IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

RESERVED ON : 21.12.2020

PRONOUNCED ON:

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

Crl.R.C.No.779 of 2020

Saravanan

...Petitioner/Accused

.Vs.

The State, Represented by,

The Inspector of Police,

Pudhupattinam Police Station,

Nagapattinam District.

Crime No.297 of 2020.

...Respondent/Complainant

PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Sections 397 and

401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the order

passed in Crl.M.P.No. 1925 of 2020 dated 23.07.2020 on the file

of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam and

subsequently, grant interim custody of vehicle Tractor with

Tipper bearing registration No.TN-82-V-2110.

For Petitioner :

Mr. P.N. Chinnaraj

For Respondent :

Mr.C.Iyyappa Raj

Additional Public Prosecutor

******

O R D E R

In continuation and conjunction to the order passed by this

Court dated 11.12.2020, this Court is inclined to pass the

following order.

2.It is seen that in majority of the cases, either the case

has been registered by the respondent Police based on the

complaint given by the Revenue Authorities or by the officials

of the Mines and Minerals Department, the case properties/

vehicles are taken into custody. After registration of FIR,

despite specific order of the Division Bench of the Madurai

Bench of Madras High Court in Review Applications (MD) Nos.80 to

82 of 2019 in W.P(MD).No.19936 of 2017, 7595 and 21485 of 2018

that the Police as well the authorized officers are directed to

inform the registration of the case to each other within a week,

the same is followed in breach. Due to which, there have been no

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

complaint filed as per Section 22 of the Mines and Minerals

(Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. The prosecution under

the Indian Penal Code and the Mines and Minerals (Development

and Regulation) Act, 1957 are distinct as held by the Hon'ble

Apex Court in the case of “State (NCT of Delhi) Versus Sanjay

reported in (2014) 9 Supreme Court Cases 772”, which has been

reiterated by the Division Bench of this Court and gave various

guidelines that the complaint by the authorized person to be

made immediately not later than one week from the date of

seizure. Both the complaint registered by the Police and the

complaint of the authorized person to be tried by the same

Court. As per Section 30 (B), the Special Courts have come in

place.

3.In most of the cases, FIR's are filed before the

Magistrate Court in which charge sheet are yet to be filed and

committed to the Special Court. The authorized person have not

initiated any complaint. It is seen that the authorized

persons, who lodged complaint to the jurisdictional Police have

not filed any complaint under Mines and Minerals Act. This is

in clear violation of the directions of this Court.

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor produced G.O.

(Ms).No.170 (Industries (MMC.2) Department), dated 05.08.2020

and submitted that the guidelines have been issued to all the

officers concerned, including the authorized officer to follow

the directions of the Division Bench of the Madurai Bench of

Madras High court. Despite the same, the anomaly still exists.

He further submitted that in the Government Order, in addition

to the authorised authorities, jurisdictional Inspector of

Police are also authorised to make a complaint in writing by way

of affidavit under Section 22 of the Mines and Minerals

(Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. As per Section 2(d) of

Cr.P.C., the complaint does not include the police report. No

doubt the cases under the Mines and Minerals (Development and

Regulation) Act, 1957 are cognizable offence. The inclusion of

Police personnels viz., the Inspector of Police as authorized,

had created a grey area. The Division Bench of the Madurai

B