CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2016) 01 KL CK 0108

Bharathidas, Aged 24 Years S/o Mosis, R/o 3/37, Attaran Nagara Therivu Parithiyoor P.O., Thiruvathoor, Tamilnadu and Others vs State of Kerala rep by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam, Rep By Sub Inspector of Police, Piravom

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 27 January 2016 · Citation: (2016) 2 KerLJ 519 : (2016) 2 KHC 653 : (2016) 2 KLT 440

HON’BLE JUDGES
Babu Mathew P. Joseph, J.
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal MC. No. 286 of 2016.

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 378 words

Babu Mathew P. Joseph, J. - This Crl. M.C. is filed for quashing Annexure-2. Final Report filed by the second respondent Sub Inspector of Police, Piravom Police Station, before the Judicial First Class Magistrate''s Court, Piravom, against the petitioners alleging the offence under Section 21 read with Section 4(1A) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.

2.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the second respondent is incompetent to file a Final Report like Annexure-2 alleging the offence under Section 21 read with Section 4(1A) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 as it is hit by Section 22 of the said Act. Therefore, as specified under Section 22 of the said Act, based on Annexure-2 Final Report, a court cannot take cognizance of the offence alleged therein. The submissions so made by the learned counsel for the petitioners are not disputed by the learned Public Prosecutor.

4.

Section 22 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 reads as follows:

"22. Cognizance of offences.- No court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act or any rules made thereunder except upon complaint in writing made by a person authorised in this behalf by the Central Government or the State Government."

Therefore, for a court to take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act or any Rules made thereunder, a complaint in writing made by a person authorised in that behalf by the Central Government or the State Government is a prerequisite. Here, admittedly, no such complaint by a person authorised has been filed against the petitioners alleging an offence under the Act enabling the court to take cognizance of such offence. Annexure-2 Final Report filed by the second respondent cannot be accepted to be a complaint made by a person authorised as contemplated under Section 22 of the Act. In that view of the matter, Annexure-2 Final Report filed by the second respondent is liable to be quashed.

5.

In the result, Annexure-2 Final Report filed by the second respondent before the Judicial First Class Magistrate''s Court, Piravom, is quashed.

6.

This Crl.M.C. is allowed as above.