The second respondent filed a private complaint

under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

alleging that he received a credible information that the

petitioner and other accused had accumulated illegally

mined sand, and based on the said information, after

informing the higher authorities, raided the spot where the

illegally mined sand was stacked. It is alleged that the

petitioner had stacked 19.6 cu.mtr. of illegally mined sand

worth Rs.32,732/-. It is further alleged that the petitioner,

without a valid licence, had stacked the same with an

intention to sell the same. The FIR came to be registered

against the petitioner and other accused for the offences

punishable under Sections 4(1), 4(1A), 21 of the Mines

- 3 -

and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for

short 8the MMDR Act9), Sections 3(1), 42(1), 43(2) of the

Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 (for

short, 8the KMMC Rules9) and Section 379 of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860. The police after investigation filed

charge sheet against the petitioner and other accused only

for the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC. The

learned Magistrate

took

cognizance

of

the offence

punishable under Section 379 of IPC against the petitioner

and other accused. Taking exception to the same, this

petition is filed.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that the learned Magistrate can take cognizance of the

offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC insofar as the

theft of sand which is notified mineral under the provisions

of the MMDR Act and the KMMC Rules only on a complaint

in writing by the Authorised Officer as specified under

Section 22 of the MMDR Act. In support of the same, he

places reliance on the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of

- 4 -

this Court in Vivek and Ors. Vs. The State of Karnataka

and Ors. reported in ILR 2018 KAR 1497.

3.

On the other hand, the learned High Court

Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State

submits that the petitioner having stocked the illegally

mined sand have committed the offence punishable under

Section 379 of IPC and as such, the learned Magistrate has

rightly taken cognizance of the aforesaid offence.

4.

I have considered the submissions made by the

learned counsel for the petitioner.

5.

The charge sheet has been filed against the

petitioner alleging that the petitioner had stacked illegally

mined sand in contravention of the provisions of the MMDR

Act and KMMC Rules thus committing the offence

punishable under Section 379 of IPC. Section 22 of the Act

specifies that the learned Magistrate can take cognizance

for contravening the provisions of the MMDR Act and the

KMMC Rules only on a complaint in writing by the

- 5 -

authorized officer. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the

case of Vivek (supra) has held that a private complaint is

only contemplated under the MMDR Act & KMMC Rules and

thus it has to be filed under Section 22 of the Act by the

competent authorized officer under the MMDR Act & KMMC

Rules; even if other offences under any other penal law,

are also included along with offences under the MMDR Act

and Rules, the jurisdictional Magistrate has to take

cognizance of the offences under the MMDR Act & KMMC

Rules only on the basis of the private complaint even

though other penal laws are also invoked by the

aurthorised officer and after compliance of relevant

provisions of Cr.P.C., the Magistrate has to commit the

entire case to the Special Court for trial. In the present

case, though the police registered the FIR against the

petitioner for the offences punishable under the provisions

of the MMDR Act and KMMC Rules and also under Section

379 of IPC, the charge sheet is filed for the offence

punishable under Section 379 of IPC by leaving out the

- 6 -

offences punishable under the provisions of the MMDR Act

and the KMMC Rules, which implies that the FIR was

registered by the police for contravening the provisions of

the MMDR Act and the KMMC Rules. Hence, the cognizance