ABDUL NAZEER, J. ( 1 ) IN this case, the petitioners have sought for quashing of the order passed by the 1 st respondent in No. I. N. D. CR 162/2006 - 07 dated 9 - 2 - 2007 (Annexure - F) whereby the 1st respondent has imposed a line of Rs. 25,000/ - each against the petitioners on the ground that petitioners were transporting iron ore illegally in their lorries bearing registration No. KA - 25/8399 and KA - 22/5786. ( 2 ) THE petitioners contend that they are the owners of the lorries in question and that the lorries were employed for transportation of iron of M/s. Sesa Goa Limited Company from Megalahalli, chitradurga Taluk to Bellikere port at Karwar Taluk. The case of the petitioners is that they are the holders of the valid permits issued by respondents 3 and 4 for transporation of Iron Ore. Petitioners have produced copy of the permits at Annexures - A, B, C and D respectively. It is contended that the M/s. Sesa Goa Limited Company is the permit holder to transport the Iron Ore from Megalahalli to Bellikere Port. The permits were granted to the petitioner on 3 - 2 - 2007 at 4. 40 p. m. and 4. 44 p. m. respectively for a period of 30 hours from the date and time at which they were issued. According to the petitioners permits expire on 4 - 2 - 2007 at 10. 40 p. m. and 10. 44 p. m. respectively. The petitioners further contend that on 3 - 2 - 2007 after loading the Iron ore at Megalahalli, the lorries departed at 4. 40 p. m. On the way the 1 st petitioner's was lorry stoped near Malappana Hatti due to some mechanical problem. The 2nd petitioner's lorry which was following the 1st petitioner's lorry was stopped to help the driver of the 1st petitioner's vehicle. At that time, the 2nd respondent came to the spot and without verifying the permits, seized the vehicles and submitted a report to the 1st respondent. The 1st respondents has passed the impugned order imposing a fine of Rs. 25,000/ - each against the petitioners. ( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners contends that the action of the 2nd respondent in seizing the vehicle is contrary to law. The 1st respondents has passed the impugned order imposing a fine of Rs. 25,000/ - each against the petitioners. ( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners contends that the action of the 2nd respondent in seizing the vehicle is contrary to law. It is contended that the 2nd respondent has no jurisdiction to seize the vehicles. It is further contended that the petitioners could not remove the vehicle within 30 hours because of the reasons beyond their control. The 2nd respondent without verifying the documents and without assigning any reasons, has seized the vehicles and the 1 st respondent has levied penalty of Rs. 25,000/ - each without the authority of law. ( 4 ) LEARNED Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the respondents has justified the impugned order of the respondent No. 1. He submits that in exercise of the power conferred under sub - section (3) and (4) of Section 21 and 22 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short 'act') a notification has been issued by the State Government on 4 - 2 - 1993 in CII - 186/ 96/19839 specially empowering certain officers to seize the vehicles contravening the provisions of the Act. It is further contended that the revenue Inspector is a competent authority in respect of a hobli under his jurisdiction. In the present case, the revenue inspector of the concerned hobli has seized the vehicles in question for illegally transporting iron ore in the sa,id vehicles. A mahazar was drawn evidencing seizure of the vehicles. Thereafter, the custody of the vehicles was given to the jurisdictional police. The Deputy commissioner of the Chitradurga District has passed the impugned order in terms of sub - section (1) of Section 21 and Section 23 A of the Act. ( 5 ) I have carefully examined the arguments of the Learned counsel made at the bar and perused the materials placed on record. ( 6 ) SUB - Section (1a) of Section 4 of the Act states that no person shall transport or store or cause to be transported or stored any mineral otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder. Section21 of the Act provides for imposition of penalties for contravention of the provisions of the Act. Section21 of the Act provides for imposition of penalties for contravention of the provisions of the Act. Sub - Section (1) of Section 24 of the Act states that whoever contravenes the provisions of Sub - Section (I) or Sub - Sec. (1a) of Section 4 shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine of Rs. 25,000/ - or with both. Sub - Section (4) of Section 21 is relevant for the purpose of this case. It is as under: " (4) Whenever any person raises, transports or causes to be raised or transported, without any lawful authority, any mineral from any land, and for that purpose, uses any tool, equipment, vehicle or any other thing, such mineral tool, equipment, vehicle or any other thing shall be liable to be seized by an officer or authority specially empowered in this behalf. Sub - Section (4a) of Section 21 of the Act provides for the confiscation of any mineral, tool, etc. , seized under Sub - Section (4) of Section 21 of the Act. It is as under:" " (4a) Any mineral, tool, equipment, vehicle or any other thing seized under sub - section (4), shall be liable to be confiscated by an order of the court competent to take congnizance of the offence under sub - section (1) and shall be disposed of in accordance with the directions of such Court". Section 22 of the Act provides for taking cognizance of offences by the Court. It is as under: "22. Cognisance 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". Section 23a of the Act provides for compounding of offences. It is as under - "23a. Cognisance 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". Section 23a of the Act provides for compounding of offences. It is as under - "23a. Compounding of offences.