Cognizance of offences under the MMDR Act requires a complaint from an authorized officer, not a police report, establishing the jurisdictional limits of Special Courts.

The petitioner calls in question the proceedings in C.C.No.1208/2011 registered for offences punishable under Rules 3(1), 42, 43, 44(1) & (2) of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 and Sections 4(1), 4(1A), 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short 8the Act9).

2. Heard Sri H.L.Jayaramu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. K.P.Yashodha, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the issue stands covered by the judgment rendered 3 by a Co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case of SRI VIVEK AND ANOTHER VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER reported in ILR 2018 KAR 1497.

4. The learned High Court Government Pleader would not dispute the position of law.

5. Though the charge sheet is of the year 2011, since the very order taking of cognizance being contrary to the statute and it cutting to the root of the matter, I deem it appropriate to entertain the petition and follow the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench and grant the relief that the Co-ordinate Bench has granted in the afore-quoted judgment.

6. This Court in VIVEK (supra) has held as follows:16 and 17, 36:

16. It is also worth to mention here a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in between STATE OF NCT OF DELHI Vs. SANJAY (AIR 2015 SC 75), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has elaborately discussed with regard to the jurisdiction of a Special Court, and under what circumstances, the Special 4 Court can take cognizance of the offence under the MMDR Act and under what circumstances, the Jurisdictional Magistrate can take cognizance of the offence under Section 379 of IPC with reference to the land mafia and transporting of the sand stealthily by some people. It is worth mentioning here the guidelines issued at para Nos.68 to 72, which has in detail, dealt with these aspects and the same are extracted hereunder:

68. There cannot be any dispute with regard to restrictions imposed under the MMDR Act and remedy provided therein. In any case, where there is a mining activity by any person in contravention of the provisions of Section 4 and other sections of the Act, the officer empowered and authorized under the Act shall exercise all the powers including making a complaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate. It is also not in dispute that the Magistrate shall in such cases take cognizance on the basis of the complaint filed before it by a duly authorized officer. In case of breach and violation of Section 4 and other provisions of the Act, the police officer cannot insist Magistrate for taking cognizance under the Act on the basis of the record submitted by the police alleging contravention of the said Act. In other words, the prohibition contained in Section 22 of the Act against prosecution of a person except on a complaint made by the officer is attracted only when such person sought to be prosecuted for contravention of 5 Section 4 of the Act and not for any act or omission which constitute an offence under Indian Penal Code.

69. However, there may be situation where a person without any lease or licence or any authority enters into river and extracts sands, gravels and other minerals and remove or transport those minerals in a clandestine manner with an intent to remove dishonestly those minerals from the possession of the State, is liable to be punished for committing such offence under Sections 378 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code.

70. From a close reading of the provisions of MMDR Act and the offence defined under Section 378 of IPC, it is manifest that the ingredients constituting the offence are different. The contravention of terms and conditions of mining lease or doing mining activity in violation of Section 4 of the Act is an offence punishable under Section 21 of the MMDR Act, whereas dishonestly removing sand, gravels and other minerals from the river, which is the property of the State, out of State9s possession w