K. Subramani and 3 others vs State by Inspector of Police, Nallore Police Station, Salem District

R. Regupathi, J.—The petitioners are accused for offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 466, 468 and 471 IPC and under Sections

4(1 ) r/w 21(1) of Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957. The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the case and it

is pending in C.C.No.10 of 2000 for trial.

The case of the prosecution is that on 27.05.1996 at about 12.30 a.m the accused were found transporting granite stone to Tuticorin Harbour

by using forged documents. On the strength of the comolaint given by the Assistant Director of Mines, the case has been taken on file.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relied on Section 22 of Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, which says as

follows:

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.

The learned counsel placed reliance on the Notification III issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.167, Industries (MMC-I), dated 16th June

1994, which is as follows:

Under Section 22 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act 1957 (Central Act LXVII of 1957), the Governor of Tamil Nadu

hereby authorises the District Forest Officers concerned to make complaint under the said Section in respect of cases falling within their

jurisdiction.

Therefore, it is contended that as per the special enactment, the person authorized to make the complaint is the District Forest Officer and in the

instant case, the respondent police registered the case against the petitioners on the strength of the complaint given by the Assistant Director of

Mines. It is further contended that the main offence is under the special provisions of Mines and Minerals Act. The other IPC offences are included

in the case only for the purpose of substantiating the main offence and to include the accused in the case. In such circumstances, especially when

there is a specific provision in the Mines and Minerals Act that the Court can take cognizance of the offences only on the complaint made by the

authorized person, a complaint given by the other persons must not be entertained and sought to quash the proceedings.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners also relied on a judgment reported in 2006 (2) MLJ Cri. 115 D. Sudharshan Vs. State,

represented by the Inspector of Police, Rajakkamangalam Police Station, Kanyakumari District and contended that in a similarly situated case, the

proceedings were quashed.

I have heard the learned Government Advocate and perused the entire materials on record.

Admittedly, the ""District Forest Officer"" is the competent authority to lodge a complaint before the learned Magistrate. Section 22 of the Act

specifically states that the Court can take cognizance of the offence only on the complaint given by an authorised person. By way of notification,

the authorized person has been named as ""District Forest Officer"". The present complaint admittedly was not filed by the ""District Forest Officer"",

but by the Assistant Director of Mines. Though IPC offences are also included along with the penal provisions of Mines and Minerals Act, I find

that the provisions of IPC are added in the case only for the purpose of substantiating the offence under the Mines and Minerals Act. When a

special enactment specifically confers power on a particular officer, it has to be done only by that authorised officer. The decision cited by the

learned counsel for the petitioners is directly applicable to the case on hand.

In such circumstances, I find that this is a fit case to quash the proceedings. Accordingly, the proceedings initiated against the petitioners in

C.C.No.10 of 2000 on the file of the District Munisf cum Judicial Magistrate, Paramathi is quashed. However, the authorized person is at liberty to

lodge a fresh complaint in this regard. This petition is disposed of with the above observation. Consequently, connected MP is closed.