ORDER :

This revision petition is filed by the accused against the proceedings dated 11.10.2018 in C.C.No.2985/2018 registered for the offences punishable under sections 4(1A), 42(1), 44(1), 21, 22 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the MMDR Act’ for short) initiated against him by the II Additional JMFC, Gokak. Brief facts of the case as alleged in the complaint are as under:

2. That one Sri M.S.Tanappagol, Circle Police Inspector, Rural Police Station Gokak is the complainant. He being authorized person as per Government Notification bearing No.CI 21 MMN (2) 2014, Bangalore dated 21.01.2014 filed complaint under Section 22 of the MMDR Act read with section 200 of Cr.P.C. According to the complainant, on 22.09.2018 at 08.30 hours near Maladani cross in a tipper bearing KA.24/B.6386 was illegally transporting the sand. The complainant intercepted the said vehicle. Thereafter, seized the tipper with sand in the presence of panchas the complainant prepared panchanama.

3. The learned Magistrate without applying judicious mind, blindly registered the case and took the cognizance of the aforesaid offences by order dated 11.10.2018 and ordered to issue of process. Hence the revision petitioner is before this Court.

4. The main ground on which the revision petition filed is, that the complainant was not an authorized officer within the meaning of Section 22 of the MMDR Act. Therefore, the learned Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the offences punishable under sections 4(1A), 42(1), 44(1), 21, 22 of the MMDR Act. The initiation of proceedings is illegal, contrary to law, procedure and principal of natural justice.

5. It is contended that the complainant is in violation of provisions of the MMDR Act and violation of provisions of the Karnataka Minor and Minerals Concessions Rule, 1994 (herein after referred to as ‘the KMMC Rules’ for short). The person who conducted investigation and filed complaint was not competent to conduct any search or seizure as provided under Section 23-B of the MMDR Act.

6. The complainant is not a Gazetted Officer as defined under the provisions of Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957. The complaint was filed by an official below the rank of Group ‘B’ Officer who is not competent to file any complainant alleging the offences under the MMDR Act. The search and seizure of the vehicle is also illegal and it is in contravention of the MMDR Act.

7. Further the Trial Court could not have taken cognizance of the offences alleged. Hence the revision petitioner prayed to set aside the order of the trial court taking cognizance of the offence and issue of process and has prayed to quash the proceedings.

8. The Police Officers cannot file a private complaint before the Magistrate. They can only assist the complainant who is competent or authorized person. Therefore, continuation of proceedings will amount to harassment to the revision petitioner. The complaint has been filed maliciously, therefore it is prayed to quash the same.

9. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner as well as learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the materials on record.

10. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that under Rule 2(a-1-a) of the KMMC Rules, the Police Sub-Inspector is not a competent person to file such complaint who is not a Gazetted Officer or not an authorized person as provided under Section 23-B of the MMDR Act. Notification issued by the Government cannot have overriding effect on KMMC Rules. Therefore, learned counsel has prayed to allow the revision petition.

11. Learned Additional Government Advocate has supported the order of the learned Magistrate and submitted certain authorities in support of his arguments.

12. From the tenor of the petition and as well as arguments of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, three main points would arise for consideration as follows:

1. Whether