ORDER : The sole accused in Crime No.792 of 2012 of Kunnathunadu Police Station has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-I F.I.R. and Annexure-II Final Report filed against him by the State/respondent. 2. The prosecution allegation is that on 26.8.2012 at about 18 hours, the petitioner was found, stacked river sand illegally, violating the provisions of Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 (for short, 'the Sand Act') in the compound of one Noushad Chemmalakudi at Choorakode Kara Pattimattom village, by the respondent and the same had been seized by the respondent. As the petitioner has violated the provisions of the Sand Act, 2001, Annexure-I F.I.R. No. 792 of 2012 of Kunnathunadu Police Station was registered against the petitioner under Section 17(4) read with Section 20 of the Sand Act. Annexure-II is the Final Report submitted by the respondent in which cognizance has been taken by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kolencherry as C.C. No. 809 of 2013 on 9.9.2013. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate cannot take cognizance on the Final Report submitted by the respondent and hence the FIR and the Final Report have to be quashed. 4. On a perusal of the materials before me, it could be seen that the Sub Inspector of Police, Kunnathunadu Police Station has registered Annexure-I, FIR under Section 17(4) read with Section 20 of the Sand Act against this petitioner alleging that he has violated the provisions of the Sand Act. 5. The learned counsel relying on the decision of this Court in Sherif and Others v. Sub Inspector of Police, Konni and Another ( 2010 (1) KLT 394 ) would point out that the court is not empowered to take cognizance in the Final Report submitted by the Sub Inspector of Police, Kunnathunadu and hence, the proceedings initiated against him has to be quashed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 6. All the offences under the Sand Act are made cognizable under Section 24 of the Sand Act. It is apposite to reproduce Section 24 of the Sand Act as under : "24. All the offences under the Sand Act are made cognizable under Section 24 of the Sand Act. It is apposite to reproduce Section 24 of the Sand Act as under : "24. Offences under this Act to be cognizable.- Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974), all offences under this Act shall be cognizable." Section 25 of the Sand Act says that 'No court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act, except upon a complaint in writing made by a person authorised in this behalf by the Government or the District Collector or a Geologist of the Department of Mining and Geology'. So, on a reading of the above provisions of the Sand Act, it could be seen that the all offences under this Act are cognizable and no court can take cognizance of the offence except upon a written complaint made by a person authorised in this behalf. But it is to be noted that 'complaint' has not been defined in the Act or in the Rules. 7. The term "complaint" has been defined in Section 2 (d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure as follows: "Any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Code, that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include a police report.' Explanation to S.2(d) says that: "A report made by a police officer in a case which discloses, after investigation, the commission of a non-cognizable offence shall be deemed to be a complaint; and the police officer by whom such report is made shall be deemed to be the complainant." 8. From a reading of Section 25 of the Act, it is clear that only if a complaint is lodged by the authorised officer, in writing, cognizance can be taken for an offence against any person who has violated the provisions of this Act. 9. In Moosakoya v. State of Kerala (2008 (1) KLT 538), this Court has held that cognizance under the Sand Act cannot be taken on the basis of a report submitted by the officer under S.173 (2) of CrPC, but only on a complaint by the officer authorised by the Government. 10. 9. In Moosakoya v. State of Kerala (2008 (1) KLT 538), this Court has held that cognizance under the Sand Act cannot be taken on the basis of a report submitted by the officer under S.173 (2) of CrPC, but only on a complaint by the officer authorised by the Government. 10. It is also held in Sherif's case (supra) that an Assistant Sub Inspector is not an authorised officer competent to file a complaint. Therefore, cognizance taken in that case is bad. It is further held that Judicial First Class Magistrate is not empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a Final Report filed under S. 173 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 11. In Nizam v. State of Kerala ( 2014(2) KLT 467 ), it is held that a Final Report filed under Section 173 (2) of Cr.P.C. is not a complaint under Section 25 of the Sand Act. It is observed as: "7. No doubt, Government of Kerala has issued Gazette notification on 18.1.2007 empowering officers u/s.25 to exercise the power to file a complaint in writing in respect of any offence punishable under the Act. The notification reads as follows: "Appointment of Authorised Officers S.R.O.No.64/2007.