2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 79622

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J
Sharif Ali – Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab – Respondent
CRA-S-1421-2026

A court is prohibited from taking cognizance of offences under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, based solely on a police report; such cognizance requires a mandatory complaint by an authorized officer, failing which the proceedings are void for lack of jurisdiction.

Headnote:(A) Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 - Section 21(1) and Section 22 - Illegal mining - Cognizance - The bar under Section 22 against taking cognizance of an offence except upon a complaint by an authorized person is mandatory and prohibits the Court from taking cognizance on the basis of a police final report - The legislative intent is to require domain-specific scrutiny by authorized officials before prosecution begins. (Paras 21, 22, 58, 61)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 465 - Irregularity in procedure - The defect resulting from the Court taking cognizance in violation of an express statutory bar under a special enactment is not a mere procedural irregularity curable under Section 465, but a fundamental jurisdictional error that renders proceedings void ab initio. (Paras 61, 62, 70, 72)

(C) Jurisdiction - Jurisdiction to try an offence and jurisdiction to take cognizance are distinct - Notification as a Special Court does not authorize a Court to bypass the mandatory precondition for cognizance prescribed by the governing statute for the specific offence. (Paras 66, 68)

Facts of the case:
An individual was charged with and convicted of illegal transportation of sand. The prosecution was initiated following a police investigation and a final report, rather than a formal complaint filed by an authorized officer as required by statute. The appellant challenged the conviction, arguing that the Court lacked the jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence under the special enactment due to the absence of a mandatory statutory complaint.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that while police have the power to investigate and file reports for cognizable offences, the special statute expressly bars the Court from taking cognizance of such offences except upon a complaint filed by an authorized officer. This statutory requirement is not a mere procedural rule but a condition precedent for jurisdiction.

Issues: Whether the trial Court's act of taking cognizance of an offence under the special statute based on a police report without a formal complaint by an authorized officer is legally sustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 22 of the special statute creates an absolute prohibition on the Court's power to take cognizance unless a complaint is filed by an authorized individual. This is a foundational jurisdictional requirement. Consequently, failure to adhere to this mandate constitutes a fundamental illegality that is not curable under general procedural laws, and the prosecution must be instituted strictly in the manner prescribed by the special enactment. Result : Appeal allowed; conviction set aside.