JUDGMENT : H.P. SANDESH, J. 1. Though these matters are listed for admission, with the consent of the petitioners' counsel and the learned HCGP, they are taken up for final disposal. 2. Heard the petitioners' counsel and also the learned HCGP for the respondent-State. 3. Though, all these cases arise out of different crime numbers of different police stations and pending before different Court, since issue involved in the cases is only question of law and the same is common in all these cases, they are taken up together for disposal by this common order. 4. The prayer sought in the petitions by invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is to quash the entire proceedings pending before the different Courts since the respective cases are registered for both the offences under the MMRD Act and Rules and Under IPC. 5. For the purpose of brevity and convenience, the particulars of the crime number, police station, name of the complainant and his designation are set out in the tabular column below: Sl. 5. For the purpose of brevity and convenience, the particulars of the crime number, police station, name of the complainant and his designation are set out in the tabular column below: Sl. No. Case Number Crime Number Police Station Complainant's name and designation Offences invoked 1 Crl.P.101274/ 2018 Crime 230/2015 Gangavathi P.S. Manjunath V Hiremath (Revenue Inspector) 379, 511 of IPC, 42, 44(1), 44(2) of KMMC Rules, 1994 2 Crl.P.101815/ 2018 PCR 136/18 (CC 869/18) - J.B.Pujeri (ASI Yamakanamar adi P.S.) 4(1), 4(1A), 21 of MMDR Act, 1957 3 Crl.P.101986/ 2018 PCR 147/18 (CC 1058/2018) - B.S.Talwar,PSI, Yamakanamar adi P.S.) 4(1), 4(1A), 21 of MMDR Act 4 Crl.P.102023/ 2018 PCR 34/18 (CC 634/18 - S.N.Nayak (PSI Katakol) 4(1A), 21 of MMDR Act & Rules 3, 32, 44 of KMMC Rules 5 Crl.P.102059/ 2018 P.C.Crime No.66/2018 ASI, Khanapur, Belagavi Narayanswami, (P.I. Belagavi Rural P.S.) 379 of IPC, 4(1A), 21, 22 of MMDR Act & Rules 3, 32, 44 of KMMC Rules 6 Crl.P.102060/2018 P.C.Crime No.66/2018 ASI, Khanapur, Belagavi Narayanswami, (P.I. Belagavi Rural P.S.) 379 of IPC, 4(1A), 21, 22 of MMDR Act & Rules 3, 32, 44 of KMMC Rules 7 Crl.P.102061/2018 P.C. Crime No.66/2018 ASI, Khanapur, Belagavi Narayanswami, (P.I. Belagavi Rural P.S.) 379 of IPC, 4(1A), 21, 22 of MMDR Act & Rules 3, 32, 44 of KMMC Rules 8 Crl.P.102062/2018 P.C.Crime No.66/2018 ASI, Khanapur, Belagavi Narayanswami, (P.I. Belagavi Rural P.S.) 379 of IPC, 4(1A), 21, 22 of MMDR Act & Rules 3, 32, 44 of KMMC Rules 9 Crl.P.102107/2018 PCR No.155/201 8 (CC No.1018/20 18) - Gajanan K Nayak (PSI Yamakanamar adi P.S.) 4(1), 4(1A), 21 of MMDR Act 10 Crl.P.102122/2018 PCR No.160/2018 (CC No.1037/20 18) - Gajanan K Nayak (PSI Yamakanamar adi P.S.) 4(1), 4(1A), 21 of MMDR Act 11 Crl.P.102126/2018 P.S.Crime No.154/2018 Kudachi P.S. Z.N.Mokashi (PSI, Kudachi P.S.) 4(1), 4(1A), 21, 42, 22 of MMDR Act 12 Crl.P.102281/2018 PCR No.197/201 8 (CC No.1141/2018) - J.B.Pujeri (ASI, Yamakanamar adi P.S.) 4(1), 4(1A), 21 of MMDR Act 6. The main contention of the petitioners is that the complaint is filed in respect of violation of the Minor and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 1957 for brevity), the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules, 1994' for brevity). The respondent had no authority to register a complaint in respect of the said offences. The respondent had no authority to register a complaint in respect of the said offences. The complaint could be filed only in accordance with Section 22 of the Act, 1957 and the said complaint ought to have been filed before the jurisdictional Court by a person authorized in this behalf by the State or the Central Government. Section 22 of the Act, 1957 is mandatory it cannot be circumvented under any circumstances and merely because provisions under the Indian Penal Code are invoked against the petitioners, jurisdictional Court does not get jurisdiction to try the offences in the absence of a formal complaint by the competent person authorized in this behalf as the Act, 1957 is a special enactment and hence the very initiation of the proceedings has to be quashed against these petitioners in view of non-compliance of Section 22 of the Act, 1957. 7. The counsel appearing for the petitioners in their arguments, vehemently reiterated the grounds urged in the petitions and further contended that the complaint is filed by the in-charge Revenue Inspector, ASI, PSI, PI and mahazar was conducted. It is also contended that the offences invoked are not only under the MMRD Act, 1957, KMMC Rules, 1994 and Indian Penal Code, 1860, against the petitioners and further contended that the Court below has entertained the complaint even for the offences under the special enactment and hence the proceedings is liable to be quashed. In support of their contentions, the counsels also relied upon the judgment of this Court passed in Crl.Pet.No.200131/2014 connected with other matters vide order dated 18th June, 2014 and contended that those cases are arising out of the Act, 1957 and Rules, 1994 and also for the offences punishable under Section 379 of IPC and also Sections 4(1) and 4(1A) of the Act, 1957 and contended that this Court quashed the initiation of the very proceedings however given the liberty to the State to proceed in accordance with law in respect of the offences alleged against the persons. 8. 8. Per contra, the learned HCGP in his argument contends that in the present cases, the offences not only invoked under MMDR Act, 1957 and the Rules, 1994 and also invoked under Section 379 read with section 511 of IPC and there cannot be quashed by invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C. He also contends that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment reported in the case of State (NCT of Delhi Vs. Sanjay, (2014) 9 SCC 772 held that both the offences are distinct and in a case where there is theft of sand and gravel from the Government land, the police can register a case, investigate the same and submit a final report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate having jurisdiction for the purpose of taking cognizance as provided in Section 190(1) (d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The contravention of terms and conditions of mining lease or doing mining activity in violation of Section 4 of the Act is an offence punishable under Section 21 of the Act, 1957, whereas dishonestly removing sand, gravel and other minerals from the river, which the property of the State, out of the State's possession without the consent, constitute an offence of theft. Hence, merely because initiation of proceeding for commission of an offence under the Act, 1957 on the basis of complaint cannot and shall not debar the police from taking action against persons for committing theft of sand and minerals in the manner mentioned above by exercising power under the Code of Criminal Procedure and submit a report before the Magistrate for taking cognizance against such persons and further held that on receipt of the police report, the Magistrate having jurisdiction can take cognizance of the said offence without awaiting the receipt of the complaint that may be filed by the Authorized Officer for taking cognizance in respect of the violation of various provisions of the Act, 1957 and hence prayed this Court to dismiss the petition. 9. 