Kulwant Kaur v. State of Punjab and Another

232          IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-49618-2017 (O & M) Date of decision: 15.03.2024

KULWANT KAUR ...PETITIONER V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER ...RESPONDENTS

CORAM:   HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present:  Ms. Jatinder Jit Kaur, Advocate for Mr. Ish Puneet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab. 0000

HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (ORAL) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter 'Cr.P.C.') seeking quashing of FIR No.178 dated 25.10.2017 registered under Section 21(1) Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter 'MMDR Act') at Police Station Ajnala, District Amritsar (Rural) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

2.    Succinctly, the facts are that the petitioner is the owner of 10-12 acres  of  land  in  village  Chhana,  Tehsil  Ajnala,  District  Amritsar.  The Authorised  Officer  (Mining),  Ajanala  marked  a  complaint  regarding  illegal supply  of  sand  to  the  SHO  from  the  Mining  Officer,  Block  Ajanala.  On reaching the spot, the police party found instances suggesting illegal supply of sand however, no mining was seen. A varma (machine used to mine sand in water), belonging to the petitioner, was found on the said land.

3.    Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the husband of the CRM-M-49618-2017 (O & M)  2  2024:PHHC:038884 petitioner, namely, Baldev Singh Sirsa is a social activist and has filed multiple petitions regarding illegal mining of sand, illegal occupation of panchayat land, plight of sugarcane farmers etc. Due to the nature of his work, he was falsely implicated in FIR No.77 dated 31.05.2015 registered at Police Station Ajnala, District Amritsar. The matter was duly enquired into by DSP (Investigation), Amritsar (Rural) and the husband of the petitioner was found innocent. The land adjoining the land of the petitioner was being illegally mined because of which, she could not use it and suffered loss. The petitioner had filed a suit for recovery  of  mesne  profits  and  damages  against  the  State  as  well  as  some private individuals for this reason.

4.    Learned  counsel  for  the  petitioner  further  contends  that  the MMDR  Act  specifically  provides  that  no  Court  can  take  cognizance  of  an offence under this Act, other than on a written complaint to the Court by the authorized officer, as such, the FIR could not have been registered in the first place. A perusal of the FIR (Annexure P-1) itself would indicate that the police did not witness any illegal mining happening on the said land.

5.    Short reply dated 15.03.2024 by way of an affidavit of Raj Kumar, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub-Division Ajnala, Amritsar (Rural) on behalf of respondent No.1-State has been filed and the same is taken on record.

6.    Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusing the  record  of  the  case,  it  transpires  that  the  police  party  did  not  find  any instances of illegal mining from the spot visit and only a varma, allegedly belonging to the petitioner, was found parked on the spot, which in itself does not  establish  commission  of  an  offence.  Further,  the  Court  is  barred  from taking  cognizance  of  commission  of  an  offence  under  Section  22  of  the MMDR Act, except if a complaint in writing is made on behalf of the Central CRM-M-49618-2017 (O   M!  3  2024:PHHC:038884 Government or the State Government. 1or proper disposa" of the case at hand, it is pertinent to discuss Sections %' and %% of the MMD2 Act 7hich read as fo""o7s:

¶21Penalties ― (1) Whoever contravenes the provisions 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.

(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 lakh 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 subsection (1) of section 4, such trespasser may be served with an order of eviction by the State Government or any authority authorized in this behalf by that Government and the State Government or such authorized 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 be disposed of in accordance with the directions of such court.

(5) Whenever any person raises, without any lawful authority, any MANISHA CRM-M-49618-2017 (O   M!  4  2024:PHHC:038884 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. Explanation – On and from the date of commencement of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2021, the expression "raising, transporting or causing to raise or transport any mineral without any lawful authority" occurring in this Section, shall mean raising, transporting or causing to raise or transport any mineral by a person without prospecting licence, mining lease or composite licence or in contravention of the rules made under Section 23C.