- In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 25 of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 (18 of 2001), the Government of Kerala hereby authorise the Revenue Divisional Officers, Tahsildars, Deputy Tahsildars, Superintendents of Police, the Deputy Superintendents of Police and Station House Officers to exercise the power to make a complaint in writing in respect of any offence punishable under the said Act." Therefore a final report filed u/s.173(2) of Cr.P.C is not a complaint u/s.25 of the Act. Now the Section is amended and substituted by Act 15 of 2013 with effect from 25.11.2012 published in Kerala Gazette Ext.No.693 dated 7.3.2013. This legal proposition has been explained by this Court in Mohanan and others v. S.I. Of Police, Koipuram [2008(1) KHC 507, Ismayil v. State of Kreala [2010 (3) KHC 677 and P.M. Suresh v. State of Kerala [ 2012 (3) KLT 524 ]. Therefore, the Section is mandatory and the officers shall file a complaint in writing in respect of an offence punishable under the Act. The prosecution in respect of the above said offence is absolutely restricted by filing a complaint by the authorised officers. Therefore, the Section is mandatory and the officers shall file a complaint in writing in respect of an offence punishable under the Act. The prosecution in respect of the above said offence is absolutely restricted by filing a complaint by the authorised officers. The object of imposing such limitation is to save the accused from vexatious prosecution by vindicative feeling on the part of non- empowered officers. Therefore, the final report filed by the police cannot be treated as complaint as mentioned in the Act. A complaint in writing as stated u/s.25 is a 'sine qua non'." It is further observed as follows: "12. There is blanket prohibition on the Court from taking cognizance of any offence under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act except upon a complaint in writing made by a person authorised u/s.25 of the Act by the State Government. There is also a mandatory direction u/s 195(1) Cr.P.C. to file a written complaint before a Court by the public servant or of some other public servant whom he is administratively subordinate to take cognizance of any offence. In that circumstances the registration of the case and investigation by the S.I. of police would be a futile exercise. 13. It is clear that failure of exercise of inherent powers in favour of the petitioner would result in the failure of justice. Hence the F.I.R. and final report in crime No.874/2009 registered by the Sasthamcotta Police is quashed by invoking inherent powers u/s.482 Cr.P.C." 12. In Aniyappan and Others v. State of Kerala and Another (2014 (2) KHC 431) it is held that the report of the Sub Inspector after investigation under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. is not a complaint under Section 22 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 enabling to take cognizance of offence. 13. Here as mentioned above, Annexure-I F.I.R. was registered on 26.8.2012 under Section 17(4) read with Section 20 of the Sand Act. Thereafter, as per Annexure-II Final Report has been submitted by the Sub Inspector of Police under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. and cognizance was taken on 9.9.2013 as C.C.No.809/2013 by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kolencherry. 13. Here as mentioned above, Annexure-I F.I.R. was registered on 26.8.2012 under Section 17(4) read with Section 20 of the Sand Act. Thereafter, as per Annexure-II Final Report has been submitted by the Sub Inspector of Police under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. and cognizance was taken on 9.9.2013 as C.C.No.809/2013 by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kolencherry. The Sand Act is a special Act implemented to protect river banks and river beds from large scale dredging of river sand and to protect their biophysical environment system and regulate the illegal removal of the river sand from rivers. So, it is a special enactment incorporated with strict measures to be adopted for the protection and preservation of the environmental conditions of the country. Special provisions have been incorporated in the Act and when a special provision is provided for taking cognizance of the offence, as a special statute, cognizance can be taken, only following the provisions of the Act strictly. The general provisions cannot be implemented so as to take cognizance under the special Act as the intention of the legislature is to implement the Act properly and to prevent violation of the provisions of the Act. Therefore, Section 25 of the Sand Act indicates that it is mandatory that the authorised officer shall file a complaint in writing in respect of an offence punishable under the Act. As there is legal defect, Annexure-II Final Report submitted by the Sub Inspector of Police after conducting an investigation under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. cannot be treated as a complaint as defined under Section 25 of the Sand Act. So, to secure the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of the court, F.I.R registered against the petitioner as well as the cognizance taken as per Annexure-II by the Learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kolencherry are liable to be quashed. 14. Hence, Annexure-I F.I.R. and Annexure-II Final Report in C.C.No.809/2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kolencherry are hereby quashed by invoking the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Crl .M.C. is allowed.