Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

• Irregularity of Cognizance: The Special Court does not have the power to take cognizance of an offence under the Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act (MMDR Act) without the case being committed to it by a Magistrate under Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), as there is no specific provision to the contrary in either the Cr.P.C. or the MMDR Act (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . Consequently, the order of the Special Judge taking cognizance on 30 December 2015 is irregular (!) (!) .
• Applicability of Section 465 Cr.P.C.: Section 465 of the Cr.P.C. applies to interlocutory orders, including orders taking cognizance and summons orders, to prevent delay in the commencement and completion of the trial (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . Therefore, even if the cognizance order is irregular, it does not vitiate the proceedings unless a "failure of justice" is proved (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
• Failure of Justice Test: To determine if there has been a failure of justice under Section 465, courts must consider the stage of the challenge, the seriousness of the offence, and the intention to prolong proceedings. In this case, the challenge was raised two years after the cognizance order, and given the diminished role of the committing Magistrate under the 1973 Cr.P.C. compared to the 1898 Code, no failure of justice was demonstrated (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
• Cognizance of Offence vs. Offender: It is a settled principle that cognizance is taken of the offence and not the offender. A mere error in the form of the cognizance order (e.g., mentioning "accused" instead of "offence") does not vitiate the proceedings if the material facts of the offence were perused (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
• Joint Trial under IPC and MMDR Act: The Special Court has the power to take cognizance of offences under the IPC and conduct a joint trial with offences under the MMDR Act. Section 220 of the Cr.P.C. (Trial for more than one offence) applies to proceedings before the Special Court unless expressly or impliedly repealed, which is not the case here (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
• Authorization for Complaint under Section 22 MMDR Act: Section 22 of the MMDR Act requires a complaint by an authorized person for taking cognizance of offences under the Act, but this bar does not apply to offences under the IPC. The notification dated 21 January 2014 authorized the Sub-Inspector of Police (including those in the SIT) to file complaints under Section 22, and the FIR was signed by a Sub-Inspector, thus complying with the Act (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
• Vicarious Liability under Section 23 MMDR Act: The question of whether the Managing Director (A-1) was "in-charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business" at the time of the offence is a matter for trial. The position of a Managing Director creates a presumption of responsibility, but the proviso to Section 23 allows them to escape liability if they prove lack of knowledge or exercise of due diligence, which must be tested during the trial (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .