S.S. Satheesachandran, J.

1. Annexure VII report filed by the Sub Inspector of Police, Peramangalam Police Station imputing offences under Section 4(1A) read with Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, for short, the 'Act', and Rule 58 of the Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1967, for short, the 'Rules' against the petitioner, is challenged in this petition invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for short, the 'Code'.

2. Annexure II FIR was registered against the petitioner for the offences referred to above under the Act and Rules, pursuant to an inspection conducted by the Sub Inspector of Police, Peramangalam Police Station on 27.04.2011 in a property owned by him, wherein he had stored about 100 loads of river sand, allegedly, in violation of the aforesaid Act and Rules. That crime registered, after inspection, has led to the filing of Annexure VII report indicting him of the offences stated, under Section 173 (2) of the Code.

3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that he had a license issued under the Rules to store and sell ordinary sand. Validity of that license was upto 31.03.2011. Annexure I is the copy of that license. In view of the General Election declared, according to the petitioner, there was some administrative delay in renewing his license. At the time of the expiry of the validity of Annexure I license, 627 metric tones of ordinary sand remained in his yard. What remained in the yard, which he had stored as per the valid license issued under the Rules, has been seized by the Sub Inspector of police, and the crime was registered for offences under the Act and Rules as if he had violated the provisions thereunder, and, thus, committed the offences imputed. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that since there was delay in the renewal of his license, he had approached this Court with a writ petition, and pursuant to the orders passed thereunder, his application for renewal from the date of expiry of his previous license was considered by the licensing authority, and Annexure VI is the order passed thereof. Though renewal was not granted from the date of expiry of the prior license, the licensing authority, as per the records produced by him, has unequivocally stated that whatever sand stored by him in his yard, which had been seized by the police and that led to registration of Annexure II FIR was what remained with him during the operation of Annexure I license and he had produced valid records before the licensing authority over the collection and storage of that quantity of sand as well. Licensing authority, Senior geologist, has also addressed the Sub Inspector of police under Annexure IV that the quantity of sand kept by him in his yard formed part of sand collected by him under a valid license, but, the license which expired had not been renewed. On the aforesaid factual aspects itself petitioner could not be imputed of having committed any offence under the Act and Rules, is the submission of the counsel pointing out that there is no provision under the Act and Rules as and when the license period is over to dispose or hand over the balance quantity of sand which had been collected but remained with the licensee. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that Annexure VII report filed under Section 173 (2) of the Code in relation to a license covered by the Act and Rules and the cognizance of the offences on such report taken by the Magistrate, both are bad in law, and in fact, violative of the mandatory provisions covered by Section 22 of the Act. Reliance is placed on Ismayil v. State of Kerala (2010 (3) KLT 706) to contend that the police report filed under Section 173 (2) of the Code cannot be treated as a complaint from an authorized person, on which alone cognizance of the offences under the Act and Rules could be taken as mandated under Section 22 of the Act. In su