies and set-right the same to

follow the procedure in case of any offences are

taken place under the special enactment and also

under the
Indian Penal Code
and other laws.

11. Before going to consider the grounds

urged in the petition, this Court would like to

make a mention the very provision of the Act,

1957 and the Rules, 1994. While setting the law

into motion by the concerned officer while
invoking
Section 4(1)
,
4(1A)
,
and
of the Act.

The same reads as follows:

4. Prospecting or mining
operations to be under licence or
lease.--(1) No person shall under take
any reconnaissance, prospecting or
mining oper ations in any area, except
under and in accord ance with the terms
and cond itions of a reconnaissance
permit or of a prospecting licence or, as
the case may be, of a mining lease,
gr anted under this Act and the rules
made thereunder:

Provided that nothing in this sub-
section shall affect any prospecting or
mining oper ations under taken in any
area in accord ance with the terms and
conditions of a prospecting licence or
mining lease gran ted before the
commencemen t of this Act which is in
force at such commencemen t:

Provided f ur ther th at nothing in this
sub-section shall apply to any
prospecting operations under taken by
the Geological Survey of India, the
Ind ian Bureau of Mines, the Atomic
Miner als Directorate f or Explor ation and
Research of the Depar tmen t of Atomic
Energy of the Centr al Government, the
Director ates of Mining and Geology of
any S tate Government (by whatever
name called), and the Miner al
Explor ation Corpor ation Limited, a
Government company within the meaning
of clause (45) of
section 2
of the
Companies Act, 2013 (18 of 2013), and
any such entity that may be notif ied f or
this purpose by the Centr al Government:

Provided also that nothing in this
sub-section shall apply to any mining
lease (whether called mining lease,
mining concession or by any other name)
in f orce immediately bef ore the
commencemen t of this Act in the Union
Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu.

(1A) No person shall tr anspor t or
store or cause to be tr anspor ted or
stored any miner al other wise than in
accord ance with the provisions of this
Act and the rules made thereunder.

12.
Sections 21
and
of the Act, 1957,

reads as follows:

21. Penalties.--(1) Whoever
contravenes the provisions of sub-

section (1) or sub-section (1A) of

section 4
shall be punished with
imprisonment for a term which may
extend to five years, or with fine
which may extend to five lakh rupees
per hectare of the area.

(2) Any rule made under any
provision of this Act may provide that
any contr avention thereof shall be
punishable with impr isonment f or a term
which may extend to two years or with
f ine which may extend to f ive thousand
rupees, or with both, and in the case of a
continuing contr avention, with additional
f ine which may extend to f if ty thousand
rupees f or every day during which such
contr avention continues af ter conviction
for the f irst such contr avention.

(3) Where any person trespasses
in to any land in contr avention of the
provisions of sub-section (1) of
section 4
,
such trespasser may be served with an
order of eviction by the S tate
Government or any authority authorised
in this behalf by that Government and
the S tate Government or such au thorised
au thor ity may, if necessary, obtain the
help of the police to evict the trespasser
from the land.

(4) Whenever any person r aises,
tr anspor ts or causes to be r aised or
tr anspor ted, without any lawf ul
au thor ity, any miner al f rom any land,
and, f or that purpose, uses any tool,
equipment, vehicle or any other thing,
such miner al tool, equipment, vehicle or
any other thing shall be liable to be
seized by an off icer or author ity
specially empowered in this behalf.

(4A) Any miner al, tool, equipment,
vehicle or any other thing seized under
sub-section (4), shall be liable to be
conf iscated by an order of the cour t
competent to take cognizance of the
off ence under sub-section (1) and shall
be disposed of in accord ance with the
directions of such cour t.

(5) Whenever any person r aises,
without any lawf ul authority, any
miner al f rom any land, the S tate
Government may recover f rom such
person the mineral so r aised, or, where
such miner al has already been disposed
of , the price thereof , and may also
recover f rom such person, rent, royal ty
or tax, as the case may be, f or the period
during which the land was occupied by
such person without any lawf ul
au thor ity.

(6) Notwithstanding anything
contained in the
Code of Criminal
Procedure
, 1973 (2 of 1974), an off ence
under sub-section (1) shall be
cognizable.

22. Cognizance of offences.--No
court shall take cognizance of any
offence punishable under this Act or
any rules made thereunder except
upon complaint in writing made by a
person authorised in this behalf by
the Central Government or the State
Government.

13. Rules 3, 32 42, 43 and 44(2) of the

Rules, 1994, reads as follows:
3. Quarrying to be under
quarrying lease or quarrying License.

1) No person shall under take any
quarrying oper ation in respect of any
minor miner al in any land except under
or in accord ance with the terms and
conditions of a quarrying lease [license
or quarrying permit] gran ted under these
rules.

2) No quarrying lease or [license or
quarrying permit] license shall be
gr anted other wise than in accord ance
with these rules.

32. Quarrying license.--[(1)] No
person in possession of patta lands in
Karnataka S tate and who are f ull
owners of sub-soil minor miner als
situated in their patta lands shall
under take quarrying oper ation of minor
miner als in patta land except with a
working permission gr an ted under this
chap ter.

Explanation.--Patta land means
any private land classif ied as patta land
owned by pattad ar inheritance or
acquired ancestr al propery.]
[(1-A)xxxx]
[(2) The pattad ar shall apply bef ore
the Competen t Authority along with
necessary documents to prove his
ownership of the land and sketch of the
area f or obtaining permission to quarry
minor mineral under this chapter.

(3) The Compe tent Author ity shall
conf irm the title, status of land with the
Deputy Commissioner in case of
specif ied minor miner al and with
Tahsild ar in case of non-specif ied minor
miner al.

