IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

RESERVED ON

: 21.12.2020

PRONOUNCED ON : 31.12.2020

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

Crl.R.C.No.855 of 2020

Elamvaluthi

... Petitioner/Accused

Vs.

State, Represented by,

Inspector of Police,

Aanaikaranchathiram Police Station,

Nagapattinam District.

(Crime No.190 of 2020)

... Respondent/Complainant

PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401

of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in

Crl.M.P.No.2338 of 2020 on the file of the District and Sessions

Judge, Nagapattinam dated on 07.09.2020 and set aside the same

subsequently grant interim custody of vehicle Mahindra 475 DI

Tractor and vehicle bearing registration No. TN 68 C 0703.

For Petitioner :

M/s.N.Chinnaraj

For Respondent :

Mr.C.Iyyappa Raj

Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

In continuation and conjunction to the order passed by this

Court dated 18.11.2020, 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 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

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

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