- (1) Any offence punishable under this Act or any rule made thereunder may, either before or after the institution of the prosecution, be compounded by the person authorised under Section 22 to make a complaint to the Court with respect to that offence, on payment to that person, for credit to the government, of such sut as that person may specify: provided that in the case of an offence punishable with fine only, no such sum shall exceed the maximum amount of fine which may be imposed for that offence. (2) Where an offences is compounded under sub - section (1), no proceeding or further proceeding, as the case may be, shall be taken against the offender in respect of the offence so compounded, and the offender, if in custody, shall be released forthwith ". ( 7 ) SECTION 26 deals with delegation of powers. It states that the central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, direct that any power exercisable by it under this Act may, in relation to such matters and subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in the notification be exercisable also by State Government or such officer or authority subordinate to the Central Government; or such state Government or such officer or authority subordinate to a State government as may be specified in the notification. Sub - Section (2)of Section 26 states that the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, direct that any power exercisable by it under this act may, in relation to such matters and subject to such conditions, if any as may be specified in the Notification, be exercisable also by such Officer or authority subordinate to the State Government as may be specified in the Notification. It is not the case of the petitioners that the Central Government has not delegated its power under the Act exercisable by it under the Act to the State Government. It is not the case of the petitioners that the Central Government has not delegated its power under the Act exercisable by it under the Act to the State Government. ( 8 ) GOVERNMENT of Karnataka has delegated the power exercisable by it to its Officers under Sub - Section (3) and (4) of Section 21 and Section 22 of the Act as per the Notification No. CII - 186/96/ 19839 dated 4 - 2 - 1993. The notification is as under: GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA No. CII-186/96/19839 Karnataka Government Secretariat Sachivalaya -II, M. S. Building, Bangalore, Dated: 4-2-1993 NOTIFICATION In exercise of powers of powers conferred by sub-Section (3) and (4) of Section 21 and Section 22 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and development) Act, 1957 (Central Act 67 and 1950) and in partial modification of notification No. CI93 MGS 90 dated 20th July 1990, the Government of Karnataka hereby authorizes the officers/ authorities specified in Col. No. 2 of the table below in respect of the areas specified in the corresponding in Col. (3)thereof for the purposes of the said sub-section (3) and (4) of Section 21 and Section 22 of the said Act. TABLE SI. No. Designation of the Officers/ authorities Areas Department 1. The Additional Director Mines & (Mineral Administration) 2. The Joint Director, South/ North zones Within their Dept. of Mines & Geology Whole of the State Dept. of Geology. jurisdiction 3. The Deputy Director Mines & (Mines) Whole of the State Dept. of Geology. 4. The Senior Geologist Within their jurisdiction 5. The Geologists -do- Dept. of Mines & Geology. 6. The Asst. Geologists -do- Dept. of Mines & Geology. 7. The Asst. Commissioners Respective Sub division 8. The Tahsildar Respective Tq. Revenue Department 9. The Revenue Inspectors Respective Hoblies Revenue Department 10. The Range Forest Officers Respective Range Forest Department. By Order and in the Name of the Government of Karnataka M. KANTHARAJ Dept. of Mines & Geology. Revenue Department Under Secretary to Government, Commerce & Industries Department (Mines) ( 9 ) LEARNED Addl. Government Advocate has produced the original file relating to seizure of the above vehicles. It is clear from the seizure order dated 3 - 2 - 2007 that the vehicles were seized by the revenue Inspector, Kasaba Hobli, Chitradurga District which is within the jurisdiction of the concerned Revenue Inspector. Government Advocate has produced the original file relating to seizure of the above vehicles. It is clear from the seizure order dated 3 - 2 - 2007 that the vehicles were seized by the revenue Inspector, Kasaba Hobli, Chitradurga District which is within the jurisdiction of the concerned Revenue Inspector. On 5 - 2 - 2007, the Tahasildar, Chitradurga Taluk, the 2nd respondent herein has submitted a report to the 1 st respondent intimating him the seizure of the said vehicles and to take suitable action in the matter. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner has passed the order at Annexure - F. As per the aforesaid notification the Revenue Inspector is competent authority to seize the vehicles in question. The seizure made by the revenue Inspector in exercise of the power under Sub - Section (4) of section 21 of the Act is in order. Now, the question is whether the deputy Commissioner was competent to pass the impugned order imposing a fine of Rs. 25,000/ - on each of the petitioners. The impugned order shows that fine has been imposed against petitioners for transporting iron ore illegally. The concerned Tahsildar was directed to collect the aforesaid penalty. ( 10 ) SUB - Section (1) of Section 21 of the Act speaks of punishment of imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or levy of fine which may extend to twenty five thousand rupees for contravention of provisions of Sub - Section (1) or Sub - Section (1 A) of Section 4 of the Act. thus, Sub - Section (1) and (1a) of Section 4 of the Act create the offences, the punishment for which is provided in Sub -Section (1) of Section 21 of the Act. Apunishment is the penalty for transgression of law. A penalty is punishment inflicted by a law for its violation. The offence alleged against the petitioners is transportation of iron ore contrary to Sub - Section (1 A) of Section 4 of the Act. If any person has committed any offence under the Act, a person authorised has to file a complaint in