(4) No quarrying of minor mineral
under this chap ter shall be allowed in
contr avention of Environment Impac t
Assessment Notif ication dated
14.09.2006 issued by the Ministry of
Environment and Forest, Government of
Ind ia, as amended f rom time to time.

(5) The Compe tent Author ity shall
arr ange f or survey and demarcation of
the area, subject to the pattad ar paying
the expenses which shall be at the rate
as specif ied in Rules 17 and 29, as the
case may be depend ing on the miner al
applied.

(6) The provisions of Chap ters II
and II-A and Rules 17, 18, 19-A, 19B,
19C and 29, sub-rule (3) of Rules 36 and
39 shall, mu tatis mutand is apply f or
gr ant of quarrying permission under this
rule as applicable to specif ied and non-
specif ied minor miner al.

(7) The provision of this chap ter
shall not be applicable f or gran ted patta
lands and GPA holders of the patta
lands. However f or such lands Chap ter
II shall apply mutatis mu tandis.]

42. Transport of Minor
Minerals.--(1) No person shall tr anspor t
or cause to be tr anspor ted any minor
miner al except under or in accord ance
with a compu terized Miner al Dispatch
Permit in Form MDP(A) gener ated in
electronic f orm (e-Permit or m-Permit) by
the licence/leaseholder or his authorized
person and issued using Special Security
Permit Paper (SSPP) sheet obtained f rom
the Compe ten t Author ity or any other
off icer au thor ized by the Director.

(2) Any person desiring to tr anspor t
the minor miner al by road, by r ail or any
other means of tr anspor t shall af ter
payment of royalty apply in Form AP to
the concerned Competent Authority in
electronic f orm along with rupees fif ty as
processing f ees f or each Miner al
Dispatch Release Order (MDRO) f or
specif ied bulk quan tity of specif ied or
non-specif ied minor miner al intended to
tr anspor t.

(3) The Competent Authority af ter
such enquiry as it deems f it, if satisf ied
th at the inf ormation f urnished in the
application is correct and the applican t
is entitled f or a MDRO, it may issue a
MDRO in Form MDRO and enable the
leaseholder to gener ate CMDP's.

However the validity of such MDRO shall
be thir ty d ays:
Provided that where the
Computer ized Mineral Dispatch Permit is
gener ated by the lessee himself , if there
is any error in weight, volume, royal ty
etc., the lessee is solely held responsible
as per Rule 43.

(4) The Computer ized Mineral
Dispatch Permit shall be generated in
electronic f orm and issued by
leaseholder or his au thorized person
using SSPP sheet obtained from
Competent Authority on the basis of One
Permit f or One vehicle.

(5) The validity of CMDP's issued
by leaseholder or his au thor ized person
shall be one hour f or each ten kilometer
of distance or f rac tion thereof from the
date of issue:

Provided that the Competent
Author ity of the concerned distr ict may,
on a wr itten request by the holder of
permit and af ter such enquiry as it
deems f it renew the permit and in case
of miner al in tr ansit, the concerned
jur isd ictional Competent Authority may
renew subject to collecting processing f ee
and SSPP sheet f ee, if any upon
recording the reasons and issue f resh
CMDP.

The very purpose of bringing amendment in 2015,
2016 and 2017 in order to curb the menace repealed
offence by using the very same vehicle.

43. Amendment of Rule 43.- In rule 43
of the said rules, for sub-rules (5), (6), (7) and
(8), the following shall be substituted, namely:-

"(5) The officer in charge of the check post
or the barrier or the authorized officer shall
seize any minor mineral including the vehicle
used for transit of such minor mineral, if the
driver or person in charge of such vehicle fails
to produce a valid permit.

(6) The officer in charge of the check post
or the barrier or the authorized officer after
seizing any minor mineral along with the
vehicle used for transit of such minor mineral
under sub rule (5) shall give a receipt in Form-

VS (Vehicle Seized) for having effected the
seizure to the person from whose possession or
control it is seized.
(7) Upon seizure as provided under
sub rule (6) it shall be necessary for the
officer referred to concerned officer under
sub-rule(6) to make a report within a
reasonable period of such seizure to the
Competent Court having jurisdiction to try
the offence on account of which seizure
has been made.

Under
section 30(b)
of the Act Special Court is made

as competent Court in order to deal with th;e release of

vehicle and report has to be submitted to the Court having

jurisdiction to try the offence and the Special Court only to

exercise the powers of release the vehicle in terms of Rule

43(7).

(8) No release of the vehicle shall however
not include the minor mineral so seized shall be
made unless there is an execution by the owner
thereof, security in the form of a renewable
Bank Guarantee, of an amount of equal to
double the value of such vehicle, before the
Competent Court having jurisdiction to try the
offence on account of which the seizure has
been made:

Provided that where a report h as
been made to the Competent Court under
sub-rule (7) the seized vehicle shall not be
released except under the orders of such
Court.
44. Offenses.--(1) Any person who
contr avenes the provisions of sub-rule(1)
of rule 42 shall, on conviction be
punished with imprisonmen t f or a term
which may extend to one year or with
f ine which may extend to rupees f ive
thousand or with both, and in the case of
a continuing contr avention with an
additional f ine which may extend to f ive
hundred rupees f or every d ay dur ing
which such contr avention continues af ter
f irst such contr avention.

(2) Any persons who under takes
any quarrying oper ation in respect of
any minor minerals either without a
licence or quarrying permit gr anted
under these rules or in contr avention of
the terms and conditions of any licence
or permit shall be punishable with
impr isonment f or a term which may
extended to one year or with f ine which
may extend to f ive thousand rupees or
with both and in case of a continuing
contr avention with an additional f ine
which may extend to f ive hundred rupees
for every day during which such
contr avention continues af ter conviction
for the f irst such contr avention.

