COMMON ORDER

These criminal original petitions have been filed challenging the docket order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Thirupathur, refusing to entertain the application filed by the petitioners seeking for the release of vehicle on the ground that such an application can be filed only before the Special Court as per the judgment of this Court in W.P(MD)No.14341 of 2022, dated 13.06.2023.

2.When two of the petitions came up for hearing on 18.01.2024, this Court passed the following order:

These petitions have been filed challenging the docket order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate II, Thirupathur, refusing to entertain the application filed for release of vehicles which were involved in offence u/s.21(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957, on the ground that such an application is not maintainable as per the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD) No.14341 of 2022, dated 13.06.2023.

2. Apart from these cases, there seems to be some confusion with respect to the following two issues:

(a)Whether the Special Court has the original jurisdiction to take cognizance of the final report or the procedure u/s.193 Cr.P.C. must be followed by committing the case from the Court of the learned Magistrate to the Special Court; and (b)Insofar as filing an application for return of vehicle is concerned, whether such an application has to be filed before the Magistrate Court or before the Special Court.

3. The judgment of the Full Bench in W.P.(MD) No.14341 of

2022, dated 13.06.2023 and the judgment of Hon'ble Mr.Justice K.K.Ramakrishnan made in Crl.RC (MD) No.470 of 2023 etc. batch, dated 11.10.2023, requires reconsideration in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Pradeep S. Wodeyar vs. The State of Karnataka in Crl.A.No.1288 of 2021 etc., dated 29.11.2021. The Apex Court, in no uncertain terms, has held that the Special Court does not have the power to take cognizance of an offence under the MMDR Act without the case being committed to it by the Magistrate u/s.209 Cr.P.C. In the light of this judgment, the application for release of vehicle will lie only before the Magistrate Court, as is done in all the other criminal cases.

Likewise, the final report will only lie before the Magistrate and thereafter, it has to be committed to the Sessions Court/Special Court since there is no provision under the MMDR Act which confers the Sessions Court/Special Court the power to directly take cognizance of the offence under the MMDR Act.

4. The law on this issue has to be clarified at the earliest in order to avoid any further confusion in these cases.

5. Post these cases under the caption 'for orders' on

24.01.2024 at 02.15 p.m.

Apart from learned counsel for petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the Bar is also requested to assist this Court to clarify this position.

3.Pursuant to the above order, the matter was posted for hearing today and this Court heard Mr.E.Kannadasan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Mr.A.Damodaran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents and Mr.S.Thiruvengadam, Secretary, Madras Bar Association, who assisted the Court.

4.In the course of the past few weeks, this Court has noticed the large-

scale confusion prevailing in the Stateover the issue as to whether the Special Court under the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as “the MMDR, 1957”) could directly take cognizance of offences under the Act and secondly, whether the Special Court under the MMDR Act, 1957 was the competent court do deal with confiscation and release of vehicles etc under Section 21 of the Act.

5.When the matter came up on 18.01.2024, this Court expressed a prima facie view that certain observations in the decision of the Full Bench in S. Kumar v District Collector (2023) 3 MLJ (Cri) 536 appeared to run counter to at least three decisions of the Supreme Court, warranting a closer re-look at the law