Judgment : 1. Thepetitioners are accused for offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 466, 468 and 471 I.P.C. and under Sections 4(1) read with Section 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. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 27.5.1996 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 complaint given by the Assistant Director of Mines, the case has been taken on file. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relied on Section 22 of Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, which says as follows: “22. Cognizance of offences. - No Court shall take Cognisance of any offence punishable under this Act or any rules made there under expect upon complaint in writing made by a person authorised in this behalf by the Central Government or the State Government.” 4. 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 herby authorises the District Forest Officers concerned to make complaint under the said Section in respect of cases falling within their jurisdiction.” 5. Therefore, it is contended that as per the special enactment, the person authorised 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 I.P.C. 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 Mineral Act that the Court can take Cognizance of the offences only on the complaint made by the authorised person, a complaint given by the other persons must not be entertained and sought to quash the proceeding. 6. In such circumstances, especially when there is a specific provision in the Mines and Mineral Act that the Court can take Cognizance of the offences only on the complaint made by the authorised person, a complaint given by the other persons must not be entertained and sought to quash the proceeding. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners also relied on a Judgment reported in D. Sudharshan v. State, represented by the Inspector of Police, Rajakkamangalam Police Station, Kanyakumari District 2006 (2) MLJ (Crl) 155and contended that in a similarly situated case, the proceedings were quashed. 7. I have heard the learned Government Advocate and perused the entire materials on record. 8. 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 cognisance of the offence only on the complaint given by an authorised person. By way of notification, the authorised 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 I.P.C. offences are also included along with the penal provisions of Mines and Minerals Act, I find that the provisions of I.P.C. 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. 9. In such circumstances, I find that this is a fit case to quash the proceedings. Accordingly, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner in CC.No.10 of 2000 on the file of the District Munisf cum Judicial Magistrate, Paramathi is quashed. However, the authorised 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.