(3) Any person who under takes any
quarrying oper ation in respect of the
minor miner al withou t a licence or lease
is liable to pay a penal ty of rupees f ive
thousand or value of the miner al,
whichever is higher.
Section 379
of IPC reads as follows:

379. Punishment for theft.--

Whoever commits thef t shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to three
years, or with f ine, or with both.

Section 511
of IPC reads as follows:

511. Punishment for attempting
to commit offences punishable with
imprisonment for life or other
imprisonment.--Whoever attempts to
commit an off ence punishable by this
Code with imprisonment f or lif e or
impr isonment, or to cause such an
off ence to be committed, and in such
attemp t does any act to war ds the
commission of the off ence, shall, where
no express provision is made by this
Code f or the punishment of such attemp t,
be punished with impr isonment of any
descrip tion provided f or the off ence, f or
a term which may extend to one-half of
the imprisonmen t f or lif e or, as the case
may be, one-half of the longest term of
impr isonment provided f or that off ence,
or with such f ine as is provided f or the
off ence, or with both.

14. After having considered the invoking of

penal provision of the Act, 1957 and the
Karnataka Minor Minerals Concession Rules 1994

and offence under
IPC
, regarding setting the law

into motion, this Court would like to discuss with

regard to the procedural aspects enumerated

under the
Code of Criminal Procedure
, 1973.
The

Act, 1957
, does not define anything about the

word 'complaint'. However, in
section 22
of the

Act, 1957, in order to take the cognizance of

an offence punishable under the said Act, it is

mentioned that, no Court shall take cognizance

of any offence punishable under this Act or any

Rules made thereunder, ex cept upon complaint

in writing made by a person authorized in this

behalf by the Central Government or the State

Government.

15. When there is no any definition in the

special enactment, this Court has to in order to

consider the word 'complaint', consider the
definition of complaint in
Cr.P.C
.
Section 2(d)

of Cr.P.C. defines the word 'complaint', which

means, any allegation made orally or in writing

to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking

action under this Code, that some person,

whether known or unknown, has committed an

offence, but does not include a police report. It

has to be noted that the 'police report' is also

defined under
section 2(r)
of Cr.P.C., which

means, a report forwarded by a police officer to

a Magistrate under sub-section (2) of section

173.

16. This Court would like to mention in

brief here itself that the 'police report' is

forwarded by a police officer to a Magistrate after

a complete investigation under sub-section (2) of

section 173 and thereafter, the concerned Court

would take cognizance based on the report. Now,
in view of the special enactment, the concerned

Magistrate has to take the cognizance based on

the complaint filed by the authorized person

invoking
section 22
of the Act, 1957.

17. Now the question remains before this

Court, if any cognizable offence has taken place in

violation of the Act, 1957, what has to be done,

whether the law has to be set in motion by filing

only a complaint by authorized person under

section 22
of the special enactment or to set the

law in motion irrespective of the offence under the

special enactment or under penal law or under

any other law.

18. For the violation of
section 4
and
4(1A)

of the Act, a special penal provision is made under

the special enactment under
section 21
of the Act,

1957, that whoever contravenes the provision of

sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A) of
section 4
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term

which may ex tend to five years and with fine

which may extend to five lakh rupees per hectare

of the area.
Section 21(2)
of the Act, 1957

provides, any rule made under any provision of

this Act may provide that any contravention

thereof shall be punishable with imprisonment for

a term which may extend to two years or with fine

which may extend to five lakh rupees or with both

and in the case of continuing contravention, with

additional fine which may extend to fifty thousand

rupees for every day during which such

contravention continues for such contravention.

19. When the punishment is provided,

which may extend to five years and if any

violation of the provisions of other laws in terms

of the
Code of Criminal Procedure
, it is clear that

if the punishment is more than three years, the
same is cognizable offence and non bailable and

under
section 21(6)
of the Act the offence is

cognizable.

20. Now the question arises, whether any

information is received with regard to the

transportation of sand, murrum, graval, whether

the Police officer in-charge of a police station can

invoke
section 154
of Cr.P.C. This Court would

like to refer the proviso of
section 154
of Cr.P.C.,

which reads as follows:

154. Inf ormation in cognizable
cases.--(1) Every inf ormation relating to
the commission of a cognizable off ence,
if given or ally to an off icer in charge of a
police station, shall be reduced to
wr iting by him or under his direction,
and be read over to the inf ormant; and
every such inf ormation, whe ther given in
wr iting or reduced to wr iting as
af oresaid, shall be signed by the person
giving it, and the substance thereof shall
be entered in a book to be kept by such
off icer in such f orm as the S tate
Government may prescr ibe in this behalf .
(2) A copy of the inf ormation as
recorded under sub-section (1) shall be
given f orth with, free of cost, to the
inf ormant.

(3) Any person, aggrieved by a
ref usal on the par t of an off icer in charge
of a police station to record the
inf ormation ref erred to in sub-section (1)
may send the substance of such
inf ormation, in wr iting and by post, to
the Super intendent of Police concerned
who, if satisf ied that such inf ormation
discloses the commission of a cognizable
off ence, shall either investigate the case
himself or direct an investigation to be
made by any police off icer subordinate
to him, in the manner provided by this
Code, and such off icer shall have all the
powers of an off icer in charge of the
police station in relation to that offence.

If it is the information in respect of

cognizable cases, then the police officers

have power to investigate the cognizable

cases under
Section 156
of Cr.P.C. and this

Court would like to mention a proviso to

Section 156
as hereunder:
156. Police officer's power to
investigate cognizable case.--(1) Any
off icer in charge of a police station may,
without the order of a Magistr ate,
investigate any cognizable case which a
Cour t having jurisd iction over the local
area within the limits of such station
would have power to inquire in to or try
under the provisions of Chapter XIII.