9. Having heard the arguments of the petitioners' counsel and the learned HCGP for the respondent, this Court has to analyze and examine what would be the course of action if both the offences are invoked under the MMDR Act, 1957 and under the KMMC Rules and any proceedings is initiated under the IPC and whether this Court can exercise powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings if a case is registered by the police both under the provisions of the IPC as well as the provisions of the MMDR Act, 1957. Before adverting to the penal provisions and procedures to be adopted by the prosecuting agency, I would like to make a mention the very object of the MMDR Act and Rules. The policy and object of the Mines and Minerals Act and Rules have a long history and are the result of an increasing awareness of the compelling need to restore the serious ecological imbalance and to stop the damages being caused to the nature. At the same time, the Court also cannot lose sight of the fact that adverse and destructive environmental impact of sand mining. The mining of aggregates in rivers has led to severe damage to river, including pollution and changes in levels of the river. Removing sediment from rivers causes the river to cut its channel through the bed of the valley floor, or channel incision, both upstream and downstream of the extraction site. Incision can also cause the alluvial aquifer to drain to a lower level, resulting in a loss of aquifer storage. It can also increase flood frequency and intensity by reducing flood regulation capacity. In order to combat the menace in the society, the very enactment was brought in keeping to protect the natural resources which are public property and national assets. There should be a balance between the conservation of natural resources and urban development. The provisions of the Rules also amended in respect of Rule 43 (5 to 8) and made the owners of the vehicle to furnish the bank guarantee double the value of the vehicle in order to combat the menace of mining mafia. 10. There should be a balance between the conservation of natural resources and urban development. The provisions of the Rules also amended in respect of Rule 43 (5 to 8) and made the owners of the vehicle to furnish the bank guarantee double the value of the vehicle in order to combat the menace of mining mafia. 10. The very object and policy of the State has to be taken care while dealing with the matters under the special enactment and to serve the very object and purpose and policy of the State, this Court would like to discuss the case on hand in order to safeguard the same and in order to avoid the anomalies and set-right the same to follow the procedure in case of any offences are taken place under the special enactment and also under the Indian Penal Code and other laws. 11. Before going to consider the grounds urged in the petition, this Court would like to make a mention the very provision of the Act, 1957 and the Rules, 1994. while setting the law into motion by the concerned Officer while invoking Section 4(1), 4(1A), 21 and 22 of the Act. The same reads as follows: 4. 11. Before going to consider the grounds urged in the petition, this Court would like to make a mention the very provision of the Act, 1957 and the Rules, 1994. while setting the law into motion by the concerned Officer while invoking Section 4(1), 4(1A), 21 and 22 of the Act. The same reads as follows: 4. Prospecting or mining operations to be under licence or lease.- (1) No person shall under take any reconnaissance, prospecting or mining operations in any area, except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a reconnaissance permit or of a prospecting licence or, as the case may be, of a mining lease, granted under this Act and the rules made there under: Provided that nothing in this subsection shall affect any prospecting or mining operations under taken in any area in accordance with the terms and conditions of a prospecting licence or mining lease granted before the commencement of this Act which is in force at such commencement: Provided further that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to any prospecting operations under taken by the Geological Survey of India, the Indian Bureau of Mines, the Atomic Minerals Directorate for Exploration and Research of the Department of Atomic Energy of the Central Government, the Directorates of Mining and Geology of any State Government (by whatever name called), and the Mineral Exploration Corporation Limited, a Government company within the meaning of clause (45) of section 2 of the Companies Act, 2013 (18 of 2013), and any such entity that may be notified for this purpose by the Central Government: Provided also that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to any mining lease (whether called mining lease, mining concession or by any other name) in force immediately before the commencement of this Act in the Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu. (1A) No person shall transport or store or cause to be transported or stored any mineral otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made there under. 12. Sections 21 and 22 of the Act, 1957, reads as follows: 21. Penalties.- (1) Whoever contravenes the provisions of subsection (1) or sub-section (1A) of section 4 shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees per hectare of the area. 12. Sections 21 and 22 of the Act, 1957, reads as follows: 21. Penalties.- (1) Whoever contravenes the provisions of subsection (1) or sub-section (1A) of section 4 shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees per hectare of the area. (2) Any rule made under any provision of this Act may provide that any contravention thereof shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both, and in the case of a continuing contravention, with additional fine which may extend to fifty thousand rupees for every day during which such contravention continues after conviction for the first such contravention. (3) Where any person trespasses into any land in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 4, such trespasser may be served with an order of eviction by the State Government or any authority authorised in this behalf by that Government and the State Government or such authorised Authority may, if necessary, obtain the help of the police to evict the trespasser from the land. (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. (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 cognizance of the offence under sub-section (1) and shall 28 be disposed of in accordance with the directions of such Court. (5) Whenever any person raises, without any lawful authority, any mineral from any land, the State Government may recover from such person the mineral so raised, or, where such mineral has already been disposed of, the price thereof, and may also recover from such person, rent, royalty or tax, as the case may be, for the period during which the land was occupied by such person without any lawful authority. (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), an offence under sub-section (1) shall be cognizable. 22. Cognizance of offences.-No court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act or any rules made there under except upon complaint in writing made by a person authorised in this behalf by the Central Government or the State Government. 13. Rules 3, 32 42, 43 and 44(2) of the Rules, 1994, reads as follows: 3. Quarrying to be under quarrying lease or quarrying License. (1) No person shall under take any quarrying operation in respect of any minor mineral in any land except under or in accordance with the terms and conditions of a quarrying lease [license or quarrying permit] granted under these rules. (2) No quarrying lease or [license or quarrying permit] license shall be granted otherwise than in accordance with these rules. 32. Quarrying license.- [(1)] No person in possession of patta lands in Karnataka State and who are full owners of sub-soil minor minerals situated in their patta lands shall under take quarrying operation of minor minerals in patta land except with a working permission granted under this chapter. Explanation.-Patta land means any private land classified as patta land owned by pattadar inheritance or acquired ancestral property.] 