The Court highlighted the bar to take cognizance under Section 22 of the MMRD Act, emphasizing that the Court can take cognizance only on a private complaint filed by an authorized person. It also distinguished between the offences under MMRD Act and IPC, stating that there is no double jeopardy and both offences are distinct.

H.P. Sandesh, J.

Heard the arguments of the petitioner's counsel and the HCGP for respondent State.

2. The factual matrix of this case is that on 1.3.2018, at about 5.00 a.m., the complainant on receiving credible information about a person illegally removing and transporting sand in tractor trailer from Dyamanusi village, the complainant along with staff and panchas, at 6.00 a.m. to 7.00 a.m. proceeded towards Dyamanusi village, and while one tractor and trailer was coming from Dyamanusi village, they intercepted and stopped the vehicle, the driver of the vehicle ran away. On enquiry it was ascertained that without having any pass or permit the driver and owner of the vehicle were involved in illegal sand mining and they found that the tractor bearing No.KA-36/TA- 4269 attached with trailer No.KA-26/TA-9452 was loaded with brass sand and hence he seized the tractor trailer along with sand. Thereafter, a case has been registered for the offence punishable under section 379 of IPC and under section 21 of Mines and Minerals (Regulation of Development) Act, 1957.

3. The main contention of the petitioner in this case is that he has not committed any offence as alleged against him and there is a bar under Section 22 of MMRD Act, 1957 and KMMC Rules and the complainant suo moto registered the case and invoked the offences under the MMRD Act and Rules. The counsel also relied upon the judgment reported in a case between State of Delhi vs. State of Gujarat, (2015) AIR SC 75 and Another with Malubhai Shalabhai Rabari & Others vs. State of Gujarat & Others with Kalubhai Khachar vs. State of Gujarat & Another, wherein it is held that there is a bar to take cognizance and only on a private complaint filed by the authorized officer, the Court can take cognizance. Hence, the initiation of proceedings is liable to be quashed.

4. The petitioner's counsel also reiterated the grounds urged in the petition and contended that the very complainant is not an authorized person and he cannot invoke offences under the MMRD Act and hence the proceedings initiated against the petitioner is liable to be quashed.

5. Per contra, the HCGP appearing for the respondent State contends that PSI has registered a case on credible information and further contends that, in order to invoke the offence under MMRD Act, an authorized officer has to file a complaint before the Magistrate and under Section 22 of MMRD Act, the Court can take cognizance in respect of the offences under the provisions of MMRD Act. However, the complaint registered for the offence under Section 379 of IPC cannot be quashed in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court delivered in State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Sanjay, reported in, (2014) 9 SCC 772. Hence, prayed this Court only to consider the offence with regard to MMRD Act and Rules and not for the offence under section 379 of IPC.

6. Having heard the petitioner's counsel and HCGP for respondent State, this Court has to examine whether this Court can exercise the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in the case on hand.

7. The factual matrix of the case is that on 1.3.2018, on credible information a raid was conducted and the petitioner was transporting sand in a tractor trailer illegally. Hence, a case has been registered for the aforesaid offence. The main ground urged in the petition is that the complainant does not have any power to initiate the proceedings under MMRD Act and further contended that under section 22 of the said Act, only the Court can take cognizance if any complaint is filed by an authorized person on behalf of the Central Government or the State Government.

8. Before adverting to the facts of the case, this Court would like to refer the proviso of Section 22 of Mines and Minerals (Regulation & Development) Act, 1957, which reads as follows:

“22. Cognizance of offences. no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act or any rules made thereunder exc