JUDGMENT

S.C. PARIJA, J. — The accused-petitioner has filed this writ petition praying for quashing of the FIR registered as Barkot P.S. Case No. 66 of 2008 under Section 379 IPC and Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and the corresponding criminal proceeding in G.R. Case No. 326 of 2008, pending in the court of learned S.D.J.M., Deogarh.

2. The case of the accused-petitioner is that for operat¬ing the Intermediate Storage Depot for storage and transportation of Iron Ores, the petitioner applied for a licence under the provisions of Orissa Minerals (Prevention of Theft, Smuggling and other Unlawful Activities) Rules 1990 (since repealed). Accord¬ingly the petitioner was granted a licence in Form ‘D’ in the name of M/s. Sankar Transport, under the provisions of Rule 4 of the aforesaid 1990 Rules, for storage and transhipment of Iron Ores at Rajna in Barkot, in the district of Deogarh.

3. While the petitioner was operating the Intermediate Storage Depot at Rajna in Barkot, a search was made in the depot premises of the petitioner by the Deputy Director of Mines, Sambalpur, opposite party no.2, and during such search, the said opposite party no.2 seized three truck loads of Iron Ore lumps weighing about 30 tonnes, on the allegation that the licence issued for storage of minerals does not cover Iron Ore lumps. Pursuant to such seizure, opposite party no.2 filed a written report dated 21.03.2008 before the IIC, Barkot Police Station, Deogarh, which was to the following effect:

“Sir,

This is to inform you that Sri Surendra Kumar Agrawal, Proprietor of Shankar Transport, Ranja is having a licence for storing and transporting Iron Ore. During verification on 17.03.08, I found storage of iron ore lumps on about 30 M.T. (approx) for which he was not entitled to. The proprietor could no satisfactory explain existence of such ore. The party is responsible for such unauthorized storing.

I would, therefore, request you to take necessary action against the offender.”

4. The said written report of the opposite party no.2 dated 21.03.2008 was registered as a FIR vide Barkot P.S. Case No. 66/2008, under Section 379 IPC and Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957 (for short MMDR Act).

5. The case of the accused-petitioner is that ‘Iron Ore’ includes both Iron Ore lumps and Iron Ore fines, as Iron Ore is classified as lumps sized ore and fines, depending upon the size and specification. Iron Ore lumps are generally of the size varying from 10 mm to 30 mm. Sized crushed ores are of the size varying from 5 mm to 18 mm. similarly, Iron Ore less than 5 mm size are classified as Iron Ore fines. Hence there is no difference between Iron Ore, Iron Ore lump and Iron Ore fines, as would be evident from Serial No. 23 of Second Schedule to the MMDR Act. Accordingly it is pleaded that no separate licence was required for storage of iron Ore lumps and therefore the seizure of 30 tonnes of Iron Ore lumps by the opposite party no.2 on the allegation that the licence issued for storage of minerals does not cover Iron Ore lumps and the subsequent filing of written report is erroneous and misconceived.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to Section 21 (4A) of the MMDR Act read with Rule 12 (2) of the Orissa Minerals (Prevention of Theft, smuggling and illegal Mining and Regulation of Possession, Storage and Transportation) Rules 2007 (for short ‘2007 Rules’), which provides for confiscation of the seized property only by an order of the Court competent to take cogni¬zance of such offence. In this regard, it is submitted that as Section 22 of the MMDR Act read with Section 15 of the 2007 Rules specifically provides that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under the MMDR Act except upon a complaint in writing made by the competent authority or person authorised in that behalf by the State Government, the initiation of the crimi¬nal proceeding under the impugne