30 [(1-A)xxxx] [(2) The pattadar shall apply before the Competent Authority along with necessary documents to prove his ownership of the land and sketch of the area for obtaining permission to quarry minor mineral under this chapter. (3) The Competent Authority shall confirm the title, status of land with the Deputy Commissioner in case of specified minor mineral and with Tahsildar in case of non-specified minor mineral. (4) No quarrying of minor mineral under this chapter shall be allowed in contravention of Environment Impact Assessment notification dated 14.09.2006 issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India, as amended from time to time. (5) The Competent Authority shall arrange for survey and demarcation of the area, subject to the pattadar paying the expenses which shall be at the rate as specified in Rules 17 and 29, as the 31 case may be depending on the mineral applied. (5) The Competent Authority shall arrange for survey and demarcation of the area, subject to the pattadar paying the expenses which shall be at the rate as specified in Rules 17 and 29, as the 31 case may be depending on the mineral applied. (6) The provisions of Chapters II and II-A and Rules 17, 18, 19-A, 19B, 19C and 29, sub-rule (3) of Rules 36 and 39 shall, mutatis mutandis apply for grant of quarrying permission under this rule as applicable to specified and non-specified minor mineral. (7) The provision of this chapter shall not be applicable for granted patta lands and GPA holders of the patta lands. However for such lands Chapter II shall apply mutatis mutandis.] 42. Transport of Minor Minerals.- (1) No person shall transport or cause to be transported any minor mineral except under or in accordance with a computerized Mineral Dispatch Permit in Form MDP(A) generated in electronic form (e-Permit or m-Permit) by the licence/leaseholder or his authorized person and issued using Special Security Permit Paper (SSPP) sheet obtained from 32 the Competent Authority or any other Officer authorized by the Director. (2) Any person desiring to transport the minor mineral by road, by rail or any other means of transport shall after payment of royalty apply in Form AP to the concerned Competent Authority in electronic form along with rupees fifty as processing fees for each Mineral Dispatch Release Order (MDRO) for specified bulk quantity of specified or non-specified minor mineral intended to transport. (3) The Competent Authority after such enquiry as it deems fit, if satisfied that the information furnished in the application is correct and the applicant is entitled for a MDRO, it may issue a MDRO in Form MDRO and enable the leaseholder to generate CMDP's. However the validity of such MDRO shall be thirty days: 33 Provided that where the Computerized Mineral Dispatch Permit is generated by the lessee himself, if there is any error in weight, volume, royalty etc., the lessee is solely held responsible as per Rule 43. (4) The Computerized Mineral Dispatch Permit shall be generated in electronic form and issued by leaseholder or his authorized person using SSPP sheet obtained from Competent Authority on the basis of One Permit for One vehicle. (4) The Computerized Mineral Dispatch Permit shall be generated in electronic form and issued by leaseholder or his authorized person using SSPP sheet obtained from Competent Authority on the basis of One Permit for One vehicle. (5) The validity of CMDP's issued by leaseholder or his authorized person shall be one hour for each ten kilometer of distance or fraction thereof from the date of issue: Provided that the Competent Authority of the concerned district may, on a written request by the holder of permit and after such enquiry as it deems fit renew the permit and in case 34 of mineral in transit, the concerned jurisdictional Competent Authority may renew subject to collecting processing fee and SSPP sheet fee, if any upon recording the reasons and issue fresh CMDP. The very purpose of bringing amendment in 2015, 2016 and 2017 in order to curb the menace repealed offence by using the very same vehicle. Amendment of Rule 43.- In rule 43 of the said rules, for sub-rules (5), (6), (7) and (8), the following shall be substituted, namely:- "(5) The officer in charge of the check post or the barrier or the authorized officer shall seize any minor mineral including the vehicle used for transit of such minor mineral, if the driver or person in charge of such vehicle fails to produce a valid permit. (6) The officer in charge of the check post or the barrier or the authorized officer after seizing any minor mineral along with the vehicle used for transit of such minor mineral under sub rule (5) shall give a receipt in Form-VS (Vehicle Seized) for having effected the seizure to the person from whose possession or control it is seized. (7) Upon seizure as provided under sub rule (6) it shall be necessary for the officer referred to concerned officer under sub-rule(6) to make a report within a reasonable period of such seizure to the Competent Court having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which seizure has been made. Under section 30(b) of the Act Special Court is made as competent Court in order to deal with the release of vehicle and report has to be submitted to the Court having jurisdiction to try the offence and the Special Court only to exercise the powers of release the vehicle in terms of Rule 43(7). Under section 30(b) of the Act Special Court is made as competent Court in order to deal with the release of vehicle and report has to be submitted to the Court having jurisdiction to try the offence and the Special Court only to exercise the powers of release the vehicle in terms of Rule 43(7). (8) No release of the vehicle shall however not include the minor mineral so seized shall be made unless there is an execution by the owner thereof, security in the form of a renewable Bank Guarantee, of an amount of equal to double the value of such vehicle, before the Competent Court having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure has been made: Provided that where a report has been made to the Competent Court under sub-rule (7) the seized vehicle shall not be released except under the orders of such Court. 44. Offenses.-(1) Any person who contravenes the provisions of sub-rule (1) of rule 42 shall, on conviction be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to rupees five thousand or with both, and in the case of a continuing contravention with an additional fine which may extend to five hundred rupees for every day during which such contravention continues after first such contravention. (2) Any persons who under takes any quarrying operation in respect of any minor minerals either without a licence or quarrying permit granted under these rules or in contravention of the terms and conditions of any licence or permit shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extended to one year or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees or with both and in case of a continuing contravention with an additional fine which may extend to five hundred rupees for every day during which such contravention continues after conviction for the first such contravention. (3) Any person who under takes any quarrying operation in respect of the minor mineral without a licence or lease is liable to pay a penalty of rupees five thousand or value of the mineral, whichever is higher. Section 379 of IPC reads as follows: 379. Punishment for theft.- Whoever commits theft shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. Section 379 of IPC reads as follows: 379. Punishment for theft.- Whoever commits theft shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. Section 511 of IPC reads as follows: 511. Punishment for attempting to commit offences punishable with imprisonment for life or other imprisonment.-Whoever attempts to commit an offence punishable by this Code with imprisonment for life or imprisonment, or to cause such an offence to be committed, and in such attempt does any act towards the commission of the offence, shall, where no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such attempt, be punished with imprisonment of any description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-half of the imprisonment for life or, as the case may be, one-half of the longest term of imprisonment provided for that offence, or with such fine as is provided for the offence, or with both. 14. After having considered the invoking of penal provision of the Act, 1957 and the 38 Karnataka Minor Minerals Concession Rules 1994 and offence under IPC, regarding setting the law into motion, this Court would like to discuss with regard to the procedural aspects enumerated under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Act, 1957, does not define anything about the word 'complaint'. However, in section 22 of the Act, 1957, in order to take the cognizance of an offence punishable under the said Act, it is mentioned that, no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act or any Rules made there under, except upon complaint in writing made by a person authorized in this behalf by the Central Government or the State Government. 