JUDGMENT D.K. Sinha, J. 1. The instant petition under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashment of the entire criminal proceeding pending as against the Petitioner including the order impugned dated 30.08.2010 by which the cognizance of the offence was taken under Section 21 of the M.M.D.R. Act, 1957 and under Sections 467/468/471/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code against several accused persons including the Petitioner in Gua (Barajamda) P.S. Case No. 28 of 2010, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 231 of 2010. The Petitioner has been admitted to bail in B.A. No. 6079 of 2010 by this Court. 2. Initially, the F.I.R. was instituted against three named accused persons and two named suspects but the company of the Petitioner was not named even among the suspects. It was alleged that the challans earlier issued by the Mining Department for the transportation of iron ores were re-used by the accused persons and thereby committed forgery and also offence under M.M.D.R. Act. 3. With reference to item No. 4 of the written report presented by the informant Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Chaibasa before the Officer-in-Charge, Barajamda Police Station, it was alleged that 3921.010 metric tonnes of iron ores were transported by Sara International Pvt. Ltd. on 19.02.2010 through a railway racks and statements of such transportation was presented before the railway, according to which, out of the challans vide serial No. 8447101 to 8447400 total 299 challans were found to be reused for sending consignment of iron ores to Apex Export, Barajamda on 11.04.2009 and the iron ores were re-sold by Apex Export to Bhushan Power and Steel and it could not be gathered as to whether any kind of consignment was sent or booked by Sara International to any other party or not. It was further alleged that Sara International was not holding any licence for railway siding at Barajamda Station but since the iron ores were stored on the railway siding without licence, it were seized by the informant. 4. The police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against the Petitioner also, who was the employee of Apex Export, Barajamda. 5. Learned Counsel Mr. It was further alleged that Sara International was not holding any licence for railway siding at Barajamda Station but since the iron ores were stored on the railway siding without licence, it were seized by the informant. 4. The police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against the Petitioner also, who was the employee of Apex Export, Barajamda. 5. Learned Counsel Mr. Nilesh Kumar at the outset submitted that the informant Sub-Divisional Officer, Chaibasa was not a competent officer to launch prosecution by lodging an F.I.R. before the Officer-in-Charge, Barajamda Police Station under the M.M.D.R. Act. Section 22 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 speaks about the cognizance of the offence viz., 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 the State Government. Admittedly, no authority letter could be produced by the informant S.D.O. for lodging an F.I.R. and that no complaint was filed before the C.J.M. by a competent officer against the Petitioner or any of the accused of the instant case. 6. Mr. Nilesh Kumar, learned Counsel, further submitted that in the meantime a notice was sent by the District Mining Officer, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa to M/s Apex Export i.e. employer of the Petitioner calling upon to deposit a sum of Rs. 19,60,505.00/-being the value of 3921.010 Metric tonnes of iron ores transported to the Bhushan Power and Steel after receiving it from M/s Sara International Pvt. Ltd. on 19.02.2010 and thereby offence was committed under Section 21(5) of the M.M.D.R. Act, 1957. The mining authority came out with proposal for composition of the offence under Section 23A of the Act calling upon to pay compensation by evaluating the iron ores @ Rs. 500/-per metric tonnes. It was further stated and cautioned in the said letter of the District Mining Officer that failing to pay the entire compensation amount, a proceeding for confiscation would be initiated by initiation of a certificate case. Pursuant to such notice, the Petitioner being the employee of M/s Apex Export deposited a sum of Rs. 4,18,778.00/-( Four lac eighteen thousand seven hundred seventy eight only) by Demand Draft dated 04.08.2010 and lateron a sum of Rs. Pursuant to such notice, the Petitioner being the employee of M/s Apex Export deposited a sum of Rs. 4,18,778.00/-( Four lac eighteen thousand seven hundred seventy eight only) by Demand Draft dated 04.08.2010 and lateron a sum of Rs. 15,16,717.00/-(Fifteen lakh sixteen thousand seven hundred seventeen only) was deposited by another Bank Draft dated 21.10.2010, both drawn in favour of the District Mining Officer, Chaibasa which were withdrawn by the drawee and in that manner the Petitioner being the employee of M/s Apex Export, Barajamda deposited all the amount against the demand notice