AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.N. Keshavanarayana, J.—Though the matter is listed today for admission, by consent of counsel appearing on both the sides, the matter is heard for final disposal, in the light of the short point involved in the case. Respondent No. 1-Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Chitradurga lodged a report before the Station House Officer, Chikkajajur Police Station on 9.7.2007 alleging the offence punishable u/s 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (for short ''the Act'') r/w Section 379 of Indian Penal Code.
On the basis of the said report, respondent No. 2-police, registered the case in Crime No. 108/2007 and took up investigation. After completing the investigation, charge sheet came to be filed for the aforesaid offences on 23.10.07.
The learned Magistrate on perusal of the materials produced along with the charge sheet, by order dated 26.02.08, took cognizance of the offences and directed issue of summons to the petitioners who had been arrayed as accused in the charge sheet.
On coming to know of the same, petitioners have presented this petition seeking to quash the prosecution launched against; them for the aforesaid offences in C.C. No. 84/08 on the file of Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC, Holalkere.
The principal ground, on which the quashing is sought is that in view of the bar created u/s 22 of the Act, the learned Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the offences alleged under the Act on a police report since according to Section 22 of the Act, cognizance of any offence punishable under the Act or any rules made thereunder can be taken only on a complaint in writing made by a person authorized in this behalf by the Central Government or the State Government.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Government Pleader.
Section 22 of the Act reads as under:
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 authorized in this behalf by the Central Government or State Government.
The complaint referred to in the said Section is the one as defined u/s 2(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Reading of Section 22 of the Act and Section 2(d) of Code of Criminal Procedure makes it clear that the cognizance of any offence punishable u/s 21 of the Act on a police report is without jurisdiction, as such, the said order cannot be sustained. The offence alleged u/s 379 of IPC in the charge sheet is an incidental offence for the main offence said to have been committed u/s 21 of the Act. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the entire prosecution launched against the petitioners on the basis of police report is without jurisdiction, as such, is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The prosecution launched against the petitioners in C.C. No. 84/2008 on the file of Civil Judge (Jr. Dvn.) and JMFC, Holalkere, is hereby quashed.