15. When there is no any definition in the special enactment, this Court has to in order to consider the word 'complaint', consider the 39 definition of complaint in Cr.P.C. Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C. defines the word 'complaint', which means, 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. It has to be noted that the 'police report' is also defined under section 2(r) of Cr.P.C., which means, a report forwarded by a police officer to a Magistrate under sub-section (2) of section 173. 16. This Court would like to mention in brief here itself that the 'police report' is forwarded by a police officer to a Magistrate after a complete investigation under sub-section (2) of section 173 and thereafter, the concerned Court would take cognizance based on the report. Now, 40 in view of the special enactment, the concerned Magistrate has to take the cognizance based on the complaint filed by the authorized person invoking section 22 of the Act, 1957. 17. Now the question remains before this Court, if any cognizable offence has taken place in violation of the Act, 1957, what has to be done, whether the law has to be set in motion by filing only a complaint by authorized person under section 22 of the special enactment or to set the law in motion irrespective of the offence under the special enactment or under penal law or under any other law. 18. For the violation of section 4 and 4(1A) of the Act, a special penal provision is made under the special enactment under section 21 of the Act, 1957, that whoever contravenes the provision of sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A) of section 4 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees per hectare of the area. Section 21(2) of the Act, 1957 provides, any rule made under any provision of this Act may provide that any contravention thereof shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees or with both and in the case of continuing contravention, with additional fine which may extend to fifty thousand rupees for every day during which such contravention continues for such contravention. 19. When the punishment is provided, which may extend to five years and if any violation of the provisions of other laws in terms of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is clear that if the punishment is more than three years, the 42 same is cognizable offence and non bailable and under section 21(6) of the Act the offence is cognizable. 20. 20. Now the question arises, whether any information is received with regard to the transportation of sand, murrum, graval, whether the police officer-in-charge of a police station can invoke section 154 of Cr.P.C. This Court would like to refer the proviso of section 154 of Cr.P.C., which reads as follows: 154. Information in cognizable cases.- (1) Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an Officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such Officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf. 43 (2) A copy of the information as recorded under sub-section (1) shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant. (3) Any person, aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an Officer in charge of a police station to record the information referred to in sub-section (1) may send the substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the Super intendent of police concerned who, if satisfied that such information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police Officer subordinate to him, in the manner provided by this Code, and such officer shall have all the powers of an officer in charge of the police station in relation to that offence. If it is the information in respect of cognizable cases, then the police officers have power to investigate the cognizable cases under Section 156 of Cr.P.C. and this Court would like to mention a proviso to Section 156 as hereunder: 156. Police officer's power to investigate cognizable case.- (1) Any Officer in charge of a police station may, without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognizable case which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII. Police officer's power to investigate cognizable case.- (1) Any Officer in charge of a police station may, without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognizable case which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII. (2) No proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such Officer was not empowered under this section to investigate. (3) Any Magistrate empowered under section 190 may order such an investigation as above-mentioned. 21. This Court also would like to refer Section 57 and Section 167(1) of Cr.P.C. regarding arrest of a person not to be detained for more than 24 years and if an offence is reported under the Act, 1957, for cognizable offence, Section 57 and Section 167(1) of Cr.P.C. has come into compliance and Section 57 and Section 167(1) of Cr.P.C. reads as follows: 57. Person arrested not to be detained more than twenty-four hours.-No police Officer shall detain in custody a person arrested without warrant for a longer period than under all the circumstances of the case is reasonable, and such period shall not, in the absence of a special order or a Magistrate under section 167, exceed twenty-four hours exclusive of the time necessary for the journey, from the place of arrest to the Magistrate's Court. 167. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours- (1) Whenever any person is arrested and detained in custody, and it appears that the investigation cannot be completed within the period of twenty-four hours fixed by Section 57, and there are grounds for believing that the accusation or information is well-founded, the-officer-in-charge of the police station or the police Officer making the investigation, if he is not below the rank of Sub-Inspector, shall forthwith transmit to the nearest Judicial Magistrate a copy of the entries in the diary hereinafter prescribed relating to the case, and shall at the same time forward the accused to such Magistrate. Now, if the police Officer cannot register the case and investigate the matter when a cognizable 46 offence is taken place and if the only authorized person can invoke section 22 of the special enactment to file the complaint, what could be done in such circumstances. Now, if the police Officer cannot register the case and investigate the matter when a cognizable 46 offence is taken place and if the only authorized person can invoke section 22 of the special enactment to file the complaint, what could be done in such circumstances. This Court also would like to refer the provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. In the said enactment also the Court can take cognizance only on a private complaint under section 55 of the said Act. However a handbook is released in order to investigate the crime under the said Act in order to avoid the technicalities and a special provision is made to receive the report by the Court and the same is called as WLOR report. 