writing to a Court having jurisdiction as provided under Section 22 of the Act. On such complaint being made, the Court will take cognizance of an offence punishable under the Act or the rules made thereunder. If any person has committed any offence under the Act, a person authorised has to file a complaint in writing to a Court having jurisdiction as provided under Section 22 of the Act. On such complaint being made, the Court will take cognizance of an offence punishable under the Act or the rules made thereunder. As the Act creates the offence and provides the penalty, such offence has to be dealt with, tried and concluded in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal procedure which is clear from Sab - Section (2) of Section 4 of the cr. P. C. It is settled that all offences under any special statute unless otherwise expressly provided are required to be investigated, inquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with according to the procedure prescribed under the Cr. P. C. See PERMIT SINGH vs URDONOF india AND OTHERS, 1999 (2) Kar. L. J. 54. The Court will impose punishment as provided under Sub - Section (1) of Section 21 of the Act. At any rate, the Deputy Commissioner has no authority to impose punishment under Sub - Section (1) of Section 21 of the Act. ( 11 ) THE other provision pressed into service by the Learned Addl. Government Advocate to justify the impugned order is Section 32a of the Act which provides for compounding of offences. The concept of compounding envisages a bilateral agreement. The word 'compound' has different meanings. In the present context, the meaning that can be attributed to it is to agree for consideration not to prosecute an offence, The composition of offence does not mean the offence has not been committed. It only means the State agrees not to prosecute the offence already committed on payment of compensation. In the process of compounding there is no coercion. On the contrary, an offer should proceed from the alleged offender and if the prescribed authority accepts it, there will be bilateral act by which the offence would get compounded. Once the offer is made it is for the prescribed authority to determine whether the offence should be compounded and, if so, whether it should be compounded for the amount affered. A Full Bench of our High Court in M/s S. V. BAGI vs STATE OF karnataka, ILR 1 992 Kar 123 was considering a similar provision in the Karnataka sales Tax Act, 1957. A Full Bench of our High Court in M/s S. V. BAGI vs STATE OF karnataka, ILR 1 992 Kar 123 was considering a similar provision in the Karnataka sales Tax Act, 1957. The Court has held that it would be open to the prescribed Authority to suggest such other sum as in its view would be appropriate, in which case it would be for such person to agree to pay such other sum or not. The process of compounding is completed only when the money that is agreed upon actually changes hands. . . . there can never be a situation where the person who has committed or reasonably suspected of having committed an offence under the act can be aggrieved. The fact that he has made the payment would indicate beyond any doubt that he was a willing party to the compounding and he cannot object thereto. . . . Until the process of compounding is completed by payment of the agreed compounding fee, the Sales Tax Authorities would be entitled to lodge a prosecution, bul not to recover the composition fee by coercive process. In STATE of KARNATAKA vs MOHAMMED ILLYAS, 1994 (3) Kar. L. J. 628 a Division Bench has followed the decision in S. V. Bagi's case (Supra) ( 12 ) THUS, the impugned order cannot be even referable to Section 23aof the Act. The Deputy Commissioner has unilaterally imposed the fine holding that petitioners have violated the provisions of the Act. The petitioners have not offered to compound offence. The parties have not entered into any agreement to compound the offence. The order impugned cannot be treated as an order under Section 23 A of the Act. ( 13 ) NOW, the question is what should happen to the lorries in the custody of the authorities. Though, the lorries were seized as early as on 3 - 2 - 2007, the competent authority has not lodged any complaint before the competent Court under Section 22 of the Act so far. As noticed above, the order of the Deputy Commissioner levying penalty of Rs. 25,000/ - each is totally without jurisdiction. If the authorities had lodged a complaint before the competent Court, the petitioners had an opportunity to get the lorries released. Petitioners cannot be made to wait any longer for release of their lorries. As noticed above, the order of the Deputy Commissioner levying penalty of Rs. 25,000/ - each is totally without jurisdiction. If the authorities had lodged a complaint before the competent Court, the petitioners had an opportunity to get the lorries released. Petitioners cannot be made to wait any longer for release of their lorries. Article 226 of the constitution grants extra - ordinary remedy which is essentially discretionary. The powers conferred on the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is to advance justice and not to thwart it. No man should be subjected to injustice by violating the law. I am of the view that the authorities in custody of the lorries should be directed to release them forthwith. Release of the lorries will not preclude the official respondents from taking action against the petitioners as per Section 22 of the Act or to compound the offence under Section 23 A of the Act. ( 14 ) IN the result, I pass the following order: (i) The order at Annexure 'f' dated 9 - 2 - 2007 passed by the first respondent is hereby quashed. (ii) I direct the jurisdictional Police/ respondents to release the lorries in question in favour of the petitioners forthwith. (iii) Liberty is reserved to the competent authorities to take action against the petitioners for the alleged violation of the provisions of the Act under Section 22 of the Act or compound the offecne under Section 23a of the Act. Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.