COMMON ORDER

These Criminal Revisions are directed against the rejection orders dated 30.05.2022 and 09.06.2022 passed in the petitions filed under Section 244(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on the file of the Special District Court to deal with the cases of offences in contravention of the Provisions of the Mines and Minerals (D&R) Act, Madurai.

2. The revision petitioner in all the cases is the second accused and that the first accused is a Company and the accused 2 to 5 are shown to be the Directors of the first accused Company.

3. The District Collector, Madurai-respondent herein filed private complaints under Section 200 Cr.P.C. before the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Melur, that the same were taken cognizance in C.C.Nos. 60 of 2014, 3 of 2015, 46 of 2014, 67 of 2015 and 68 of 2015 for the offences under Sections 21(1) and 21(1-4A) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter will be referred to as MMDR Act), that after designating the Principal District Court as the Special Court for the offences under the MMDR Act, the above five cases along with other cases were transferred to the Principal District and Sessions Court, Madurai and the same were taken on file in C.C.Nos.143 of 2019, 151 of 2019, 155 of 2019, 22 of 2019 and 50 of 2019 and that after the constitution of a Special Court to deal with the cases of offences in contravention to the Provisions of the MMDR Act, at Madurai, the above cases and other cases were made over to the Special Court and the same were taken on file in Special Calendar Case Nos.123 of 2021, 179 of

2021, 128 of 2021, 80 of 2021 and 140 of 2021.

4. During the pendency of the above cases, the revision petitioner has filed petitions under Section 244(1) Cr.P.C. seeking orders directing the complainant and other witnesses mentioned in the list to be examined in the Court before framing of charges as contemplated under Section

244(1) Cr.P.C. The learned Special Judge has returned the above petitions with the following endorsement, “the punishment prescribed before the amendment vide Act 10 of 2015 had been only 2 years and hence the procedure adopted for the trial shall be the one prescribed under Chapter XX vide Section 251-259 of Cr.P.C. and further the procedure prescribed U/s.244(1) Cr.P.C. does relate to a warrant case. Whereas the procedure adopted for the case at hand is one of a summons case. Therefore, there is no question of either pre-charge evidence to be let in by the complainant as any charge. So, the procedure sought to be adopted under Section 244(1) Cr.P.C. in this summons case is unwarranted. Accordingly, the petition is returned.”

5. The revision petitioner's side has re-presented the above petitions requesting the Court to take up the petitions in the open Court so as to enable the counsels on record to submit their arguments with regard to the maintainability of the said petitions. The learned Special Judge, upon hearing the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and also the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and on perusing the records available on record, has passed the impugned orders dated 30.05.2022 and 09.06.2022 rejecting the said petitions. Aggrieved by the rejections orders, the second accused has preferred the present Criminal Revision cases.

6. The main grounds raised by the revision petitioner in the petitions filed under Section 244(1) Cr.P.C. are, 1. The learned Special Judge, who is a Sessions Judge, had taken cognizance of the above cases without any committal as envisaged under Section 209 Cr.P.C., as the above cases were transferred to the Special Court as per the circular issued by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai.

2. Since the cases are now pending before the Special Court, which is now classified as a Sessions Court, has to try the cases as warrant cases as contemplated under Chapter XIX B Cr.P.C.

7. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that Secti