22. This Court also would like to make a mention Chapter-3 of hand book, Registration of Cases in case of Wildlife Crime Investigation and in the said chapter, it is mentioned that in 47 conventional crimes, investigation starts with registration of the case as First Information Report (FIR). Recovery of material evidence (stolen property, weapons, vehicles etc) takes place only after registration of the case. However, in Wildlife crime cases, the seizure of the wildlife/wildlife article or apprehension of the accused/suspect may take place before registration of the case. In other words, in wildlife offences, investigation may start with lodging of a seizure/apprehension report or the offence report, in the jurisdictional court, by an authorized officer, who makes such seizure or arrest. In different States this report is known by different names such as the Preliminary offences Report (POR), H-2 Case, Offence Report, First Information Report (FIR), Seizure Information etc. However, it has been observed that some of the judicial officers who are new to Wildlife crime cases doubt the legitimacy of such 48 reports and insist on FIR/POR. There are some incidents where the jurisdictional magistrates refused to accept such reports as they are not on par with the First Information Report (FIR) filed by the police. In order to avoid such technical problems and to bring uniformity in practice, it is suggested that the first report submitted in the jurisdictional court in Wildlife crime cases may be named as Wildlife offence Report (WLOR). In order to avoid such technical problems and to bring uniformity in practice, it is suggested that the first report submitted in the jurisdictional court in Wildlife crime cases may be named as Wildlife offence Report (WLOR). The Wildlife offence Report should be prepared under Section 50(4) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, and Check list also suggested for preparing Wildlife offence Report in Chapter 3.2 of the Wildlife Crime Investigation and the details has been given in the said Chapter. 23. Chapter 3.3 of the Wildlife Crime Investigation says that Registration of FIR and investigation of offences under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, by police-officer-Violation of the provisions of the Act are not specified as cognizable offence, therefore, police officers are often unwilling to lodge FIR and investigate offences reported under the provisions of the Act. It is clarified that under Part-II of Schedule-I of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, offences against other laws, if punishable with imprisonment for 3 years and upwards are classified as cognizable. Most of the offences under the act are punishable with imprisonment for 3 or more years. Therefore, an Officer In charge of a police Station is bound to lodge an FIR and investigate the case like any other cognizable offence. However, courts shall take cognizance of any offence against the Act only on the complaint submitted any person specified under Section 55 of the Act. Therefore, if police-officers in the State concerned are not authorized to file complaints 50 under Section 55 of the Act, the police report is submitted in the Court as complaint through an authorized forest officer. Once a complaint is filed in Court, no further investigation will be conducted without the direction of the Court. Further, there is no provision for filing supplementary complaint once complaint is filed. Therefore, any subsequent discovery, seizure, arrest etc. will be treated as fresh case and separate complaint filed in the Court. 24. This Court in keeping the above provisions in mind analyse the case on hand in keeping the practical difficulties faced by the concerned Authorities to set the law in motion and proceed in the matter. The same analogy is applicable to crimes committed in respect of the Act and Rules in which cases to be filed. 25. 24. This Court in keeping the above provisions in mind analyse the case on hand in keeping the practical difficulties faced by the concerned Authorities to set the law in motion and proceed in the matter. The same analogy is applicable to crimes committed in respect of the Act and Rules in which cases to be filed. 25. The main grounds urged by the petitioners in these petitions are that, when there is a specific bar under Section 22 of the Act, 1957, the police cannot register the case and investigate the matter and if any such procedure is adopted by the police, the same is in contravention of section 22 of the Act, 1957. 26. Before answering the said issues, it is pertinent to refer the following judgments of this Court and the Apex Court to answer the issues and hence referring the following judgments: 27. This Court would like to refer the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in, State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Sanjay, (2014) 9 SCC 772 the Apex Court in the judgment elaborately discussed with regard to the Minor Minerals are the assets of the State and also discussed with regard to protect natural resources and also in this 52 judgment the Apex Court categorically held that the violation under the Act, 1957 and the penal provision under section 378 and 379 of Cr.P.C. are distinct. This Court also would like to refer the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of the State of Karnataka vs. Linganagouda etc.,. dated 12.10.2017. In this matter similar question aroused before the Supreme Court. Since this Court has quashed the proceedings initiated under the Act, 1957, and the same was questioned before the Apex Court and the Apex Court in the said judgment categorically held that the stage of cognizance will arise only after investigation is completed and there is no bar, for investigation being carried out by the Lokayukta Police on the complaint in question, particularly when the allegations 53 include offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and hence held that the impugned order of this Court quashing the registration of the cases cannot be sustained. 28. This Court would like to refer the judgment of the Karnataka High Court reported in Ms.Meghal J. Gandhi vs. State of Karnataka, 2019 1 KarLJ 149. 28. This Court would like to refer the judgment of the Karnataka High Court reported in Ms.Meghal J. Gandhi vs. State of Karnataka, 2019 1 KarLJ 149. This Court while referring the judgment of the Apex Court referred above, in Linganagouda's case, held that the criminal action is initiated after due enquiry based on the source report which prima facie makes out serious violation and contravention of the statutes. The Magnitude of the transactions and ramification of the offences are required to be unearthed in a thorough and penetrating investigation. It is further observed that on careful consideration of the allegations made in 54 the complaint, and the material produced by the respondent before the Court, the Court do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the FIR registered against the petitioners and the investigation initiated thereon. The allegations made in the FIR prima facie make out ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioners. The SIT is duly authorized and competent to investigate into the matter. No prejudice would be caused to the petitioners if the alleged violations are investigated by the respondent. The exact role played by each of the petitioners could be ascertained only after investigation. If the investigation leads to the final opinion that the alleged offences are committed without the knowledge and connivance of the petitioner, the charges against the petitioners would naturally be dropped. Therefore, the apprehension of the petitioners that the proceedings initiated against the petitioners have resulted in abuse of process of Court is ill founded and the Court held that the petitions are liable to be dismissed. 29. This Court also would like to refer the recent judgment of the Apex Court reported in Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat and others, (2018) 3 SCC 104 . This judgment is delivered with regard to the exercising of powers under section 482 of Cr.P.C. and in this judgment it is held that, in order to examine as to whether factual contents of FIR disclose any prima facie cognizable offence or not, High Court cannot act like an investigating agency and nor can exercise powers like an appellate Court. The question is required to be examined, keeping in view, contents of FIR and prima facie material, if any, requiring no proof. The question is required to be examined, keeping in view, contents of FIR and prima facie material, if any, requiring no proof. At such stage, High Court cannot appreciate evidence nor can it draw its 56 own inferences from contents of FIR and material relied on. It is more so, when the material relied on is disputed. In such a situation, it becomes the job of investigating authority at such stage, to probe and then of the Court to examine questions once the charge sheet is filed along with such material as to how far and to what extent reliance can be placed on such material. Once the Court finds that FIR discloses prima facie commission of any cognizable offence, it should stay its hand and al low investigation machinery to step in to initiate the probe to unearth commission of offence in accordance with the procedure prescribed in Cr.P.C. This Court would like to refer the judgment of the Apex Court reported, in Lalita Kumari vs. Government of U.P. and others, (2014) AIR SC 187. In the said case 57 it is held that it is mandatory on the part of the police officer to register the crime invoking section 154 of Cr.P.C. if the information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary enquiry is permissible in such situation and if the information does not disclose a cognizable offence, but indicates the necessity for an enquiry, a preliminary enquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether a cognizable offence is disclosed or not. 30. This Court would also refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jeewan Kumar Raut and Ors. Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2009) AIR SC 2763, wherein the Apex Court by invoking Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 4--Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994 58 (TOHO)-Section 22-Complaint under TOHO Sections 13 and 22-Investigation under TOHOTOHO being special statute- Section 4 of Code or other provisions may not be applicable-provisions of TOHO shall prevail over provisions of Code and discussed with regard to taking of cognizance by the Court under the special enactment. At para-23 of the said judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that a plain reading of the above provision will show that even though by Section 24 all offences under the Act are made cognizable, no Court can take cognizance of the offence except upon a written complaint made by a person authorized in this behalf by the Government of the District Collector. A 'complaint in writing' by the authorized Officer etc. is the only condition for taking cognizance as provided in Section 25. If a police Officer is authorized by the Government, he may also file a complaint on the basis of which the 59 Court may take cognizance. But, the Court cannot take cognizance of any offence punishable under the Sand Act on a police report filed under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C. after investigation by Police. The Apex Court referring to the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala in Moosakoya Vs. State of Kerala observed in para- 26 that Whereas the remand at a pre-cognizance stage is to be made in terms of Sub-section (2) of Section 167 of the Code, an order of remand of an accused at post-cognizance stage can be effected only in terms of Sub-section (2) of Section 309 thereof. In para-28 also observed with regard to special enactment is concerned that we are, however, not oblivious of some decisions of this Court where some special statutory authorities like authorities under the Customs Act have been granted all the special powers of the investigating Officer under a special statute like the NDPS Act, 60 but this Court has held that they cannot file charge sheet and to that extent they would not be Police officers. Further observed in para-29 also in particularly to that case, however, the respondent having specially been empowered both under the 1946 Act as also under the Code to carry out investigation and file a charge sheet is precluded from doing so only by reason of Section 22 of TOHO. It is doubtful as to whether in the event of authorization of an officer of the department to carry out investigation on a complaint made by a third party, he would be entitled to arrest the accused and carry on investigation as if he is police officer. It is doubtful as to whether in the event of authorization of an officer of the department to carry out investigation on a complaint made by a third party, he would be entitled to arrest the accused and carry on investigation as if he is police officer. We hope that the parliament would take appropriate measures to suitably amend the law in the near future. 31. By referring the special enactment and also the other laws, and also the principles laid 61 down in the judgment rendered supra, now this Court has to examine: (i) what would be the course if a cognizable offence is taken place? (ii) If an accused is apprehended with regard to committing of cognizable offence and non-bailable offence and Section 57 and 167(1) of Cr.P.C. contemplates he has to be produced before the Court within 24 hours and whether it is possible to complete the investigation in all cases to file a complaint as contemplated under Section 22 of the Act, 1957, by an authorized person within 24 hours. (iii) If an accused is apprehended, and vehicle is seized, and the same is involved in transportation of sand, graval, murrum etc., and if the vehicle is not having its original records, and if all the vehicular documents are tampered, it is required a detailed investigation and whether it is possible 62 to procure all the incriminating material of tampering of the documents of the goods and vehicle and a complaint can be filed within 24 hours and question of release of the vehicles also involves and if case is not registered what would be the course open to stake holders. (iv) Does the law permits in case of complaint cases to file supplementary complaint. (v) If such practical difficulties arise, what would be the course of action whether the first information report has to be filed to the Court or the authorized person has to proceed to invoke Section 154 of Cr.P.C. if any cognizable offence is taken place. 32. In keeping the principles laid down by this Court also the Apex Court, first I would like to make a mention here that the offences invoked under the special enactments in the cases on hand, the offences are cognizable. 32. In keeping the principles laid down by this Court also the Apex Court, first I would like to make a mention here that the offences invoked under the special enactments in the cases on hand, the offences are cognizable. 63 As provided in Section 21(6) of the Act 1957, an offence under sub-Section (1) of Section 21 is cognizable and therefore, it is lawful for police to register a case as provided under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. to investigate the same as per provisions of Cr.P.C. Section 154 of Cr.P.C. provides the officer of the police to register the case when information is received in respect of the cognizable offence and the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment of Lalita Kumari (supra) has categorically held that it is mandatory on the part of the police officer to register the FIR when he receives the information in respect of the cognizable offences. It is further clarified that if in such information is received and if any doubt with regard to taking place of cognizable offence then in order to confirm the same, the police officer has got right to hold the preliminary 64 enquiry and get it confirm, whether a cognizable offence is taken place, then register the case after the satisfaction. This aspect is also discussed by this Court in the judgment of Vivek and Another Vs. The State of Karnataka, by Kunigal Police Station, (2018) ILR(Kar) 1497. The other aspect I would like to make a mention that with regard to search and seizure is also concerned, it is clear under the special statute in the Act 1957 that the procedure laid down under Section 102 of Cr.P.C. has to be followed in respect of search and seizure and also Cr.P.C. is applicable even in a case has been registered under the special enactments. 33. It is well settled principles of law that if a special statute lays down the procedures, the law laid down under the general statutes shall not be followed. 33. It is well settled principles of law that if a special statute lays down the procedures, the law laid down under the general statutes shall not be followed. In a situation of this nature, the police could carry out investigations in exercise of the powers vested with them under section 154 of Cr.P.C. since the offence is cognizable one and this aspect has also been considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jeewan Kumar Raut (supra) in considering the offence in exercise of its authorization under Section 13(3) (iv) of TOHO. However, it is observed while doing so, it could exercise such powers which are otherwise vested in it. 34. The Apex Court in the judgment of State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Sanjay (supra), with regard to offence in respect of Section 378 of IPC and also the offence in respect of contraventions of the provisions of the Act 1957, has categorically held that both offences are distinct and different. 