issued by the District Mining Officer, Chaibasa. It would be relevant to mention that since the District Mining Officer, Chaibasa was not complainant in this case and that the Petitioner had deposited the entire amount contained in the notice of demand issued by the District Mining Officer, no separate agreement with regard to the composition of the offence under Section 23A of the Act was required to be filed since the Mining Officer was not the informant (complainant) in this case. In support of the contention that the required amount were deposited through Demand Drafts in the account of the District Mining Officer, 3 xerox copy of the Demand Drafts have been annexed with the present petition (Annexure-3 and Annexure-A of the Supplementary Affidavit dated 20.01.2011). 7. This Court in Bishnu Chandra Choudhary and Anr. v. State of Jharkhand and Ors., reported in 2010(3) JCR 301 observed, the provision as contained in special legislation will certainly take precedence over the general punishment prescribed under the Penal Code and as such, provision of the Penal Code would have no application in the matter of mining of mineral, rather it would be the subject matter of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, cognizance of which can only be taken upon the complaint lodged by the person authorized in this behalf by the Central Government or the State Government which proposition of law has been laid down by this Court in a case of B. Muthuraman and Ors. v. State of Jharkhand, 2009(3) JLJR 724 . Admittedly, the prosecution has never been initiated on a complaint by a person authorized by the Central Government or the State Government. Thus, on this count also the entire proceeding including the order taking cognizance of the offence cannot be sustained under law. 8. v. State of Jharkhand, 2009(3) JLJR 724 . Admittedly, the prosecution has never been initiated on a complaint by a person authorized by the Central Government or the State Government. Thus, on this count also the entire proceeding including the order taking cognizance of the offence cannot be sustained under law. 8. With reference to paragraph No. 6 of the counter-affidavit Mr. T.N. Verma, A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State-Opposite Party submitted that the Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa constituted a Task Force to curb and check the rampant illicit mining and transportation of iron ores by use of forged documents causing heavy financial loss to the State exchequer and at the same time causing large scale destruction of forest. The District Mining Officer, West Singhbhuim, Chaibasa was one of the members of the Task Force. The members of the Task Force were directed to enquire and submit report and pursuant to that the S.D.O., Chaibasa, who was one of the members, made a preliminary enquiry and instituted a police case against many business organizations indulged in various illegal acts in transporting iron ores on the basis of forged documents and by using already used transportation challans. The cognizance was also taken under Section 467/468/471/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code apart from the cognizance of the offence under Section 21 of the M.M.D.R. Act and that Section 26 of the General Clauses Act did not put any bar of the prosecution under the Special or General Act. 9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, argument advanced on behalf of the parties, we find that Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 is self contained legislation enacted for development and regulation of Mines and Minerals under the control of union which speaks, Whoever contravenes the provisions of Sub-section(1) or Sub-section (1A) of Section 4 shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to twenty five thousand rupees, or with both. At the same time, Section 23A of the Act deals with compounding of offence which speaks, 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 authorized under Section 22 to make a complaint to the Court with respect of that offence, on payment to that person, for credit to the Government, of such sum as that 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. Section 23B(2) Where an offence 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. 10. It was specifically alleged against the Petitioner's company that it reused transportation challans which were earlier used in transporting iron ores to Bhushan Steel and Company but the Mining Department under the State Government has been adequately compensated pursuant to the demand notice issued by the District Mining Officer, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa and therefore, in view of that criminal prosecution of the Petitioner would amount to miscarriage of justice. 11. This petition is allowed and the criminal prosecution of the Petitioner in Gua (Barajamda) P.S. Case No. 28 of 2010, corresponding to G.R. No. 231 of 2010, pending before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa is set aside. Petition allowed.