JUDGMENT : This appeal is filed challenging the judgment of conviction dated 3.1.2018 and order on sentence dated 4.1.2018 passed in Special Case No.318/2016, on the file of the Principal Sessions/Special Judge, Tumakuru, for the offences punishable under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’ for short), under Sections 4(1A) read with 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (‘MMRD Act’ for short) and under Sections 3 read with 181, 139, 192 and 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 3.9.2015 at about 4.30 p.m., the complainant Naveen Kumar, Police Constable, received the information from the P.S.I that some persons are indulging in loading the sand near Sondekoppa Government Tank and gave instructions to him to go to the said place and arrest the persons and seize the vehicle. Accordingly, at 5.30 p.m., the complainant in his two wheeler went to the spot and found that sand is being loaded to the lorry bearing registration No.KA41A5994. As the complainant was in uniform when he went to the spot, the persons who were indulged in loading the sand, on seeing him, ran away leaving the lorry at the spot. One Sri Pradeep Kumar, who came to the spot, did not identify the owner and also the driver, but he told that these persons were regularly indulging in loading the sand and transporting the same. Since the complainant knew to drive the lorry, he himself took the lorry to the station and gave the complaint. Based on the said complaint, case has been registered for the offences punishable under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code, under Sections 4(1A) read with 21 of the MMRD Act and under Sections 3 read with 181, 139, 192 and 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 3. The mahazar was conducted with regard to the seizure of the vehicle and also seizure of the sand. Thereafter, spot mahazar was also conducted and the statement of witnesses was recorded by P.W.6 after registering the FIR. P.W.8 is the Investigating Officer, who conducted further investigation and filed the charge sheet. Based on the charge sheet, the Trial Court took cognizance of all the offences and secured the accused and the accused did not plead guilty before the Special Court and claimed trial. 4. P.W.8 is the Investigating Officer, who conducted further investigation and filed the charge sheet. Based on the charge sheet, the Trial Court took cognizance of all the offences and secured the accused and the accused did not plead guilty before the Special Court and claimed trial. 4. The prosecution in order to prove the charges leveled against the accused, relied upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 8 and got marked the documents at Exs.P1 to 12. After the completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused was subjected to 313 statement and he did not choose to adduce any defence evidence and also did not get marked any documents. The Trial Court, after hearing the Special Public Prosecutor as well as the defence counsel, convicted the accused for all the offences. Hence, the present appeal is filed before this Court. 5. The main contention of the accused in this appeal is that inspite of the mahazar witnesses, independent witnesses and eyewitnesses, turning hostile, the Trial Court relying upon the official witnesses, particularly evidence of P.Ws.4, 5, 6 and 8, blindly convicted the accused accepting the version of the prosecution. It is alleged that driving licence of the police constable is not produced before the Trial Court to show that he was capable of driving heavy vehicle like lorry. The version of the prosecution that the P.S.I. sent the complainant alone to the alleged spot without accompanying him and also not sending any other police staff to the alleged incident spot, clearly shows that the story of the prosecution is concocted and intentionally false case has been registered against the accused. But the Trial Court completely overlooked this fact and committed grave error in convicting the accused, who is totally innocent of the allegation. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant in his argument vehemently contended that P.W.4 is not an authorized person to give the report that the same is sand. The learned counsel would also contend that mahazar witnesses i.e., P.Ws.1 to 3, who are the spot witnesses and as well as witnesses for seizure of the vehicle, have completely turned hostile. The other witness P.W.7, who came to the spot according to the prosecution at the time of seizing the lorry, also did not support the case of the prosecution. But the Trial Court erroneously accepted the evidence of P.Ws.4, 5, 6 and 8. The other witness P.W.7, who came to the spot according to the prosecution at the time of seizing the lorry, also did not support the case of the prosecution. But the Trial Court erroneously accepted the evidence of P.Ws.4, 5, 6 and 8. The evidence of these witnesses does not inspire the confidence of the Court to come to the conclusion that the charges leveled against the accused have been proved. 