35. A cursory comparison of these two provisions with Section 378 of IPC would to go show that the ingredients are totally different. The contraventions of the terms and conditions of mining lease, etc. constitutes an offence punishable under Section 21 of the Act 1957, whereas dishonestly taking any movable property out of the possession of a person without his consent constitutes theft. Thus, it is undoubtedly clear that the ingredients of an offence of theft as defined in Section 378 of IPC are totally different from the ingredients of an offence punishable under Section 21(1) read with Section 4(1) and 4(1A) of the Mines and Minerals Act. In such a view of the matter, it is my considered opinion as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Institute of Chartered Accountants Vs. Vimal Kumar Surana s, (2011) AIR(SC)(Cri) 1 case, there can well be a prosecution for an offence under 67 Section 379 of IPC as well as under Section 21 of the Act 1957 simultaneously and the principles of double jeopardy shall not be a bar for such simultaneous prosecution. 36. Now, let us turn to the conditions requisite for initiation of proceedings as dealt with in Chapter XIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 36. Now, let us turn to the conditions requisite for initiation of proceedings as dealt with in Chapter XIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure. An offence under Section 379 of IPC is admittedly cognizable and, therefore, in respect of theft of sand from Government land, it will be lawful for the police to register a case, investigate the same and to lay a final report under Section 173(2) of the Code, upon which the jurisdictional Magistrate will be well within his jurisdiction to take cognizance as provided in Section 190(1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. To this extent, it is clear that there is no conflict between the Act 1957 and the Cr.P.C. and thus question of one 68 overriding the other does not arise. Therefore, in such cases, where the cases have been registered only under the provisions of IPC, more particularly, under Section 379 of IPC in respect of theft of sand, the question of quashing the FIRs or any subsequent proceedings does not arise at all. 37. Now, there are cases before this Court with regard to invoking of IPC Section and also invoking of the offence under Section 21 of the Act 1957 and contravention of Rules of KMMC 1994, the police not only registered the case under the IPC and also registered the case under the Act 1957. I have already pointed out that the offence invoking Section 21 of the Act 1957 is also cognizable and therefore, the police can register the case and investigate in terms of the paragraph 28 of the judgment in Jeewan Kumar Raut as 69 held by the Hon'ble Apex Court. It is well settled that in an occurrence from the offences which are non-cognizable in nature, if, cognizable offences have also been committed, it is absolutely necessary for the police to register a case in respect of the entire occurrence and to investigate the case. This legal position has been made clear by Section 155(4) of the Code. Under Section 190 of the Code, on a police report in respect of the offences of which some are cognizable and the others are non-cognizable, the Magistrate may take cognizance. This legal position has been made clear by Section 155(4) of the Code. Under Section 190 of the Code, on a police report in respect of the offences of which some are cognizable and the others are non-cognizable, the Magistrate may take cognizance. As provided in Section 21(6) of the Act 1957, an offence under sub-section (1) of Section 21 is cognizable and therefore, it is lawful for a police Officer to register a case as provided in Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and to investigate the same as per the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. But, the difficulty arises only in the matter of taking 70 cognizance. Section 22 of the Act 1957 prohibits taking cognizance being taken except upon a complaint in writing made by a person authorized either by the Central Government or the State Government. If the act of the accused constitutes exclusively an offence under the Act 1957, it goes without saying that the police officer on completing the investigation, cannot lay a final report because, on such report, the court cannot take cognizance in view of the bar contained in Section 22 of the Act. If the act of the accused makes out an offence under IPC as well as an offence under Section 21 of the Act 1957, the registration of the case under both the enactments is not illegal and the police can further investigate into such cases and file a final report confining to the offence under IPC alone. In respect of the offence under Section 21 of the Act 1957, it is for an authorized person to file a 71 complaint after investigation before the jurisdictional Magistrate, upon which, cognizance can be taken. 38. But in the cases before this Court, the conflict is between the Act 1957 and the IPC. When there is such a conflict between a special and a general law, indisputably, the special enactment will prevail over the general law. That is the reason why this Court inclined to hold that Section 22 of the Act 1957 will override Section 190 of Cr.P.C. and therefore, in respect of offence under the Act 1957, cognizance can be taken only on a complaint as provided in Section 22 of the Act 1957, and not on a police report. 39. That is the reason why this Court inclined to hold that Section 22 of the Act 1957 will override Section 190 of Cr.P.C. and therefore, in respect of offence under the Act 1957, cognizance can be taken only on a complaint as provided in Section 22 of the Act 1957, and not on a police report. 39. Now, I would like to refer to the notification issued by the Government of Karnataka dated 21.01.2014 and vide said notification, the government has designated total 72 fifteen officers/authorities and the jurisdiction and concerned departments authorizing the persons to initiate the proceedings. 40. The other contention of the petitioners' counsel is that the Authorized Officer means an officer not below the rank of Group 'B' authorized by the State Government or Commissioner or Director of Mines and Geology or Deputy Commissioner of the District to act for the specific purpose under these rules. The counsel relying upon these amendments taken place in 2017 and this is with regard to authorized by the State Government for the specific purpose under these rules and the word used in the Section 22 of the Act 1957, taking of cognizance upon complaint in writing made by a person authorized in this behalf by the Central Government or the State Government and the notification is issued by the 73 State Government by a notification dated 21.01.2014 and under the said notification, authorized persons are designated and they are permitted to initiate the proceedings and this Court also discussed with regard to cognizable offence is taken place under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. The other contention of the petitioners' counsel that the Section 23B of the Act, 1957 with regard to Power to search, is only by a gazetted Officer of the Central or a State Government authorized by the Central Government or a State Government in case of contravention of provisions of this Act or rules made there under in relation to such mineral is secreted in any place (or vehicle), he may search for such mineral, document or thing and the provisions of Section 100 of Cr.P.C. shall apply to every search. There is no dispute with regard to adding Section 23B of the Act, 1957, the same is in respect of search is 74 concerned and also on going through Section 23B of the Act, 1957, it is clear that if any mineral is secreted in any place or vehicle, the word used is, he may search for such mineral and not word is employed as he shall but the word used is he may, that too in respect of where the mineral is secreted and specific that the provisions of Section 100 of Cr.P.C. shall apply for such search and hence, there cannot be a bar to other officer to make search when a cognizable office is taken place and the notification dated 21.01.2014 and also specifically provides the power to conduct the authorized persons to initiate the proceedings and hence, the contention of the petitioners' counsel cannot be accepted. 