JUDGMENT :

B.A. Patil, J.

The present petition has been filed by petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.656/2017 on the file of Principal Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khanapur, for the offences punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 21 and 22 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the MMDR Act', for short).

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.1 and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

3. The gist of the complaint is that on 20.08.2016, at about 2.00 p.m., the complainant received credible information about the illegal storage of the sand. Immediately, along with his staff and panch witness, he visited the spot at about 2.45 p.m. where they noticed storage of 25 brasses of sand without there being any permit or licence and the same was seized by drawing a mahazar. A complaint was also registered in this behalf. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet has been filed.

4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, in view of bar contained in Section 22 of the MMDR Act, and Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 (for short, 'the KMMC Rules'), a complaint has to be registered only by an Authorized Officer before the jurisdictional Court. The Magistrate gets the jurisdiction to take cognizance and try the matter only when a complaint is made as contemplated under Section 22 of the MMDR Act. It is his further contention that the complaint is given by PSI, Nandagad Police Station to PSHO, Nandagad Police Station. On the basis of the said complaint, an investigation was conducted. After investigation, a charge sheet has been filed.

5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the charge sheet, Column No.11 with regard to survey number of the land from where 18.876 brasses of sand has been seized has been left blank and that itself clearly goes to show that the police officer had not visited the spot and had not conduced the proceedings in accordance with law. It is his further contention that when once the said fact is brought to the notice of the Court, the Court can exercise the power under section 482 of Cr.P.C. and quash the proceedings. It is his further submission that the ingredients constituting the offences under the provisions of MMDR Act are quite different and distinct from the offences under the provisions of the IPC. If the Authorized Officer files a complaint then an investigation by the police in the same case in relation to the offences under IPC can be done, but in the instant case, no such complaint has been filed by authorized persons. It is his further submission that a Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Sri Vivek and Another Vs. The State of Karnataka, by Kunigal Police Station and Another, (2018) ILR(Kar) 1497 has given certain guidelines to be followed by the police, Magistrates and the Special Courts. The said guidelines exhaustively state as to what procedure has to be followed and in the absence of such procedure being followed, the proceedings are considered to be illegal and are liable to be quashed. On these grounds, he prayed to quash the proceedings.

6. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that merely because the complaint has not been filed by the Authorised Officer for having committed the offences under the MMDR Act, the same cannot and shall not be a bar for the police from taking action against the persons for having committed the theft of sand and minerals. It is further submitted that the Code of Criminal Procedure authorizes the police as well as the Magistrates to take the cognizance of such offences and after investigation, to file a charge sheet. It