(2) No proceeding of a police off icer
in any such case shall at any stage be
called in question on the ground that the
case was one which such off icer was no t
empowered under this section to
investigate.

(3) Any Magistr ate empo wered
under section 190 may order such an
investigation as above-mentioned.

21. This Court also would like to refer

Section 57
and
Section 167(1)
of Cr.P.C. regarding

arrest of a person not to be detained for more

than 24 years and if an offence is reported under

the Act, 1957, for cognizable offence,
Section 57

and
Section 167(1)
of Cr.P.C. has come into

compliance and
Section 57
and
Section 167(1)
of

Cr.P.C. reads as follows:
57. Person arrested not to be
detained more than twenty-four
hours.--No police off icer shall detain in
custody a person arrested without
warr an t f or a longer period than under
all the circumstances of the case is
reasonable, and such period shall not, in
the absence of a special order or a
Magistr ate under section 167, exceed
twen ty-f our hours exclusive of the time
necessary f or the journey, from the place
of arrest to the Magistr ate's Cour t.

167. Procedure when
investigation cannot be completed in
twenty-four hours--(1) Whenever any
person is arrested and detained in
custody, and it appears that the
investigation cannot be completed within
the per iod of twenty-f our hours fixed by

Section 57
, and there are grounds f or
believing that the accusation or
inf ormation is well-f ounded, the off icer-

in-charge of the police station or the
police off icer making the investigation, if
he is not below the r ank of Sub-

Inspector, shall for th with tr ansmit to the
nearest Jud icial Magistr ate a copy of the
entr ies in the diary hereinaf ter
prescr ibed relating to the case, and shall
at the same time f orward the accused to
such Magistr ate.

Now, if the police officer cannot register the

case and investigate the matter when a cognizable
offence is taken place and if the only authorized

person can invoke
section 22
of the special

enactment to file the complaint, what could be

done in such circumstances.

This Court also would like to refer the

provisions of the
Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972
.

In the said enactment also the Court can take

cognizance only on a private complaint under

section 55
of the said Act. However a handbook is

released in order to investigate the crime under

the said Act in order to avoid the technicalities

and a special provision is made to receive the

report by the Court and the same is called as

WLOR report.

22. This Court also would like to make a

mention Chapter-3 of hand book, Registration of

Cases in case of Wildlife Crime Investigation and

in the said chapter, it is mentioned that in
conventional crimes, investigation starts with

registration of the case as First Information

Report (FIR). Recovery of material evidence (stolen

property, weapons, vehicles etc) takes place only

after registration of the case. However, in wildlife

crime cases, the seizure of the wildlife/wildlife

article or apprehension of the accused/suspect

may take place before registration of the case. In

other words, in wildlife offences, investigation

may start with lodging of a seizure/apprehension

report or the offence report, in the jurisdictional

court, by an authorized officer, who makes such

seizure or arrest. In different States this report is

known by different names such as the Preliminary

Offences Report (POR), H-2 Case, Offence Report,

First Information Report (FIR), Seizure

Information etc. However, it has been observed

that some of the judicial officers who are new to

wildlife crime cases doubt the legitimacy of such
reports and insist on FIR/POR. There are some

incidents where the jurisdictional magistrates

refused to accept such reports as they are not on

par with the First Information Report (FIR) filed

by the police. In order to avoid such technical

problems and to bring uniformity in practice, it is

suggested that the first report submitted in the

jurisdictional court in wildlife crime cases may be

named as Wildlife Offence Report (WLOR). The

Wildlife Offence Report should be prepared under

Section 50(4)
of the Wild Life (Protection) Act,

1972, and Check list also suggested for preparing

Wildlife Offence Report in Chapter 3.2 of the

Wildlife Crime Investigation and the details has

been given in the said Chapter.

23. Chapter 3.3 of the Wildlife Crime

Investigation says that Registration of FIR and

investigation of offences under the Wild Life
(Protection) Act, 1972, by police officer- Violation

of the provisions of the Act are not specified as

cognizable offence, therefore, police officers are

often unwilling to lodge FIR and investigate

offences reported under the provisions of the Act.

It is clarified that under Part-II of Schedule-I of

the
Criminal Procedure Code
, 1973, offences

against other laws, if punishable with

imprisonment for 3 years and upwards are

classified as cognizable. Most of the offences

under the act are punishable with imprisonment

for 3 or more years. Therefore, an Officer In

charge of a Police Station is bound to lodge an FIR

and investigate the case like any other cognizable

offence. However, courts shall take cognizance of

any offence against the Act only on the complaint

submitted any person specified under
Section 55

of the Act. Therefore, if Police Officers in the State

concerned are not authorized to file complaints
under
Section 55
of the Act, the Police report is

submitted in the Court as complaint through an

authorized forest officer. Once a complaint is filed

in Court, no further investigation will be

conducted without the direction of the Court.

Further, there is no provision for filing

supplementary complaint once complaint is filed.

Therefore, any subsequent discovery, seizure,

arrest etc. will be treated as fresh case and

separate complaint filed in the Court.

24. This Court in keeping the above

provisions in mind analyse the case on hand in

keeping the practical difficulties faced by the

concerned Authorities to set the law in motion and

proceed in the matter. The same analogy is

applicable to crimes committed in respect of the

Act and Rules in which cases to be filed.
25. The main grounds urged by the

petitioners in these petitions are that, when there

is a specific bar under
Section 22
of the Act,

1957, the police cannot register the case and

investigate the matter and if any such procedure

is adopted by the police, the same is in

contravention of
section 22
of the Act, 1957.

