The judgment emphasized the Magistrate's jurisdiction in committal proceedings and the interpretation of the Apex Court's decision in determining the offences exclusively triable by the trial Court.

All these petitions have been filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Merur, by which the final report filed was returned stating that the only offence under Section 21(1) MMDR Act alone is made out and for that, a separate complaint under the Act is necessary. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Melur, while returning the final report, assigned the following reasons:

" The Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Crime Branch, Madurai resubmitted the Charge Sheet as per the direction of the Honorable Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai, in his order in R.O.C.No.1258/15/A1 dt.18.03.15.

The Charge Sheet was returned on 13.11.14 and endorsed to that effect.

The Charge Sheet disclosed the fact that the accused are conducting mining operation. But they violated the license which issued by the authority and taking granite blocks from adjacent Promboke lands with intention of getting unlawful gain and stored the said blocks on the Harijana grave yard.

Regarding the nuisance RDO has power to take action U/S 133 CrPC and for the encroachment also. Revenue Officials are having power to evict the encroachment.

There is no doubt that the accused is having licence for conducting mining operation. The statements and materials disclosed that the accused only stored granite in the said blocks on the Harijana grave yard and there is no ingredients regarding the offence under SC/ST Act and for forgery document.

On the other hand, the Apex Court gave a findings in their judgment in Sanjay Vs. State of NCT, Delhi that the cognizance of offence regarding the violation of mining operations can only be taken with a complaint from the authority along with the Charge Sheet.

Considering the facts and materials of this Charge sheet, the view of this Court is that the offence under Section 21(1) MMDR Act only made out and shall be taken cognizance with the separate complaint along with this charge sheet. There is no separate complaint from the authority. Hence, the Charge Sheet is returned."

2. The learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the petitioner submitted that the charges relating to the offences under the TNPPDL Act and the Explosive Substances Act and Section 304(2) Explosive Substances Act, were dropped by the Sessions Court. Therefore, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Melur, does not have any jurisdiction. Secondly, it is submitted that the final report indicates the material for the other offences under the Indian Penal Code and hence, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Melur, has totally misconstrued the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in State (NCT of Delhi) -vs- Sanjay reported in (2014) 9 SCC 772. In fact, the ratio laid down in the said decision if applied afore to the case on hand, it would make the learned Judicial Magistrate to commit the cases to the Sessions Court. Merely because, the offences were made out a case only under the special enactment, when it is made out under the provisions of IPC, then the jurisdiction of the police is not taken away as laid down by the judgment cited supra. He further submits that it has been brought to the knowledge of the learned Judicial Magistrate that a separate complaint would be given under the Special Act, namely MMDR Act as indicated in the charge sheet. In support of his contention, the learned Public Prosecutor relied on the following judgments:

In State (NCT of Delhi) -vs- Sanjay reported in (2014) 9 SCC 772, the Honorable Apex Court in paragraphs 72 and 73 held as follows: .

"72..... Hence, merely because initiation of proceeding for commission of an offence under the MMDR Act, on the basis of complaint cannot and shall not debar the police from taking action against persons for committing theft of sand and minerals in the manner mentioned above by exercising power under the Code of Criminal Procedure and submit a report before the Magistrate for taking cognizance against such persons. In other words, in a case where there is a theft of