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?

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?