26. Before answering the said issues, it is

pertinent to refer the following judgments of this

Court and the Apex Court to answer the issues

and hence referring the following judgments:

27. This Court would like to refer the

judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (2014)

9 SCC 772, in S tate (
NCT of Delhi) vs. Sanjay
, the

Apex Court in the judgment elaborately discussed

with regard to the Minor Minerals are the assets

of the State and also discussed with regard to

protect natural resources and also in this
judgment the Apex Court categorically held that

the violation under the Act, 1957 and the penal

provision under
section 378
and
of Cr.P.C.

are distinct.

This Court also would like to refer the

judgment of the Apex Court in the case of the

State of Karnataka vs. Linganagouda
etc.,.

dated 12.10.2017. In this matter similar

question aroused before the Supreme Court.

Since this Court has quashed the proceedings

initiated under the Act, 1957, and the same

was questioned before the Apex Court and the

Apex Court in
the said judgment
categorically

held that the stage of cognizance will arise

only after investigation is completed and there

is no bar, for investigation being carried out by

the Lokayukta Police on the complaint in

question, particularly when the allegations
include offences under the
Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988
, and hence held that the

impugned order of this Court quashing the

registration of the cases cannot be sustained.

28. This Court would like to refer the

judgment of the Karnataka High Court reported in

2019(1) Kar.L.J. 149 in
Ms.Meghal J. Gandhi

vs. State of Karnataka
.

This Court while

referring the judgment of the Apex Court
referred

above
, in
Linganagouda
's case, held that the

criminal action is initiated after due enquiry

based on the source report which prima facie

makes out serious violation and contravention of

the statutes. The Magnitude of the transactions

and remification of the offences are required to be

unearthed in a thorough and penetrating

investigation. It is further observed that on

careful consideration of the allegations made in
the complaint, and the material produced by the

respondent before the Court, the Court do not find

any justifiable reason to interfere with the FIR

registered against the petitioners and the

investigation initiated thereon. The allegations

made in the FIR prima facie make out ingredients

of the offences alleged against the petitioners. The

SIT is duly authorized and competent to

investigate into the matter. No prejudice would be

caused to the petitioners if the alleged violations

are investigated by the respondent. The exact role

played by each of the petitioners could be

ascertained only after investigation. If the

investigation leads to the final opinion that the

alleged offences are committed without the

knowledge and connivance of the petitioner, the

charges against the petitioners would naturally be

dropped. Therefore, the apprehension of the

petitioners that the proceedings initiated against
the petitioners have resulted in abuse of process

of Court is ill founded and the Court held that the

petitions are liable to be dismissed.

29. This Court also would like to refer the

recent judgment of the Apex Court reported in

(2018) 3 SCC 104 in
Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel

vs. S
tate of Gujarat and others. This judgment is

delivered with regard to the exercising of powers

under
section 482
of Cr.P.C. and in this judgment

it is held that, in order to examine as to whether

factual contents of FIR disclose any prima facie

cognizable offence or not, High Court cannot act

like an investigating agency and nor can exercise

powers like an appellate Court. The question is

required to be examined, keeping in view,

contents of FIR and prima facie material, if any,

requiring no proof. At such stage, High Court

cannot appreciate evidence nor can it draw its
own inferences from contents of FIR and material

relied on. It is more so, when the material relied

on is disputed. In such a situation, it becomes the

job of investigating authority at such stage, to

probe and then of the Court to examine questions

once the charge sheet is filed along with such

material as to how far and to what extent reliance

can be placed on such material.
Once the Court

finds that FIR discloses prima facie commission of

any cognizable offence, it should stay its hand

and allow investigation machinery to step in to

initiate the probe to unearth commission of

offence in accordance with the procedure

prescribed in Cr.P.C.

This Court would like to refer the

judgment of the Apex Court reported in AIR

2014 Supreme Court 187, in
Lalita Kumari vs.

Government of U.P. and others
. In the said case
it is held that it is mandatory on the part of

the police officer to register the crime

invoking
section 154
of Cr.P.C. if the

information discloses the commission of a

cognizable offence and no preliminary enquiry

is permissible in such situation and if the

information does not disclose a cognizable

offence, but indicates the necessity for an

enquiry, a preliminary enquiry may be

conducted only to ascertain whether a

cognizable offence is disclosed or not.

30. This Court would also refer to the

judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Jeewan Kumar Raut and Ors. Vs. Central

Bureau of Investigation
, reported in AIR 2009

SC 2763, wherein the Apex Court by invoking

Code of Criminal Procedure
, 1973-
Section 4-
-

Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994
(TOHO)-Section 22-Complaint under TOHO-

Sections 13
and 22-Investigation under TOHO-

TOHO being special statute-
Section 4
of Code or

other provisions may not be applicable-provisions

of TOHO shall prevail over provisions of Code and

discussed with regard to taking of cognizance by

the Court under the special enactment. At para-23

of
the said judgment
, the Hon'ble Apex Court has

held that a plain read ing of the above provision

will show that even though by
Section 24
all

off ences under the Act are mad e cognizable, no

Cour t can take cognizance of the off ence except

upon a wr itten complain t made by a person

au thor ized in this behalf by the Government of the

Distr ic t Collector. A 'complaint in wr iting' by the

au thor ized off icer etc. is the only condition f or

taking cognizance as provided in
Section 25
. If a

police off icer is au thor ized by the Government, he

may also f ile a complain t on the basis of which the
Cour t may take cognizance. But, the Cour t canno t

take cognizance of any offence punishable under

the S and Act on a police repor t f iled under
Section

173(2)
of the Cr.P.C. af ter investigation by police.