¶22Cognizance of offences ― No court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act or any rules made thereunder except upon complaint in writing made by a person authorized in this behalf by the Central Government or the State Government. Under Section 21(4A), any vehicle seized under sub-section (4) is liable to be confiscated by an order of the court competent to take cognizance of the offence. ).    1urthermore,  Section  #'  of  the  Indian  Pena"  &ode  read  7ith Section # +%. of the &ode of &rimina" Procedure +hereinafter referred to as &r.P.&.. provides that a"" offences under an6 other "a7 are to  e investigated, intiuired into and other7ise dea"t 7ith in accordance 7ith the provisions of the said, ,specia" "a7- in so far as the6 are not repugnant to the &ode. A  are perusa" of the aforesaid provisions "eads to on"6 "ogica" interpretation that  6 enacting the provisions of MMD2 Act, the provisions of Indian Pena" &ode are e>press"6 CRM-M-49618-2017 (O & M)  5  2024:PHHC:038884 excluded. Section 22 of the MMDR Act  makes it abundantly clear that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence under this Act except on a complaint made by any officer authorized in this behalf by the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be. Section 2 (d) of Cr.P.C. defines the term 'complaint' as any oral or written allegation made to a Magistrate with a view to taking action under the Code. The definition as provided under Section 2 (d) of the Cr.P.C. does not include a police report, which is further defined in Section 2 (r) of Cr.P.C., which means a report forwarded by the Police Officer to  a  Magistrate  under  sub-section  2  of  Section  173  Cr.P.C.  The  statutory scheme under the MMDR Act and the Cr.P.C. provides that the prosecution under the MMDR Act can only be launched by way of a complaint case and an FIR cannot be registered under the provisions of the MMDR Act. Therefore, the impugned FIR and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are void ab initio and are liable to be quashed.

8.    Since, the MMDR Act is a special statute and it is trite law that if a special enactment lays down the provisions regarding procedure that must be adopted  for  investigation  and  adjudication  of  an  offence  that  falls  in  its purview, general provisions of the IPC or the Cr.P.C. will not be attracted. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jeewan Kumar Raut and another versus C.B.I (2009) 7 SCC 526 and  this  Court  in  Ajay  Kumar  Sandhu  vs.  State  of  Haryana  in  CRM-M-29708-2014. A Three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Delhi Administration Vs. Ram Singh AIR 1962 SC 63 has held that when the power to investigate has been exclusively bestowed upon a special person/body then only the authorized person can conduct investigation. Speaking through Justice Raghubar Dayal, the following has been held: "22.  If  the  power  of  the  special  police  officer  to  deal  with  the CRM-M-49618-2017 (O   M!  6  2024:PHHC:038884 offences under the Act, and therefore to investigate into the offences, be not held exclusive, there can be then two investigations carried on by two different agencies, one by the special police officer and the other by the ordinary police. It is easy to imagine the difficulties which such duplication of proceedings can lead to. There is nothing in the Act to coordinate the activities of the regular police with respect to cognizable offences under the Act and those of the special police officer.

¶23The special police officer is a police officer and is always of the rank higher than a Sub-Inspector and therefore, in view of Section 551 of the Code, can exercise the same powers throughout the local area to which he is appointed as may be exercised by the officer in charge of a police station within the limits of his station.

¶24We are therefore of opinion that the special police officer is competent to investigate and that he and his assistant police officers are the only persons competent to investigate offences under the Act and that police officers not specially appointed as special police officers cannot investigate the offences under the Act even though they are cognizable offences. The result is that this appeal by the Delhi Administration fails and is hereby dismissed."

(. Simi"ar"6,  the  :on- "e  Supreme  &ourt  in  U+)%+  %&  I+')"  6*- A*7%8 .9:"; 37";:" "+' %#7$;* 2021 C;)/J 2006 has categorica""6 he"d that under a specia" statute "i/e Drugs and &osmetics Act, '(#5, as per the provisions of Section *% of the said Act read 7ith the scheme of the &r.P.&., a po"ice officer cannot prosecute an offender in regard to such offence even if the6 are cogni=a "e offences and the persons authori=ed under Section *% of the Act are entit"ed to do the same. As such, the ver6 registration of the 1I2 +supra. is  ad in the e6es of "a7, as cogni=ance of an offence under the MMD2 Act can on"6  e ta/en upon a crimina" comp"aint. '5.    !his &ourt is of the vie7 that the ver6 registration of 1I2 +supra. is  ad in the e6es of "a7 as per the statutor6 provisions of the MMD2 Act. &ogni=ance of an offence under the said Act can on"6  e ta/en up on a crimina" CRM-M-49618-2017 (O & M)  7  2024:PHHC:038884 complaint filed by the officer authorized under the MMDR Act in this regard. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the police has no power either to investigate, prosecute or deal with any offence either under the MMDR Act.

11.    In view of the discussion above, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.178 dated 25.10.2017 registered under Section 21(1) Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter 'MMDR Act') at  Police  Station  Ajnala,  District  Amritsar  (Rural)  and  all  subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. Hence, the present petition is disposed of accordingly.

12.    Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

(HARPREET SINGH BRAR) March 15, 2024              JUDGE manisha

(i)  Whether speaking/reasoned      Yes/No

(ii)  Whether reportable        Yes/No