Sand theft cases: police investigation may proceed, but cognizance under the Mines and Minerals Act needs an authorised complaint.

Sand theft can attract both the Indian Penal Code and the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act because the two offences have distinct ingredients, so the special Act does not exclude IPC prosecution. Police may register and investigate the matter when cognizable IPC offences arise from the same transaction, but cognizance of the Mines and Minerals Act offence cannot be taken on a police final report. For the statutory offence, Section 22 requires a written complaint by an authorised person; an authorised Inspector of Police may file such a complaint where valid government authorisation exists. The police report can sustain only the IPC offences.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 excludes the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in cases of sand theft; (ii) whether police may register and investigate cases where the alleged act attracts both the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957; (iii) whether a Magistrate may take cognizance on a police final report for offences under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957; (iv) whether a separate complaint by an authorised person is for cognizance of offences under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957; (v) whether the police could file a complaint under the authorised notification in Tamil Nadu.

Issue (i): Whether the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 excludes the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in cases of sand theft.

Analysis: The act alleged in the FIRs was theft of sand from Government land. The Court compared the ingredients of theft under Section 378 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 with the penal scheme under Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and held that the two offences are not the same. Since the statutory ingredients are distinct, the bar against double punishment does not prevent prosecution under both enactments. Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India and Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 do not exclude prosecution where the offences are different in law.

Conclusion: The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 does not exclude the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in such cases.

Issue (ii): Whether police may register and investigate cases where the alleged act attracts both the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.

Analysis: Section 21(6) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 declares the offence cognizable notwithstanding the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Court held that police may therefore register the case under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and investigate the occurrence as a whole when cognizable offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 are also alleged. The existence of the special Act does not prevent investigation of the cognizable Indian Penal Code offences arising from the same transaction.

Conclusion: Police may register and investigate such cases.

Issue (iii): Whether a Magistrate may take cognizance on a police final report for offences under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.

Analysis: Section 22 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 bars cognizance except upon a written complaint by an authorised person. The Court held that, although police may investigate cognizable offences, cognizance for the statutory offence under Section 21 of the Act cannot be taken on a police report. A police final report can sustain cognizance only for the Indian Penal Code offences, not for the Mines and Minerals Act offence.

Conclusion: Cognizance cannot be taken on a police final report for offences under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.

Issue (iv): Whether a separate complaint by an authorised person is necessary for cognizance of offences under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.

Analysis: The Court held that Section 22 of the Act mandates a complaint in writing by a person authorised by the Central Government or the State Government. Where the same facts disclose offences under both enactments, the police may file a report only for the Indian Penal Code offences, while the statutory offence under the Mines and Minerals Act must be pursued by a separate complaint from the authorised person. The Magistrate can then take cognizance on that complaint.

Conclusion: Yes, a separate authorised complaint is necessary for the Mines and Minerals Act offence.

Issue (v): Whether the police could file a complaint under the authorised notification in Tamil Nadu.

Analysis: The Court noticed the Government Order authorising Inspectors of Police to exercise powers under Section 21(4) and reasoned that, if such authorisation is in force, the Inspector of Police may file a complaint in the capacity of an authorised person under Section 22 of the Act after investigation. That complaint, and not a police final report, is the proper route for cognizance of the statutory offence.

Conclusion: Yes, an authorised Inspector of Police may file the complaint under Section 22.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered against the petitioners, the FIRs were held not liable to be quashed on the ground urged, and the matter was sent back for disposal in accordance with the answers given.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the same transaction discloses distinct offences under the Indian Penal Code and a special statute, police investigation is not barred, but cognizance of the special statute offence must comply with the special Act's complaint requirement if the statute so mandates.

---