ORDER :

This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed seeking to set aside the impugned order passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Nagapatinam in Crl.M.P.No.596 of 2021 dated 22.02.2021 by allowing the revision petition.

2. It is seen that in majority of the cases, either the case has been registered by the respondent Police based on the complaint given by the Revenue Authorities or by the officials of the Mines and Minerals Department, the case properties/vehicles are taken into custody. After registration of FIR, despite specific order of the Division Bench of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in Review Applications (MD) Nos.80 to 82 of 2019 in W.P.(MD).No.19936 of 2017, 7595 and 21485 of 2018 that the Police as well the authorized officers are directed to inform the registration of the case to each other within a week, the same is followed in breach. Due to which, there have been no complaint filed as per Section 22 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. The prosecution under the Indian Penal Code and the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 are distinct as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of “State (NCT of Delhi) Versus Sanjay reported in (2014) 9 SCC 772”, which has been reiterated by the Division Bench of this Court and gave various guidelines that the complaint by the authorized person to be made immediately not later than one week from the date of seizure. Both the complaint registered by the Police and the complaint of the authorized person to be tried by the same Court. As per Section 30 (B), the Special Courts have come in place.

3. In most of the cases, FIR's are filed before the Magistrate Court in which charge sheet are yet to be filed and committed to the Special Court. The authorized person have not initiated any complaint. It is seen that the authorized persons, who lodged complaint to the jurisdictional Police have not filed any complaint under Mines and Minerals Act. This is in clear violation of the directions of this Court.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor produced G.O.(Ms).No.170 (Industries (MMC.2) Department), dated 05.08.2020 and submitted that the guidelines have been issued to all the officers concerned, including the authorized officer to follow the directions of the Division Bench of the Madurai Bench of Madras High court. Despite the same, the anomaly still exists. He further submitted that in the Government Order, in addition to the authorised authorities, jurisdictional Inspector of Police are also authorised to make a complaint in writing by way of affidavit under Section 22 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. As per Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C., the complaint does not include the police report. No doubt the cases under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 are cognizable offence. The inclusion of Police personnels viz., the Inspector of Police as authorized, had created a grey area. The Division Bench of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, had clearly held revenue official/officer authorized is only to seize and not confiscate or dispose the mineral, tool, equipment, vehicle etc., and the same to be dealt only by the Special Court. It is seen that despite issuance of G.O.(Ms).No.170 (Industries (MMC.2) Department), dated 05.08.2020, the situation has not improved. Further, the Madurai Bench of this Court, as early in the year 2012, in the case of “Sengol & others Versus State reported in 2012 Crl.J 1705” had clearly held that the ingredients under Section 378 IPC and offence punishable under Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 are distinct and there is no quarrel about it. The Apex Court in the case of “State (NCT of Delhi) Versus Sanjay” (cited supra), issued guidelines in this regard and highlighted the importance of curbing illicit sand mining and plundering of natural wealth and it would be beneficial to extract re