The Apex Court referring to the judgment of the

Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala in

Moosakoya Vs. State of Kerala
observed in para-

26 that Whereas the remand at a pre-cognizance

stage is to be made in terms of Sub-section (2) of

Section 167
of the Code, an order of remand of an

accused at post-cognizance stage can be eff ected

only in terms of Sub-section (2) of Section 309

thereof . In para-28 also observed with regard to

special enactment is concerned that we are,

however, not oblivious of some decisions of this

Cour t where some special statu tory au thor ities like

au thor ities under the
Customs Act
have been

gr anted all the special powers of the investigating

off icer under a special statu te like the
NDPS Act,
but this Cour t has held that they cannot f ile charge

sheet and to that exten t they would not be police

off icers. Further observed in para-29 also in

particularly to that case, however, the respondent

having specially been empowered both under the

1946 Act as also under the Code to carry out

investigation and file a charge sheet is precluded

from doing so only by reason of
Section 22
of

TOHO. It is doubtful as to whether in the event of

authorization of an officer of the department to

carry out investigation on a complaint made by a

third party, he would be entitled to arrest the

accused and carry on investigation as if he is

police officer. We hope that the parliament would

take appropriate measures to suitably amend the

law in the near future.

31. By referring the special enactment and

also the other laws, and also the principles
laid
down in
the judgment rendered supra, now this

Court has to examine:

(i) what would be the course if a
cognizable offence is taken place?

(ii) If an accused is apprehended
with regard to committing of cognizable
offence and non bailable offence and
Section 57 and 167(1) of Cr.P.C.

contemplates he has to be produced
before the Court within 24 hours and
whether it is possible to complete the
investigation in all cases to file a
complaint as contemplated under

Section 22
of the Act, 1957, by an
authorized person within 24 hours.

(iii) If an accused is apprehended,
and vehicle is seized, and the same is
involved in transportation of sand,
graval, murrum etc., and if the vehicle
is not having its original records, and if
all the vehicular documents are
tampered, it is required a detailed
investigation and whether it is possible
to procure all the incriminating material
of tampering of the documents of the
goods and vehicle and a complaint can
be filed within 24 hours and question of
release of the vehicles also involves and
if case is not registered what would be
the course open to stake holders.

(iv) Does the law permits in case
of complaint cases to file supplementary
complaint.

(v) If such practical difficulties
arise, what would be the course of
action whether the first information
report has to be filed to the Court or the
authorized person has to proceed to
invoke
Section 154
of Cr.P.C. if any
cognizable offence is taken place.

32. In keeping the principles
laid down by

this Court also the Apex Court, first I would like

to make a mention here that the offences invoked

under the special enactments in the cases on

hand, the offences are cognizable.
As provided in
Section 21(6)
of the Act

1957, an offence under sub-Section (1) of

Section 21
is cognizable and therefore, it is

lawful for police to register a case as provided

under
Section 154
of Cr.P.C. to investigate the

same as per provisions of
Cr.P.C
.
Section 154

of Cr.P.C. provides the officer of the police to

register the case when information is received

in respect of the cognizable offence and the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment of
Lalita

Kumari
(supra) has categorically held that it is

mandatory on the part of the police officer to

register the FIR when he receives the

information in respect of the cognizable

offences. It is further clarified that if in such

information is received and if any doubt with

regard to taking place of cognizable offence

then in order to confirm the same, the police

officer has got right to hold the preliminary
enquiry and get it confirm, whether a

cognizable offence is taken place, then register

the case after the satisfaction.
This aspect is

also discussed by this Court in the judgment of

Vivek and Another Vs. The State of Karnataka,

by Kunigal Police Station, reported in ILR

2018 Karnataka 1497. The other aspect I

would like to make a mention that with regard

to search and seizure is also concerned, it is

clear under the special statute in the Act 1957

that the procedure laid down under
Section 102

of Cr.P.C. has to be followed in respect of

search and seizure and also
Cr.P.C
. is

applicable even in a case has been registered

under the special enactments.

33. It is well settled principles of law that if

a special statute lays down the procedures, the

law laid down under the general statutes shall not
be followed.
In a situation of this nature, the

police could carry out investigations in exercise of

the powers vested with them under
section 154
of

Cr.P.C. since the offence is cognizable one and

this aspect has also been considered by the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Jeewan Kumar

Raut
(supra) in considering the offence in

exercise of its authorization under
Section

13(3)(iv)
of TOHO.
However, it is observed while

doing so, it could exercise such powers which are

otherwise vested in it.

34. The Apex Court in the judgment of

State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Sanjay
(supra), with

regard to offence in respect of
Section 378
of IPC

and also the offence in respect of contraventions

of the provisions of the Act 1957, has

categorically held that both offences are distinct

and different.
35. A cursory comparison of these two

provisions with
Section 378
of IPC would to go

show that the ingredients are totally different.

The contraventions of the terms and conditions of

mining lease, etc. constitutes an offence

punishable under
Section 21
of the Act 1957,

whereas dishonestly taking any movable property

out of the possession of a person without his

consent constitutes theft. Thus, it is undoubtedly

clear that the ingredients of an offence of theft as

defined in
Section 378
of IPC are totally different

from the ingredients of an offence punishable

under
Section 21(1)
read with Section 4(1) and

4(1A) of the Mines and Minerals Act.
In such a

view of the matter, it is my considered opinion as

held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Institute of Chartered Accountants Vs. Vimal

Kumar Surana
's (AIR 2011 SC (Cri) 1 case, there

can well be a prosecution for an offence under
Section 379
of IPC as well as under
Section 21
of

the Act 1957 simultaneously and the principles of

double jeopardy shall not be a bar for such

simultaneous prosecution.

36. Now, let us turn to the conditions

requisite for initiation of proceedings as dealt with

in Chapter XIV of the
Code of Criminal Procedure
.

