Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 739 (KAR)

R. M. Siddaroodaswamy v. State of Karnataka

2014-08-18

L.NARAYANA SWAMY

body2014
ORDER L. Narayana Swamy, J. 1. Though the matter is listed for admission, with the consent of both the parties, the same is taken up for final disposal. A case has been instituted against the petitioner by the Torangal Police for the offences punishable under Section 21.4(1) and (1a) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter called as 'the Act' for short). The institution of the case in C.C. No. 549/2006 by the police has been challenged on the ground that the complaint made by the police to the JMFC Sandur under Section 22 of the Act is liable to be set aside for the reason that the Torangal police are not authorized to make complaint to the Court. In support of the submissions, learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Abdul Samad Mulla & Another v. Government of Karnataka, reported in 2007 (3) AIR Kar R 499, in which it has been held chat the authorized officer is only the officer who has been appointed by the Government under Section 22 of the Act. 2. I have heard both the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and gone through the judgment referred to by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The said judgment was followed by this Court in Crl.P. No. 8026/2009 disposed of on 08.12.2009 in the case of Murali Raju @ Murali v. P.S.I. Sandur, wherein at paragraph 5 of the judgment, it is observed thus: "As it is submitted by the learned Counsel that under Section 22 of the Act, it is specifically made clear that only the authorized person notified either by the Central or State Government only can make complaint to the Magistrate. The Magistrate is supposed to take cognizance of the offence, if any complaint is lodged by authorized officer under Section 22 of the Act. In the instant case, the police are not the authorized officers. In the similar circumstances, as held by this Court in the judgments referred supra (in Abdul Samad Mulla & Anr. Case) it is elaborately held by this Court that for the purpose of Section 22 of the Act, only the authorized persons could make the complaint. The same view also been taken in another two criminal petitions referred above. In the similar circumstances, as held by this Court in the judgments referred supra (in Abdul Samad Mulla & Anr. Case) it is elaborately held by this Court that for the purpose of Section 22 of the Act, only the authorized persons could make the complaint. The same view also been taken in another two criminal petitions referred above. In view of the said circumstances, I have no other way except to follow the judgments referred above. The purpose for which Section 22 prescribes must be for the reason that if any offences committed under the Act, the specified proceedings will have to take place in a regular proceedings if any complaint made by the police, for the offences punishable under Section 200 of Indian Penal Code are involved, then all proceedings would be different." Under these circumstances, proceedings initiated in C.C. No. 549/2006 is quashed, reserving liberty to the authorized officer to initiate action, if he is so aggrieved and if he finds that, judgment in Crl.P. No. 8026/2009 has not been challenged by the petitioner.