7. Per contra, Sri Thejesh P., the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State, would contend that in the cross-examination of witnesses – P.W.4, 5, 6 and 8, nothing has been elicited from the mouth of these witnesses that they are all inimical against the accused. When the same is not elicited from the mouth of the witnesses, the Court cannot disbelieve the evidence of these witnesses. The Trial Court appreciated the evidence of these official witnesses and there is nothing on record to come to any other conclusion. Even though the other witnesses have turned hostile, the credibility of the police witnesses and also other witness, Engineer who has been examined as P.W.4, cannot be disbelieved. The Trial Court rightly convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code, under Sections 4(1A) read with 21 of the MMRD Act and under Sections 3 read with 181, 139, 192 and 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act. There are no grounds to interfere with the judgment of conviction and order on sentence and hence prays this Court to dismiss the appeal. 8. Having heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and learned High Court Government Pleader for the State, the points that arise for the consideration of this Court are: (i) Whether the Trial Court has committed an error in convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code? (ii) Whether the Trial Court has committed an error in convicting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 4(1A) read with 21 of the MMRD Act? (iii) Whether the Trial Court has committed an error in convicting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 3 read with 181, 139, 192 and 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act? (iv) What order? 9. (iii) Whether the Trial Court has committed an error in convicting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 3 read with 181, 139, 192 and 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act? (iv) What order? 9. Before considering point Nos.(i), (iii) and (iv), it is appropriate to take up point No.(ii) with regard to the offence invoked under Sections 4(1A) read with 21 of the MMRD Act. Hence, I have taken up point No.(ii) at the first instance. Point(ii): 10. The police have filed the charge sheet against the accused both for the offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code as well as under MMRD Act and also under the Motor Vehicles Act. Under Section 22 of MMRD Act, there is a bar to take cognizance based on the complaint of the police and only an authorized person can file a complaint before the Court and only based on the said complaint, the Court can take cognizance. But in the case on hand, the records reveal that when the charge sheet has been filed for the offences under IPC as well as under Section 4(1A) of the MMRD Act and other offences punishable Under the Motor Vehicles Act, cognizance has been taken and the accused was subjected to trial. Hence, the very initiation of case in filing the charge-sheet against the accused for the Indian Penal Code offence and offence under the MMRD Act and subjecting the accused for the trial ignoring the specific bar under Section 22 of the MMRD Act, committed an error in taking cognizance and proceeded erroneously to consider the offence under the MMRD Act. 11. This Court would like to refer to the judgment of this Court in the case of RAVI ALIAS RAVINDRA AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in 2019(3) Kar.L.J. 33 , wherein it is held that if any cognizance is taken based on the police report, the very initiation of proceedings and continuing the proceedings against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 4(1A) of the MMRD Act, without filing separate complaint by an authorized officer, is erroneous and the same is illegal. Hence, the very initiation of proceedings under the MMRD Act for the offence punishable under Section 4(1A) without filing a separate complaint by an authorized officer, is erroneous and the same is liable to be set aside. Hence, the very initiation of proceedings under the MMRD Act for the offence punishable under Section 4(1A) without filing a separate complaint by an authorized officer, is erroneous and the same is liable to be set aside. Hence, the conviction passed for the offence punishable under Sections 4(1A) read with 21 of the MMRD Act is hereby set aside. Point Nos.(i),(iii)and(iv): 12. The factual matrix of the case is that the accused had indulged in loading the sand in the public tank bund area without any licence. When the information came to the SHO, immediately he gave instructions to P.W.5 to go to the spot and seize the vehicle. Accordingly, he went to the spot. It is evident from the records that he alone went to the spot in his two wheeler and standing at the remote place he found loading of sand and his case is that almost 75% of sand was loaded to the lorry and when he went to the spot in uniform, the accused ran away leaving the lorry at the spot. In the meanwhile, one Pradeep Kumar P.W.7 came to the spot and he also told P.W.5 that the said persons were repeatedly coming and loading the sand from the tank bund area, but he does not know the identity of the said persons. The prosecution in order to prove their case, examined P.W.7, but he did not support the case of the prosecution. He completely turned hostile. 13. In the cross-examination, a suggestion was made to P.W.7 that when he came to the spot, he found the persons who were loading the sand. It was further suggested that on earlier occasion also he had seen those persons loading the sand in the same spot and he gave the statement in terms of Ex.P11. The said suggestions were denied. 