IMPORTANT POINT
Cognizance of offences under the MMDR Act requires a complaint from an authorized person; without it, proceedings cannot be sustained.

JUDGMENT :

Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.

1. The instant revisional application has been filed by the petitioners for quashing of the proceedings of G.R. Case No. 315 of 2011, pending before the Learned Judicial Magistrate 3rd Court, Contai arising out of Digha Mohona Coastal Police Station Case No. 1/2011 dated 20.04.2011 under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957.

2. The petitioner no.1 was the Secretary of the Digha Fishermen & Fish Traders Association, while the other three petitioners were respectively the Chairman, Vice Chairman and Assistant Secretary of the said Association. The said Association was an organization registered under the Societies Registration Act working for the upliftment of livelihood of “Fishermen and Fisheries Industry”.

3. Digha Mohona Coastal Police Station Case No. 1/2011 dated 20.4.2011 was registered for investigation on the basis of a complaint lodged by Sri Arup Kumar Mondal, the Block Land & Land Reforms Officer, Ramnagar-I with the Officer-in-Charge, Digha Police Station, inter alia, alleging commission of an offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 21 of the Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 by the petitioner and others. The complaint narrated the petitioner along with three others viz. Radhagobinda Das, Pranab Kar and Rahininandan Khara, who were members of the Executive Body of Digha Fishermen & Fish Traders Association, had extracted and removed sand from the canal at Digha Mohana without taking prior permission from the appropriate authority.

4. On completion of investigation, Charge-sheet No.7/2011 dated 18.08.2011 under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 21 of the Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 was submitted against the present petitioners.

5. On 20.2.2011 the petitioners preferred a representation before the Prodhan, Padima-II Gram Panchayat, praying for re-excavation of Digha Khal for safe passage of fishing boat as the same was becoming unfit for harbouring of boats as also other reasons requiring such re-excavation.

6. On 24.2.2011 the Prodhan of Padima-II Gram Panchayat, Alankarpur, Purba Midnapore issued a letter in favour of the petitioners, thereby directing the organisation of the petitioners to execute the re-excavation work of the dried out “Digha Khal” as the same was required for the benefit of thousands of fishermen.

7. Due to deposit of silt on the bed of the sea, fishermen had to undergo extreme difficulties for commuting on the sea as also bringing it back to the shore. In order to resolve such difficulties, the Digha Fishermen and Fish Traders Association filed representations before the local Panchayat for taking effective steps to excavate the silt deposit on the bed of the sea shore. The local Panchayat, in response to such representations of the said association, asked the association to take appropriate steps for removing such silt as the local Panchayat was not having any such infrastructure to remove such silt.

8. The petitioners submitted that Section 22 of the Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 provided that no court should take cognizance of any offence punishable under the said Act or any rules made thereunder except upon complaint made by a person authorised in that behalf by the Central Government or State Government. In the instant case, cognizance was taken on the basis of the report submitted by the police personnel of Digha Mohona Police Station on the basis of a complaint lodged by the Block Land & Land Reforms Officer, Ramnagar-1.

9. Learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted as follows:-

i. During the course of investigation, the investigating agency did not seize any article to prima facie make out a case that excavation of minor minerals took place at the place of occurrence.

ii. In the First Information Report, the allegation was only to the effect that th