Mining law bar on cognizance does not exclude theft prosecution; authorised complaint remains required for statutory offences.

Section 22 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 bars cognizance only for offences under that Act and its Rules; it does not prevent prosecution for distinct offences of theft under the Indian Penal Code or damage to public property where the ingredients differ. Excavated sand, once severed from the land, is movable property capable of theft, so cognizance for offences under IPC section 379 and the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act is maintainable. However, for contraventions of the mining statute itself, a Magistrate can take cognizance only on a complaint in writing by an authorised person, and a police report cannot substitute that complaint. The prosecution survives only to that limited extent.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether prosecution and cognizance for theft of excavated sand under the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act are barred by Section 22 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957; (ii) Whether cognizance for contravention of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 can be taken in the absence of a complaint by an authorised person.

Issue (i): Whether prosecution and cognizance for theft of excavated sand under the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act are barred by Section 22 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.

Analysis: The governing distinction is between contravention of the mining statute and the distinct offence of theft. Section 22 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 restricts cognizance for offences under that Act and the Rules made thereunder, but it does not bar investigation or prosecution for a separate offence under the Indian Penal Code. Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 permits prosecution for different offences under different enactments, subject only to the bar against double punishment for the same offence. Excavated sand, once severed from the earth, becomes movable property capable of being stolen. The earlier precedent relied upon for a contrary view was rejected and the later position was reaffirmed.

Conclusion: Prosecution and cognizance for offences under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 are maintainable and are not barred by Section 22 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.

Issue (ii): Whether cognizance for contravention of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 can be taken in the absence of a complaint by an authorised person.

Analysis: Section 22 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 creates a specific cognizance bar for offences under that Act and its Rules. In the absence of a complaint in writing by a person authorised by the Central Government or the State Government, a Magistrate cannot validly take cognizance for the statutory offences under Section 4 read with Section 21 of the Act. The police report cannot substitute the statutory complaint mechanism for those offences.

Conclusion: Cognizance under Section 4 read with Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 is invalid without authorisation, while cognizance for the Indian Penal Code and public property offences remains valid.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeds only to the limited extent that cognizance under the mining statute is impermissible without the prescribed complaint, but the criminal prosecution for theft and damage to public property survives.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 22 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 bars cognizance only for offences under that Act and does not preclude police investigation or prosecution for the distinct offence of theft under the Indian Penal Code where the ingredients of the offences are different.

---