Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 107 (KER)

Bharathidas v. State of Kerala

2016-01-27

BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH

body2016
ORDER : Babu Mathew P. Joseph, J. 1. This Crl. M.C. is filed for quashing Annexure-2 Final Report filed by the second respondent Sub Inspector of Police, Piravom Police Station, before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Piravom, against the petitioners alleging the offence under S. 21 read with S. 4(1A) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the second respondent is incompetent to file a Final Report like Annexure-2 alleging the offence under S. 21 read with S. 4(1A) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 as it is hit by S. 22 of the said Act. Therefore, as specified under S. 22 of the said Act, based on Annexure-2 Final Report, a court cannot take cognizance of the offence alleged therein. The submissions so made by the learned counsel for the petitioners are not disputed by the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. Section 22 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 reads as follows: "22. Cognizance 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." Therefore, for a court to take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act or any Rules made thereunder, a complaint in writing made by a person authorised in that behalf by the Central Government or the State Government is a prerequisite. Here, admittedly, no such complaint by a person authorised has been filed against the petitioners alleging an offence under the Act enabling the court to take cognizance of such offence. Annexure-2 Final Report filed by the second respondent cannot be accepted to be a complaint made by a person authorised as contemplated under S. 22 of the Act. In that view of the matter, Annexure-2 Final Report filed by the second respondent is liable to be quashed. In the result, Annexure-2 Final Report filed by the second respondent before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Piravom, is quashed. This Crl. M.C. is allowed as above.