14. The prosecution also relied upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 who are the spot mahazar witnesses and also the witnesses for seizure of vehicle and they have turned hostile. In the cross-examination of these witnesses also it is suggested that mahazar was drawn. P.W.1 denies the drawing of the mahazar, but he identifies his signature available on Ex.P1(a). He claims his signature was taken near Kodigehalli Village and does not know the contents of mahazar Ex.P1. It is suggested that the said mahazar was drawn in the spot, and the same was denied. 15. P.W.1 denies the drawing of the mahazar, but he identifies his signature available on Ex.P1(a). He claims his signature was taken near Kodigehalli Village and does not know the contents of mahazar Ex.P1. It is suggested that the said mahazar was drawn in the spot, and the same was denied. 15. P.W.2 is the other witness to the mahazar in respect of Ex.P2. He also identifies his signature in respect of Ex.P2(a). He claims his signature was taken in the Police Station. He claims the lorry was not seized in his presence. He was also subjected to cross-examination. It is suggested that when the lorry was seized at the Police Station, mahazar was drawn; and he denies the same. 16. P.W.3 is the other mahazar witness in respect of Ex.P1. He also identifies his signature in respect of mahazar Ex.P1(b). He also claims that his signature was taken at Amruthur Village and the mahazar was not drawn at the spot. In the cross-examination, it is suggested that at the spot, mahazar was drawn in terms of Ex.P1, and after knowing the contents, he has signed the same. The same is denied. 17. Having considered the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, they did not deny their signatures, but they have denied the contents of mahazar Exs.P1 and 2. P.W.2 did not dispute his signature and he categorically says that his signature was taken in the Police Station. It is also the case of the prosecution that mahazar was drawn in the Police Station when the vehicle was seized. But P.W.2 says that in his presence the vehicle was not seized but he categorically says he has signed the mahazar in the Police Station. 18. The other witness is P.W.4 Engineer who gave report in terms of Ex.P4 for having valued the sand to 15.70 cubic meters, which costs about Rs.12,796/. It is his evidence that on 29.9.2015, Inspector of Amruthur Police Station sent the lorry bearing registration No.KA41A5994 loaded with sand to give his report. He examined the same and gave the report in terms of Ex.P4. In the cross-examination of P.W.4, it is suggested that he gave false report stating that on 1.10.2015, he has examined the sand and it is worth of Rs.12,796/, and the said suggestion was denied. He examined the same and gave the report in terms of Ex.P4. In the cross-examination of P.W.4, it is suggested that he gave false report stating that on 1.10.2015, he has examined the sand and it is worth of Rs.12,796/, and the said suggestion was denied. It is suggested that he did not receive any sand and also did not measure the sand and he gave the report, and the said suggestion was denied. 19. The other witness P.W.5 says that he went to the spot on the instructions of the Inspector of Police Station and found the lorry at the spot being loaded and the persons who were loading the sand ran away from the spot. He found the lorry bearing registration No.KA41A5994 at the spot and a person came to the spot i.e., P.W.7 and he did not give any details of the driver and owner of the lorry. But he told that they were regularly coming and loading the sand in the said public tank. He was aware of driving of the lorry and hence took the lorry to the Police Station and he gave the report in terms of Ex.P5. Based on his report, case has been registered and mahazar was drawn in terms of Ex.P2 in the Police Station regarding seizure of the vehicle and thereafter spot mahazar was conducted where he had seized the lorry in terms of Ex.P1. In the cross-examination of P.W.5, except making the suggestions that the lorry was seized when it was parked near land of Amruthur, nothing is elicited. Only denial is made during the crossexamination of P.W.5. 20. The other witness is P.W.6 – ASI who registered the FIR based on the report of P.W.5 and sent the FIR to the higher authorities and also to the Court and also drawn the mahazar in terms of Ex.P2 seizing of the vehicle from 6.30 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. and so also he recorded the statement of P.W.7 and other witnesses Jagadish and Bharath Kumar. It is also his evidence that he went to the spot on the next day and drawn the mahazar at the spot from 9.30 a.m. to 10.30 a.m. in terms of Ex.P.9. He also produced the photographs in respect of lorry, which was seized in terms of Exs.P6 to 9. 21. It is also his evidence that he went to the spot on the next day and drawn the mahazar at the spot from 9.30 a.m. to 10.30 a.m. in terms of Ex.P.9. He also produced the photographs in respect of lorry, which was seized in terms of Exs.P6 to 9. 