41. Regarding filing of complaint by authorized person is concerned, while filing private complaint, law permits only to file 75 complaint once and there is no provision to file supplementary complaint and if Court is taking cognizance on police report, there is a provision under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. and additional charge sheet can be filed and the same can be considered, but no provision if it is on private complaint. Hence, it is impossible to file the complaint within 24 hours and hence, the Authorized Officer as per the notification can initiate the proceedings by setting the law in motion against the persons who indulged in commission of the offence under the general law and special law which are cognizable one and also under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. 42. This Court would also rely upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Linganagoud etc., wherein it is categorically held that: 76 "taking of cognizance is only after completion of the investigation and when such principle is laid down by the Apex Court that, stage of taking cognizance will arise only after investigation is completed and there is no bar to the investigation being carried out by the Lokayukta Police on the complaint in question particularly when the al legations include offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. While saying so, set-aside the impugned order passed by this Court quashing of the initiation of the proceedings by the Police". 43. While saying so, set-aside the impugned order passed by this Court quashing of the initiation of the proceedings by the Police". 43. This Court has already discussed in detail with regard to the provisions of Code under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. The police officer is the authorized Officer to initiate the proceedings when a cognizable offence is taken place and also pointed out that under Section 21(6) of the Act 1957, the offence is cognizable. If the offences under the special enactments are cognizable offences, the police can register a case and investigate the matter, but the bar is with regard to filing of final report and there is categorical bar under Section 22 of the Act 1957 for taking cognizance by the Court and the Court can take only cognizance based on the complaint filed by the authorized person and there is no any bar to investigate the matter when the cognizable offence has been taken place by the police officer, bar is only with regard to filing of final report and it is made clear that the police Officer can file final report in respect of offence under Section 379 of IPC and in view of the bar as envisaged under Section 22 of the Act 1957 and special enactment, the complaint has to be filed by the authorized person and Court can take cognizance only on the complaint filed by the authorized person. Hence, it is clear that the police can investigate the matter if cognizable offence is taken place irrespective of penal provisions whether under the special enactment or general law and the same can be made use of by the authorized person and stage of cognizance can only be taken after completion of the investigation as held by the Apex Court, there cannot be any bar to the Police Officer to initiate the proceedings and enquire into the matter. In this regard, I would also like to refer the judgment of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court reported in 2012 Crl.L.J. 1705, similar question was arisen and the matter was referred to the Division Bench and the Division Bench also held that the Police Officer can initiate the proceedings and investigate the matter but cannot file final report for the offence punishable in respect of special enactments. 44. 44. In view of the discussions made above, it is clear that the registration of the FIR is only to set the law in motion and if it is cognizable offence, Section 154 come into the aid of police officer to register the case. As I have already held that Section 21(6) of the Act 1957, offence under Section 21(1) is cognizable and therefore, it is lawful for the police officer to register a case as provided under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. and investigate the same as per the provisions of Cr.P.C. with respect to search and seizure under Section 102 of Cr.P.C. and under Rule 43 sub clause (5) to (8) as Amended and only difficulty arises only in taking cognizance in view of the bar under Section 22 of the Act 1957, which prohibits taking cognizance except upon a complaint. In view of the same, if an act of the accused constitutes offences under IPC as well as the provisions of the Act 1957, the registration of a 80 case both under the provisions of IPC and the Act 1957 is not illegal and the police may proceed with the investigation. However, the police shall file a police report only in respect of the offences punishable under the IPC and in respect of the Act 1957, the authorized person can file a separate complaint. In any event, if the police officer, files a final report in respect of the offences under IPC as well as under Section 21 of the Act 1957, the Magistrate may take cognizance of the offences under IPC alone and proceed with the trial and not for the offence under Section 21 of the Act. If the charge sheet filed for offence under the MMDR Act and Rules, the Courts can permit the Authorised persons to file separate complaint before the Magistrate and Court can take cognizance under Section 22 of the MMDR Act 1957. 45. In respect of offences under the Act 1957, the Court shall take cognizance only on a complaint filed by a person authorized in that behalf by the Central Government or State Government and not on a police report. 45. In respect of offences under the Act 1957, the Court shall take cognizance only on a complaint filed by a person authorized in that behalf by the Central Government or State Government and not on a police report. Hence, I am of the view that if any cognizable offence is taken place irrespective of whether the offences under the General Act or Special enactment, under Section 154 of Cr.P.C., the Police Officer who is authorized person is bound to register the case and proceed with the investigation and hence, the question of quashing of registering the cases for both the Act and the special enactment does not arise and the same is only setting law in motion and for investigation, the bar is specific under Section 22 of the Act 1957 is only for taking cognizance in respect of offences under the special enactment. Hence, the contention of the petitioners who have urged in all the petitions that there cannot be any registration of the case against both the offences cannot be accepted. The cases registered by the police for the respective offences as FIR cannot be quashed and the cases which are registered as CC cases based on the complaint as mentioned under Section 22 of the Special Act and hence, the Court has taken the cognizance based on the complaint. 46. In view of the discussions made above, this Court pass the following: ORDER (i) Criminal Petition Nos.101274 of 2018, 102059 of 2018, 102060 of 2018, 102061 of 2018, 102062 of 2018 and 102126 of 2018 are dismissed. (ii) Criminal Petition Nos.101815 of 2018, 101986 of 2018, 102023 of 2018, 102107 of 2018, 102122 of 2018 and 102281 of 2018 are dismissed since those crimes are registered and based on the complaint, the cognizance is taken in respect of the offences under the MMDR Act and Rules. (iii) In view of disposal of the petitions, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration, hence, they are also disposed of.