The petitioner being the accused in Crime No. 303 of 2005 of Gadigenur Police Station, Sandur- Taluk, which is registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 379 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 4(1-A) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'MMRD Act' for short), has sought for quashing the proceedings pending before the Court below by filing this petition.

2. The records disclose that the petitioner is the owner of the land in question, and has dug and extracted ore from his land and stored the ore in his land near Ubbalagundi Village. According to the prosecution, the petitioner wanted to stealthily transport the ore without the licence or permit of the State Government. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has not obtained any licence or permit as required under the law for extracting and transporting the minerals. Hence, the charge-sheet is filed against him for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 379 of IPC read with Section 4(1-A) of MMRD Act.

2-A. Sri S.G. Rajendra Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contends; firstly, that the crime will not fall under Sections 378 and 379 of IPC, inasmuch as, the petitioner has allegedly extracted the iron ore from his land only; secondly, by relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of T.L. Channegowda v State of Karnataka and Others1, he argued that Section 70 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, does not prohibit the petitioner to extract and transport the minerals. Thirdly, he contends that the crime under Section 4(1-A) of the MMRD Act is punishable under Section 21 of the said Act; that Section 22 of the said Act makes it clear that no Court shall take cognizance of the offence punishable under that Act except upon the complaint in writing by a person authorised in this behalf by the Central Government or the State Government. According to him, in this case, no complaint is lodged by a person authorised and that therefore, the Court below should not have taken the cognizance.

The said submissions are opposed by Sri A.V. Ramakrishna, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State, by vehemently contending that the crime committed by the petitioner squarely falls within the definition of 'theft' and that the judgment relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner may not be of any use to him, inasmuch as, the mineral extracted by the petitioner is not a minor mineral, but is a major mineral. He relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of State of Orissa v Sharat Chandra Sahu and Another1, in support of his contentions.

3. It is relevant to note the provisions of Section 70 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, which reads thus:

"Section 70. Right to mines and mineral products to vest in Government.-Save as otherwise expressly provided under any law in force before the commencement of this Act or under the terms of any grant made or of any other instrument of transfer executed, by or on behalf of the Government for the time being, the right to mines, minerals and mineral products, shall vest absolutely in the State Government and the State Government shall, subject to the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (Central Act No. 67 of 1957), have all the powers necessary for the proper enjoyment or disposal of such rights".

The plain reading of the said section would go to show that the mines, minerals and mineral products shall vest with the State Government and the State Government shall, subject to the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (Central Act No. 67 of 1957), have all the powers necessary for the proper enjoyment or disposal of such rights. Thus, it is clear from the said section that the minerals embedded in the earth absolutely vest in the State though such land belongs to a private person. The said section is interpreted by