21. In the cross-examination, it is suggested that P.W.5 did not produce any lorry before him and also he has not given any report, and the same was denied. It is suggested that on the next day at 11.00 a.m., the complainant brought the same and produced before him, and the same was denied. It is suggested that at the instance of the PSI, he has registered the false case against him, and the same was denied. It is also suggested that he is falsely deposing that mahazar was not drawn on the next day at the spot, and the same was denied. 22. P.W.8 is the Investigating Officer who conducted further investigation of the case. He deposed that the accused took the anticipatory bail and appeared before him and after obtaining the bail bond, he released him. He also deposed that the accused obtained the order from the Court for the release of the vehicle and he released the vehicle after obtaining the indemnity bond. It is also his evidence that the lorry was sent to PWD to measure the sand and to receive the sand and accordingly P.W.4 has given the report. The vehicle was released and while releasing the vehicle, photographs were taken in terms of Exs.P6 to 9. It is also his evidence that P.W.4 gave the report in terms of Ex.P.4. He was subjected to cross-examination. 23. In the cross-examination, it is suggested that he did not send the sand to PWD and Ex.P.12 was created for the purpose of this case. It is also suggested that he did not collect any material against the accused and he filed the false charge sheet. The said suggestions were denied. 24. The learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of BALDEV SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA reported in 2015 AIR SCW 6174 and contended that the evidence of police witnesses cannot be discarded merely on ground that they belong to police force. Paragraph No.17 of the judgment reads as under: “17. Paragraph No.17 of the judgment reads as under: “17. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., no plea has been taken that the appellant was not in conscious possession of the contraband. The appellant has only pleaded that he being falsely implicated and that a false case has been foisted against him in the police station. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant had not stated anything as to why would the police foist the false case against the appellant. It is to be noted that huge quantity of poppy straw was recovered from the possession of the appellant. Admittedly, the police officials had no previous enmity with the appellant. It is not possible to accept the contention of the appellant that he is being falsely implicated as it is highly improbable that such a huge quantity has been arranged by the police officials in order to falsely implicate the appellant.” 25. This Court would like to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of STATE, GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI v. SUNIL AND ANOTHER reported in 2000(7) SC 728, wherein it is held that it is an archaic notion that actions of the police officer should be approached with initial distrust. We are aware that such a notion was lavishly entertained during British period and policemen also knew about it. Its hand over persisted during postindependent years, but it is time now to start placing at least initial trust on the action and the documents made by the police. At any rate, the court cannot start with the presumption that the police records are untrustworthy. As a proposition of law the presumption should be the other way around. That official act of the police have been regularly performed is the wise principle of presumption and recognized even by the legislature. 26. This Court would also like to refer to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of BORAIAH ALIAS PUJARI BORAIAH v. STATE BY THALAK POLICE reported in ILR 2004 KAR 2531. It is held that the seizure panch independent witness turned hostile, but the prosecution relied upon the evidence of the Investigating Officer. 26. This Court would also like to refer to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of BORAIAH ALIAS PUJARI BORAIAH v. STATE BY THALAK POLICE reported in ILR 2004 KAR 2531. It is held that the seizure panch independent witness turned hostile, but the prosecution relied upon the evidence of the Investigating Officer. Upon consideration of the relevant material on record relating to recovery, the Court is of the considered opinion that there is absolutely no reason as to why the evidence of independent witness – public servant i.e., Investigating Officer should be disbelieved. The evidence of Investigating Officer disclosed that on getting information about the presence of the accused, he went to the said place along with the staff and arrested the accused. There is nothing on record to show that the Investigating Officer has got any axe to grind against the accused and that he has acted partially. 27. This Court would also like to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of RAMESH BHAI MOHAN BHAI KOLI AND OTHERS v. STATE OF GUJARAT reported in SCC (Cri) 2011 (3) 102. It is held that, merely because panch witnesses turned hostile is no ground to reject the evidence of Investigating Officer. It is not the case of the defence that testimony of Investigating Officer suffered from any infirmity. 28. This Court would also like to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of RAKESH AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF M.P. reported in 2011 (3) SCC (Cri) 803. In this judgment, the Apex Court has held that there was no proof that the Investigating Officer had any animosity or any kind of interested closeness to the deceased. The question of not believing his statement does not arise. 