Absence of written complaint by authorized officer precludes cognizance of offences under the MMDR Act.

The applicant challenged an order dated 27.02.2024 passed by the Special Judge (MMRD) and 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Devbhoomi Dwarka in Sessions Case No. 108 of 2022

The lower court had rejected the applicant’s discharge application (Exhibit 15) regarding offences alleged under Sections 4, 12, 22, and 23 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act), Rules 3 and 21 of the Gujarat Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017 (GMPIMTS Rules), and Section 379 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)

The applicant contended that the court could not take cognizance of the MMDR Act offences without a valid authorized written complaint

1. Whether the Special Judge could validly take cognizance of and refuse discharge for offences under the MMDR Act and GMPIMTS Rules in the absence of a written complaint by an authorized officer as required by statute

2. Whether the rejection of the discharge application was sustainable regarding the IPC offences despite the procedural infirmity regarding the MMDR Act charges

The court primarily applied Section 22 of the MMDR Act, which mandates that no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under the Act except upon a complaint in writing made by a person authorized by the Central or State Government

It relied on the precedent set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kanwar Pal Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (2020) 14 SCC 331, which establishes that prosecution and cognizance under Section 21 read with Section 4 of the MMDR Act are invalid and unjustified in the absence of such specific authorization

The Court observed a contradiction in the lower court's reasoning; the Special Judge acknowledged that cognizance under Section 22 of the MMDR Act requires a written complaint per settled law, yet proceeded to reject the discharge application in its entirety without addressing how that requirement was met

Following the ratio in Kanwar Pal Singh, the High Court determined that the proceedings regarding the MMDR Act and GMPIMTS Rules were legally unsustainable due to the lack of proper authorization/complaint

However, the Court distinguished the IPC charges, noting that the procedural bar under Section 22 of the MMDR Act does not preclude the jurisdictional court from taking cognizance of theft under Section 379 of the IPC

The court quashed the consequential proceedings and warrants related to those specific sections but upheld the authority of the jurisdictional court to proceed with the charge under Section 379 read with Section 114 of the IPC

Liberty was granted to the competent authority to initiate fresh proceedings under the MMDR Act in accordance with the prescribed legal procedure