An offence under
Section 379
of IPC is admittedly

cognizable and, therefore, in respect of theft of

sand from Government land, it will be lawful for

the police to register a case, investigate the same

and to lay a final report under
Section 173(2)
of

the Code, upon which the jurisdictional

Magistrate will be well within his jurisdiction to

take cognizance as provided in
Section 190(1)(b)
of

the Code of Criminal Procedure. To this extent, it

is clear that there is no conflict between the Act

1957 and the
Cr.P.C
. and thus question of one
overriding the other does not arise. Therefore, in

such cases, where the cases have been registered

only under the provisions of
IPC
, more

particularly, under
Section 379
of IPC in respect

of theft of sand, the question of quashing the FIRs

or any subsequent proceedings does not arise at

all.

37. Now, there are cases before this Court

with regard to invoking of
IPC
Section and also

invoking of the offence under
Section 21
of the Act

1957 and contravention of Rules of KMMC 1994,

the police not only registered the case under the

IPC
and also registered the case under the Act

1957. I have already pointed out that the offence

invoking
Section 21
of the Act 1957 is also

cognizable and therefore, the police can register

the case and investigate in terms of the paragraph

28 of the judgment in Jeewan Kumar Raut as
held by the Hon'ble Apex Court. It is well settled

that in an occurrence from the offences which are

non-cognizable in nature, if, cognizable offences

have also been committed, it is absolutely

necessary for the police to register a case in

respect of the entire occurrence and to investigate

the case. This legal position has been made clear

by
Section 155(4)
of the Code. Under Section 190

of the Code, on a police report in respect of the

offences of which some are cognizable and the

others are non-cognizable, the Magistrate may

take cognizance. As provided in
Section 21(6)
of

the Act 1957, an offence under sub-section (1) of

Section 21
is cognizable and therefore, it is lawful

for a police officer to register a case as provided in

Section 154
of the Code of Criminal Procedure and

to investigate the same as per the provisions of

the
Code of Criminal Procedure
. But, the

difficulty arises only in the matter of taking
cognizance.
Section 22
of the Act 1957 prohibits

taking cognizance being taken except upon a

complaint in writing made by a person authorized

either by the Central Government or the State

Government. If the act of the accused constitutes

exclusively an offence under the Act 1957, it goes

without saying that the police officer on

completing the investigation, cannot lay a final

report because, on such report, the court cannot

take cognizance in view of the bar contained in

Section 22
of the Act. If the act of the accused

makes out an offence under
IPC
as well as an

offence under
Section 21
of the Act 1957, the

registration of the case under both the

enactments is not illegal and the police can

further investigate into such cases and file a final

report confining to the offence under
IPC
alone.

In respect of the offence under
Section 21
of the

Act 1957, it is for an authorized person to file a
complaint after investigation before the

jurisdictional Magistrate, upon which, cognizance

can be taken.

38. But in the cases before this Court, the

conflict is between the Act 1957 and the
IPC
.

When there is such a conflict between a special

and a general law, indisputably, the special

enactment will prevail over the general law. That

is the reason why this Court inclined to hold that

Section 22
of the Act 1957 will override
Section
of Cr.P.C. and therefore, in respect of offence

under the Act 1957, cognizance can be taken only

on a complaint as provided in
Section 22
of the

Act 1957, and not on a police report.

39. Now, I would like to refer to the

Notification issued by the Government of

Karnataka dated 21.01.2014 and vide said

notification, the government has designated total
fifteen officers/authorities and the jurisdiction

and concerned departments authorizing the

persons to initiate the proceedings.

40. The other contention of the petitioners'

counsel is that the Authorized Officer means an

officer not below the rank of Group 'B' authorized

by the State Government or Commissioner or

Director of Mines and Geology or Deputy

Commissioner of the District to act for the specific

purpose under these rules. The counsel relying

upon these amendments taken place in 2017 and

this is with regard to authorized by the State

Government for the specific purpose under these

rules and the word used in the
Section 22
of the

Act 1957, taking of cognizance upon complaint in

writing made by a person authorized in this behalf

by the Central Government or the State

Government and the notification is issued by the
State Government by a notification dated

21.01.2014 and under the said notification,

authorized persons are designated and they are

permitted to initiate the proceedings and this

Court also discussed with regard to cognizable

offence is taken place under
Section 154
of

Cr.P.C. The other contention of the petitioners'

counsel that the
Section 23B
of the Act, 1957 with

regard to Power to search, is only by a gazetted

officer of the Central or a State Government

authorized by the Central Government or a State

Government in case of contravention of provisions

of this Act or rules made thereunder in relation to

such mineral is secreted in any place (or vehicle),

he may search for such mineral, document or

thing and the provisions of
Section 100
of Cr.P.C.

shall apply to every search. There is no dispute

with regard to adding
Section 23B
of the Act,

1957, the same is in respect of search is
concerned and also on going through
Section 23B

of the Act, 1957, it is clear that if any mineral is

secreted in any place or vehicle, the word used is,

he may search for such mineral and not word is

employed as he shall but the word used is he may,

that too in respect of where the mineral is

secreted and specific that the provisions of

Section 100
of Cr.P.C. shall apply for such search

and hence, there cannot be a bar to other officer

to make search when a cognizable office is taken

place and the notification dated 21.01.2014 and

also specifically provides the power to conduct the

authorized persons to initiate the proceedings and

hence, the contention of the petitioners' counsel

cannot be accepted.

41. Regarding filing of complaint by

authorized person is concerned, while filing

private complaint, law permits only to file
complaint once and there is no provision to file

supplementary complaint and if Court is taking

cognizance on police report, there is a provision

under
Section 173(8)
of Cr.P.C. and additional

charge sheet can be filed and the same can be

considered, but no provision if it is on private

complaint. Hence, it is impossible to file the

complaint within 24 hours and hence, the

Authorized Officer as per the notification can

initiate the proceedings by setting the law in

motion against the persons who indulged in

commission of the offence under the general law

and special law which are cognizable one and also

under Section 154 of Cr.P.C.

