Key Points: - Investigation and cognizance of cognizable offences by police are generally permissible within statutory bounds; interference occurs only for bona fide, improper use of power, or violation of statutory provisions (!) (!) . - Offences under MMDR Act (Section 21 read with Section 4) are distinct from offences under IPC (Section 379/378); they are not the same offence, affecting the applicability of Section 26 of the General Clauses Act (!) (!) (!) . - Section 22 of MMDR Act requires cognizance upon a written complaint by an authorised officer; however, that barrier applies specifically to contravention of Section 4, not to theft/other offences under IPC; police may proceed with IPC offences independently if appropriate (!) (!) . - The Court upheld prosecution and cognizance under IPC and PDPA Act (Sections 3 and 4) while clarifying that cognizance under MMDR Act Section 21/4 requires authorisation; trial court to decide charges independently (!) . - The decision reiterates that decisions in prior cases cannot be blindly applied; each case depends on its factual and statutory context (!) . - The judgment emphasizes that there can be prosecution for both offences under different enactments provided they are distinct offences and properly authorized; multiplicity is governed by General Clauses Act Section 26 (!) (!) .

What is the legality of prosecuting under the Mines Regulation Act sections when there is concurrent offence under the Indian Penal Code for theft of sand?

What are the circumstances under which cognizance can be taken for offences under Section 21 read with Section 4 of the MMDR Act vs offences under IPC 379 and 378?

What is the role of Section 26 of the General Clauses Act in determining whether the same act can be prosecuted under multiple enactments?