29. Having considered the principles laid down in the judgment referred supra and also considering the settled position of law, it is clear that the Court has to examine the evidence available on record with due care and caution when the penal provisions are invoked against the accused. No doubt in the case on hand, the mahazar witnesses P.Ws.1 to 3 have turned hostile. I have already pointed out that though the witnesses have turned hostile, they did not deny their signatures available on the mahazar, particularly Exs.P1 and 2. No doubt in the case on hand, the mahazar witnesses P.Ws.1 to 3 have turned hostile. I have already pointed out that though the witnesses have turned hostile, they did not deny their signatures available on the mahazar, particularly Exs.P1 and 2. But their evidence is that in their presence, the police have not drawn the mahazar. It is pertinent to note that in the cross-examination of P.Ws.5, 6 and 8, nowhere a suggestion was made to these witnesses that they were having any ill will against the accused to falsely implicate in the case. On perusal of the entire cross-examination of P.Ws.5, 6 and 8, even there is no single suggestion to that effect, except the general denial. Admittedly, the accused did not dispute the fact that he got released the vehicle through Court. It is also pertinent to note that the accused did not produce any documentary proof that he being the owner of the vehicle, was having the driving licence and also paid the taxes. Apart from that also, he did not place any material before the Court that he was having permit to run the lorry. It is the only defence in the cross-examination of P.W.5 that the vehicle was parked in the land of Amruthur and the same was seized in the said place and brought before the Police Station. 30. In the cross-examination of P.W.6 also it is suggested that on the very next day, the vehicle was brought to the Police Station and there is no explanation on the part of the accused as to how the vehicle had gone to the custody of P.W.5. It is the specific case of P.W.5 before the Court that when he went to the spot, the accused ran away leaving the lorry on the spot. It is not the case of the accused that when he had parked the lorry near the land of Amruthur, he had left the key in the vehicle itself. Nothing is suggested and elicited from the mouth of the official witnesses P.Ws.5, 6 and 8, in order to come to a conclusion that they were having any ill will against the accused to falsely implicate him. Nothing is suggested and elicited from the mouth of the official witnesses P.Ws.5, 6 and 8, in order to come to a conclusion that they were having any ill will against the accused to falsely implicate him. It is also important to note that in 313 statement of the accused, he has not given any explanation with regard to incriminating evidence available against him when P.Ws.5, 6 and 8, who have deposed before the Court. 31. It is also pertinent to note that the vehicle was seized on 3.9.2015 and lorry was sent to measure the sand which was available on the lorry on 1.10.2015. On the request of the Investigating Officer, P.W.4 being the Engineer of the PWD, measured the sand which was available in the lorry and also quantified the worth of the sand. It is also not in dispute that the vehicle was released through Court. It is also undisputed fact that the lorry pertains to accused only and he has not offered any explanation before the Trial Court. When such being the case, the principles laid down in the judgment referred supra by the counsel for the State is aptly applicable to the case on hand. Even in the cross-examination of P.W.4, PWD Engineer also, nothing is suggested and elicited that he was having any enmity against the accused. 32. Taking into consideration the evidence of P.Ws.4, 5, 6 and 8 who are the official witnesses, there is nothing on record to disbelieve their evidence. The evidence of the official witnesses inspires the confidence of the Court to come to the conclusion that the accused had committed the offence and he was indulging in transporting the sand by using his own lorry and no documents are placed on record with regard to his driving licence, permit and for having paid the tax. 33. Considering the material on record and also the reasoning given by the Trial Court, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Trial Court in convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC and so also offences invoked under the Motor Vehicles Act for having not possessed the driving licence, tax paid receipt and also permit to use the vehicle. When such being the case, I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court in convicting the accused for those offences, except erroneously taking the cognizance and proceeding for the offences punishable under Sections 4(1A) read with 21 of the MMRD Act. 34. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 4(1A) r/w 21 of the MMRD Act, is hereby set aside. (iii) The judgment of conviction and order on sentence for the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC and Sections 3 r/w 181, 139, 192 and 177 of Motor Vehicles Act, is hereby confirmed.