IMPORTANT POINTS
When a party is charged for offences under the MMDR Act as well as IPC, cognizance under the Act will be taken only on complaint by authorized officer while cognizance for offence under IPC can be taken on police report.
In a composite charge sheet containing offences under MMDR Act as well as IPC, cognizance taken under the Act on complaint by authorised officer and cognizance taken under IPC on police report do not constitute double jeopardy because ingredients of offences under the two enactments are different.

Headnote:(a) Constitution of India – Article 20 – Double jeopardy – Nemo debet bis vexari pro una eteadem causa – No person shall be prosecuted or punished for an offence more than once – However, a subsequent trial or a prosecution and punishment is not barred if ingredients of the two offences are distinct. (Para 50)
       (2003) 2 SCC 152; AIR 1965 SC 666 – Relied upon
       (b) Constitution of India – Article 48-A and 51-A – Doctrine of Public Trust – Doctrine enjoins duty on Governments to conserve and not waste natural resources – It also enjoins a duty upon every citizen to protect and improve environment. (Para 55)
       2012 (4) CTC 1 – Referred
       (c) Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 – Section 21 – Contravention of provisions of section 4(1A) is a cognizable offence – It is of no consequence if it is not so provided in Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. (Para 56, 57)
       (d) Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 – Section 22 – Restricting the courts not to take cognizance of any offence punishable under the Act or any rule made thereunder except upon a complaint made by a person authorized in this behalf – Section not beginning with a non-obstante clause – At the same time use of the word ‘shall’ makes it mandatory – The prohibition is attracted only for contravention of Section 4 of the Act – Not for any act or omission which constitute an offence under Indian Penal Code – A person removing sand or other minerals from river beds with dishonestly commits offence punishable u/s 378 and 379 IPC – Cognizance of such offence can be taken on police report. (Para 58, 60, 66, 68)
       (2012) 3 SCC 1; (1997) 1 SCC 388; (2006) 3 SCC 549; (2014) 2 SCC 532; (2000) 5 SCC 88; (1994) 3 SCC 440; AIR 1953 SC 325; AIR 1961 SC 578; AIR 1969 SC 701; (1988) 3 SCC 467; AIR 1958 SC 119; (1988) 4 SCC 655; (2011) 1 SCC 534; (1861), 30 L.J. Ch.379; AIR 1956 SC 140; AIR 1961 SC 751 – Relied upon
       2012 Cri LJ 1705 : 2012(2) CTC 369 – Approved
       (1995)1 CALLT 95(HC) – Overruled
       (e) Constitution of India – Article 20 – Ingredients constituting the offence u/s 21 MMRD Act and u/s 378 IPC are different – 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 – On the other hand dishonestly removing sand, gravels and other minerals from the river, without consent of State constitute an offence u/s 378 IPC – Cognizance of offence under the Act can only be taken on complaint by authorized officer – Cognizance of offence u/s 378 can be taken on police report. (Para 70 to 72)
       (1861), 30 L.J. Ch.379; AIR 1956 SC 140; AIR 1961 SC 751 – Relied upon
       Facts of the case:
       The question arising in this appeal is whether the provisions of Mines and Minerals Act explicitly or impliedly excludes the provisions of Indian Penal Code when the act of an accused is an offence both under the Indian Penal Code and under the provisions of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act.
       Finding of the Court:
       When a party is charged for offences under the MMDR Act as well as IPC, cognizance under the Act will be taken only on complaint by authorized officer while cognizance for offence under IPC can be taken on police report.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - When a party is charged for offences under the MMDR Act as well as IPC, cognizance under the Act will be taken only on complaint by authorized officer while cognizance for offence under IPC can be taken on police report (!) (!) . - In a composite charge sheet containing offences under MMDR Act as well as IPC, cognizance taken under the Act on complaint by authorised officer and cognizance taken under IPC on police report do not constitute double jeopardy because ingredients of offences under the two enactments are different (!) (!) . - 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, whereas dishonestly removing sand, gravels and other minerals from the river without consent of State constitute an offence u/s 378 IPC (!) (!) . - Section 22 of the MMDR Act does not prohibit registering an FIR by the police on information being given with respect to offences punishable under the said Act or the Rules made thereunder (!) . - It is not open for the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence punishable under the Act or the Rules made there under on a mere charge-sheet filed by the police, but it is open for the authorized officer to file a complaint (!) . - With respect to offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code, no such bar as indicated in para (2) would apply regarding the requirement of a complaint by an authorized officer (!) . - The ingredients constituting the offence u/s 21 MMRD Act and u/s 378 IPC are different, allowing separate prosecutions without violating Article 20 of the Constitution (!) . - Article 20(2) of the Constitution does not bar subsequent trial or punishment if the ingredients of the two offences are distinct, even if the same act constitutes an offence under both enactments (!) . - The doctrine of public trust enjoins a duty on Governments to conserve and not waste natural resources, supporting strict enforcement of mining regulations (!) . - Section 21(6) of the MMDR Act makes the offence cognizable notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (!) .