42. This Court would also rely upon the

judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
State

of Karnataka Vs. Linganagoud
etc., wherein it

is categorically held that:
"taking of cognizance is only after completion

of the investigation and when such principle is

laid down by
the Apex Court that, stage of taking

cognizance will arise only after investigation is

completed and there is no bar to the investigation

being carried out by the Lokayukta Police on the

complaint in question particularly when the

allegations include offence under the
Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988
. While saying so, set-aside

the impugned order passed by this Court

quashing of the initiation of the proceedings by

the Police".

43. This Court has already discussed in

detail with regard to the provisions of Code under

Section 154
of Cr.P.C. The police officer is the

authorized officer to initiate the proceedings when

a cognizable offence is taken place and also

pointed out that under
Section 21(6)
of the Act
1957, the offence is cognizable. If the offences

under the special enactments are cognizable

offences, the police can register a case and

investigate the matter, but the bar is with regard

to filing of final report and there is categorical bar

under
Section 22
of the Act 1957 for taking

cognizance by the Court and the Court can take

only cognizance based on the complaint filed by

the authorized person and there is no any bar to

investigate the matter when the cognizable offence

has been taken place by the police officer, bar is

only with regard to filing of final report and it is

made clear that the police officer can file final

report in respect of offence under
Section 379
of

IPC and in view of the bar as envisaged under

Section 22
of the Act 1957 and special enactment,

the complaint has to be filed by the authorized

person and Court can take cognizance only on the

complaint filed by the authorized person. Hence,
it is clear that the police can investigate the

matter if cognizable offence is taken place

irrespective of penal provisions whether under the

special enactment or general law and the same

can be made use of by the authorized person and

stage of cognizance can only be taken after

completion of the investigation as held by the

Apex Court, there cannot be any bar to the Police

Officer to initiate the proceedings and enquire

into the matter. In this regard, I would also like

to refer the judgment of the Division Bench of

the Madras High Court reported in 2012

Crl.L.J. 1705, similar question was arisen and

the matter was referred to the Division Bench and

the Division Bench also held that the Police

Officer can initiate the proceedings and

investigate the matter but cannot file final report

for the offence punishable in respect of special

enactments.
44. In view of the discussions made above,

it is clear that the registration of the FIR is only

to set the law in motion and if it is cognizable

offence,
Section 154
come into the aid of police

officer to register the case. As I have already held

that
Section 21(6)
of the Act 1957, offence under

Section 21(1)
is cognizable and therefore, it is

lawful for the police officer to register a case as

provided under
Section 154
of Cr.P.C. and

investigate the same as per the provisions of

Cr.P.C
. with respect to search and seizure under

Section 102
of Cr.P.C. and under Rule 43 sub

clause (5) to (8) as Amended and only difficulty

arises only in taking cognizance in view of the bar

under
Section 22
of the Act 1957, which prohibits

taking cognizance except upon a complaint. In

view of the same, if an act of the accused

constitutes offences under
IPC
as well as the

provisions of the Act 1957, the registration of a
case both under the provisions of
IPC and the Act

1957 is not illegal and the police may proceed

with the investigation. However, the police shall

file a police report only in respect of the offences

punishable under the
IPC
and in respect of the

Act 1957, the authorized person can file a

separate complaint. In any event, if the police

officer, files a final report in respect of the

offences under
IPC
as well as under
Section 21
of

the Act 1957, the Magistrate may take cognizance

of the offences under
IPC
alone and proceed with

the trial and not for the offence under
Section 21

of the Act. If the charge sheet filed for offence

under the
MMDR Act
and Rules, the Courts can

permit the Authorised persons to file separate

complaint before the Magistrate and Court can

take cognizance under
Section 22
of the MMDR

Act 1957.
45. In respect of offences under the Act

1957, the Court shall take cognizance only on a

complaint filed by a person authorized in that

behalf by the Central Government or State

Government and not on a police report. Hence, I

am of the view that if any cognizable offence is

taken place irrespective of whether the offences

under the General Act or Special enactment,

under
Section 154
of Cr.P.C., the Police Officer

who is authorized person is bound to register the

case and proceed with the investigation and

hence, the question of quashing of registering the

cases for both the Act and the special enactment

does not arise and the same is only setting law in

motion and for investigation, the bar is specific

under
Section 22
of the Act 1957 is only for

taking cognizance in respect of offences under the

special enactment. Hence, the contention of the

petitioners who have urged in all the petitions
that there cannot be any registration of the case

against both the offences cannot be accepted.

The cases registered by the police for the

respective offences as FIR cannot be quashed and

the cases which are registered as CC cases based

on the complaint as mentioned under
Section 22

of the Special Act and hence, the Court has taken

the cognizance based on the complaint.

46. In view of the discussions made above,

this Court pass the following:

ORDER

i) Criminal PetitionNos.101274 of 2018,
102059 of 2018, 102060 of 2018,
102061 of 2018, 102062 of 2018 and
102126 of 2018 are dismissed.

ii) Criminal Petition Nos.101815 of
2018, 101986 of 2018, 102023 of
2018, 102107 of 2018, 102122 of
2018 and 102281 of 2018 are
dismissed since those crimes are
registered and based on the

complaint, the cognizance is taken in
respect of the offences under the

MMDR Act
and Rules.

iii) In view of disposal of the petitions,
pending interlocutory applications, if
any, do not survive for consideration,
hence, they are also disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sh/Mrk/JTR