The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 22 of the Mines and Minerals Regulation and Development Act, which restricts the Magistrate's jurisdiction to take cognizance for offences under the Act and Rules without a complaint lodged by an authorized officer.

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.

2. Learned HCGP takes notice to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Perused the records.

3. The petitioner has called in question the proceedings before the Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Gudibande at Chikkaballapur, wherein after taking cognizance, process has been issued to the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 379 and 420 r/w. 34 of IPC and also under Sections 4(1), 4(1A), 21(5) of Mines and Minerals Regulation and Development Act (for short ‘MMRD Act') and Sections 3 and 42 the Karnataka Mines and Minerals Concession Rules (for short, KMMC Rules).

4. Learned counsel submits before the court that there is a bar under Section 22 of the MMRD Act for the learned Magistrate to take cognizance of the offences under the MMRD Act and KMMC Rules. Section 22 of MMRD Act reads as under:

“Sec. 22: Cognizance of offences- No court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act or any Rules made hereunder except upon complaint in writing made by a person authorized in this behalf by the Central Government or the State Government."

5. In the above provision it is clear that, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to take cognizance for offences under the above said enactment and rules unless a complaint is lodged by an authorized officer. At this stage, it is worth note hear a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 2015 SC 75 between State of NCT Delhi, along with other cases, wherein it has dealt with the same situation and observed that the Magistrate can only take cognizance for the offences punishable under the provisions of Indian Penal Code and he cannot take cognizance for the offences under the Provisions of MMRD Act and Rules in view of a specific bar under Section 22 of the Act. The relevant portions at Paragraphs 68 to 72 of the said decision, reads as under:-

"68. There cannot be any dispute with regard to restrictions imposed under the MMDR Act and remedy provided therein. In any case, where there is a mining activity by any person in contravention of the provisions of Section 4 and other sections of the Act, the officer empowered and authorized under the Act shall exercise all the powers including making a complaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate. It is also not in dispute that the Magistrate shall in such cases take cognizance on the basis of the complaint filed before it by a duly authorized officer. In case of breach and violation of Section 4 and other provisions of the Act, the police officer cannot insist Magistrate for taking cognizance under the Act on the basis of the report submitted by the police alleging contravention of the said Act.

In other words, the prohibition contained in Section 22 of the Act against prosecution of a person except on a complaint made by the officer is attracted only when such person sought to be prosecuted for contravention of Section 4 of the Act and not for any act or omission which constitute an offence under Indian Penal Code.

69. However, there may be situation where a person without any lease or licence or any authority enters into river and extracts sands, gravels and other minerals and remove or transport those minerals in a clandestine manner with an intent to remove dishonestly those minerals from the possession of the State, is liable to be punished for committing such offence under Sections 378 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code.

70. From a close reading of the provisions of MMDR Act and the offence defined under Section 378, IPC, it is manifest that the ingredients constituting the offence are different. 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 MMDR Act, whereas dishonestly removing sand, gravels and other minerals form the river, which is the property of the State, out of State's possession without the consent, constitute an offence of theft.

71. Hence, merely beca