What are the rights of the police to register an FIR and investigate offences under the MMDR Act and IPC when the same act constitutes an offence under both enactments?

What is the legal distinction between the ingredients of an offence under Section 21 of the MMDR Act and the offence of theft under Section 378 of the IPC?

How to determine whether cognizance taken under the MMDR Act on a complaint by an authorized officer and cognizance taken under the IPC on a police report constitute double jeopardy?

JUDGMENT

M.Y.EQBAL, J.

1. The principal question which arises for consideration in these appeals is whether the provisions contained in Sections 21, 22 and other sections of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 operate as bar against prosecution of a person who has been charged with allegation which constitutes offences under Section 379/114 and other provisions of the Indian Penal Code. In other words, whether the provisions of Mines and Minerals Act explicitly or impliedly excludes the provisions of Indian Penal Code when the act of an accused is an offence both under the Indian Penal Code (in short, ‘IPC’) and under the provisions of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act.

2. Criminal Appeal No.499 of 2011 arose out of an order passed by the Delhi High Court on an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the FIR registered at Police Station Alipur under Sections 379/114/120B/34 IPC on the allegation that appellant was involved in illegal mining of sand from the Yamuna basin. An FIR was registered by the police suo motu having come to know that some persons were removing and selling sand from the Yamuna basin for the last so many days. On receipt of such information, the police officers committed raid and visited the site where they found one dumper filled with sand. Because of non-production of any documents and valid papers, the digging equipments were seized and taken into possession and persons were arrested. An FIR was registered on the charges of illegal mining under Section 379/114 IPC besides being cognizable offence under Section 21 (4) of the Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (in short the MMDR Act).

3. The appellant challenged the registration of the case on the ground inter alia that offence if at all committed, cognizance would have been taken under the provisions of MMDR Act, that too on the basis of complaint to be filed under Section 22 of the Act by an authorized officer.

4. Criminal Appeal No.2105 of 2013 Similarly this case arose out of an order passed by the Gujarat High Court on an application filed by the appellant seeking quashing of the FIR on various grounds inter alia that Section 22 of the MMDR Act put a complete bar on the registration of FIR by the police. The allegation inter alia in the FIR was on illegal mining in those areas where mining lease was already revoked.

3. 5. Criminal Appeal Nos. 2108-2112 of 2013 In these cases, appellants are the owners of Murlidhar Stone Industries and were granted quarry lease in the seam of Village Thoriwari for excavation of mines and minerals on payment of royalty. The appellants challenged the legality and validity of mining complaint lodged by the State geologist against them for offences under Section 379/114 of IPC and under Section 21 of the MMDR Act. The appellants sought an appropriate writ or direction to quash and set aside the criminal proceedings on the same ground that Section 22 of the Act prohibits registration of FIR with respect to offences punishable under the said MMDR Act.

6. Criminal Appeal No.2107 of 2013 This appeal also arose out of the order passed by the High Court of Gujarat on the application challenging the legality and validity of criminal complaint filed before Bhuj Taluka Police Station for the alleged illegal mining and transporting a dumper loaded with black trap stone. A complaint was made with the police for the commission of offence under Section 379 read with Section 114 of the IPC and under Section 21 of the MMDR Act.

7. Criminal Appeal No.2106 of 2013

This appeal also arose out of a complaint filed before Sayla Police Station by the Incharge Mines Supervisor, alleging offence punishable under Sections 4(1) and 21(1) of the MMDR Act. No charge sheet has been filed in this complaint so far.

8. Criminal Appeal No.499 of 2011, as stated above, arose out of the order passed by the Delhi High Court. The Delhi High Court formulated three issues for consi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2014 Supreme(SC) 637

What are the rights of the police to register an FIR and investigate offences under the MMDR Act and IPC when the same act constitutes an offence under both enactments?

What is the legal distinction between the ingredients of an offence under Section 21 of the MMDR Act and the offence of theft under Section 378 of the IPC?

How to determine whether cognizance taken under the MMDR Act on a complaint by an authorized officer and cognizance taken under the IPC on a police report constitute double jeopardy?

Cases Referred (18)