Judgment : R. Regupathi, J. This petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceeding in Cr. No. 590 of 2005 pending on the file of the respondent-police. The said case has been registered against the petitioner for offences punishable under Section 4 (1-A) r/w 21 of Mines and Mineral Act, 1957 and under Section 379 IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 8.12.2005, the petitioner alleged to have committed theft of sand and on the strength of the complaint given by the Village Administrative Officer, the present case has been registered. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Mines and Minerals Act is a special enactment. The Village Administrative Officer is not an authorised person as per the Act. Section 22 of the Act, reads as follows: “22.No Court shall take cognisance 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.” In the instant case, the Village Administrative Officer is the defacto-complainant and he is not an authorised officer. It is again contended that Section 379 IPC also has been invoked in this case. When Special enactment has been invoked to deal with such offence, invoking the general provisions of the Indian Penal Code will be meaningless. Under such circumstances, it has been contended that the respondent-police do not have any jurisdiction to register the case and investigate the matter. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a case reported in ( State of Karnataka v. Nagesh 1995 Crl. L.J. 3816), wherein it has been held as follows: “39.A close and careful reading of Section 22 extracted hereinabove, would show that there is a blanket prohibition on the Court from taking cognisance of any offence punishable under the provisions of the Act of 1957 or the rules made thereunder except upon a complaint in writing made by a person authorised in that behalf by the Central Government or the State Government. If the investigation undertaken by the Jalahalli Police Station on the strength of the information lodged by the Assistant Superintendent of Police not competent to exercise the powers, which formed the basis for his information, were to culminate in the formation of opinion by the Sub-Inspector of Police that petitioners 1 to 3 would be required to be forwarded for inquiry and trial for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Act of 1957 and Sections 447 and 379 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code, in so far as the quarrying operations in the land bearing Survey No. 11 and if the final report is to be submitted in accordance with the opinion, it is evident from Section 22 that the learned Magistrate cannot take cognisance. The charge-sheet would be merely a scrap of paper. If the learned Magistrate could not take the cognisance of the offences, he cannot try the offence in accordance with law. In that view of the matter also, the registration of the case on the basis of the information furnished by the Assistant Superintendent of Police and the investigation taken up on the basis of the registration of the case and issuance of FIR would be a futile and fruitless exercise.” 4. The learned Government Advocate submits that the defacto-complainant may not be an authorised person. But in view of the presence of Section 379 IPC, the respondent-police can investigate the case. 5. I have perused the materials available on record and heard the submissions made by both sides. Admittedly, the Village Administrative Officer is not an authorised person by the State Government to proceed against the accused for the offence alleged in the FIR. Under such circumstance, the decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is squarely applicable to the present case. Merely because, the general provisions of Indian Penal Code is included, it cannot be contended that the respondent-police has got the jurisdiction to investigate the offence. It has been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court that special enactment will over-ride the general provisions of law and specific provisions will over-ride the other provisions. Under such circumstance, I find that this is a fit case to quash the proceedings. Accordingly, the proceedings in Cr. No. 590/2005 pending on the respondent-police is quashed and this petition is ordered. Consequently, connected Crl. M.P. is closed.