- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2181 CRL.RP No. 200086 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 200086 OF 2018 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SRI JAMBUNATHESWARA LOGISTICS REPRESENTED, BY SRI. KISHOR S/O DEVANNA, AGE:32 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. NEAR AMBEDKAR SCHOOL ROAD CIRCLE, HOSAPETE, BELLARY DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SHIVA KUMAR MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY, REPRESENTED BY ITS, SRI MUTTAPPA P., AGE:38 YEARS, OCC: GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, KOPPAL-583231. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI GOPAL KRISHNA YADAV, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W SEC. 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO, ALLOW THE REVISION PETITION BY CALLING THE RECORDS FROM THE LOWER COURT AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE LEARNED JMFC MANVI DATED:09.02.2015 IN C.C.NO.252/2008 AND CONFIRMED BY THE PRL. SESSIONS JUDGE RAICHUR BY JUDGMENT DATED: 20.09.2018 IN CRL.APPEAL NO.10/2015 AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE U/SEC. (1-A) OF SECTION 4 AND 21 AND 21 OF MM(D&R) ACT 1957. Digitally signed by SAMREEN AYUB DESHNUR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2181 CRL.RP No. 200086 of 2018 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH) 1. This revision petition is filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 09.02.2015 passed in C.C No.252/2008 by the Civil Judge, Manvi and its confirmation judgment and order dated 20.08.2018 passed in Crl.A No.10/2015 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge at Raichur, wherein the Trial Court convicted the petitioner / accused for the offences punishable under sub section (1-A) of Section 4 and under Sections 21 and 22 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short ‘MMDR Act). 2. The ranks of the parties in the Trial Court henceforth will be considered as per their rankings in the Trial Court. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2181 CRL.RP No. 200086 of 2018 Factual matrix of the case: 3. The case of the prosecution is that, on 06.05.2008, the respondent police had produced the lorry bearing No.AP- 22-V-702 along with iron ore which was checked by them and handed over to the department of complainant along with the letter stating that, the accused Nos.1 and 2 did not produce any permit and trip sheets to transport the iron ore. When the complainant came to know that the iron ore being illegally transported by accused Nos.1 and 2, a case came to be registered against the accused. 4. The Trial Court recorded the conviction against accused No.1 for the offences stated supra. Being aggrieved by the same, an appeal was preferred by the appellant. The Appellate Court dismissed the appeal. Hence, this revision petition. 5. Heard Sri.Shivakumar Malipate, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Gopal Krishna Yadav, learned HCGP for the respondent – State. 6. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that, the Trial Court took cognizance for the offences - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2181 CRL.RP No. 200086 of 2018 stated supra, however, the said Court is not a Special Court stipulated under Section 30-B of the MMDR Act. Such being the fact, the cognizance as stipulated under Section 22 of the MMDR Act ought not to have been taken by the Trial Court. Therefore, the order of taking cognizance cannot be sustained. However, both the Courts have committed error in passing such order, which is required to be set aside. Making such submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition. 7. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State vehemently justified the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court contending that the Magistrate has jurisdiction to try the offence as stated above. Hence, there is no irregularity in the order passed by the Trial Court. Therefore, the judgment and order passed by the Courts below are required to be upheld. Making such submissions, the learned HCGP for the respondent – State prays to dismiss the petition. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2181 CRL.RP No. 200086 of 2018 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the findings of the Courts below in recording the conviction, it appears from the record that, a private complaint was lodged by the authorized officer as stipulated under the MMDR Act before the Magistrate. The Magistrate registered a case and took cognizance of the offences as stated supra. The learned Magistrate recorded the conviction for the above said offences. Later, the petitioner was convicted. 9. Now, it is relevant to refer Section 22 of the MMDR Act, which read as under: “22. Cognizance 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 authorised in this behalf by the Central Government or the State Government.” 10. The above said provision deals with cognizance of offences. The Court shall take cognizance of the offences only on the complaint in writing made by the authorized person. 11. Further, it is also relevant to refer the provision under Section 30B of the MMDR Act, which read as under: - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2181 CRL.RP No. 200086 of 2018 “2[30B. Constitution of Special Courts.―(1) The State Government may, for the purposes of providing speedy trial of offences for contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A) of section 4, constitute, by notification, as many Special Courts as may be necessary for such area or areas, as may be specified in the notification. (2) A Special Court shall consist of a Judge who shall be appointed by the State Government with the concurrence of the High Court. (3) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as a judge of a Special Court unless he is or has been a District and Sessions Judge. (4) Any person aggrieved by the order of the Special Court may prefer an appeal to the High Court within a period of sixty days from the date of such order.]” 12. The above said provision deals with Constitution of Special Courts. Sub Section 3 states that, a person shall not be qualified for appointment as a judge of a Special Court unless he is or has been a District or Sessions Judge. Such being the fact, taking cognizance by the Magistrate, in my considered view, is contrary to the provisions of the Act. Hence, the order of taking cognizance is vitiated and judgment and order passed by the Courts below are liable to be set aside. 13. In the light of the observation made above, I proceed to pass the following: - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2181 CRL.RP No. 200086 of 2018 ORDER (i) The criminal revision petition is allowed. (ii) The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.02.2015 passed in C.C.No.252/2008 by the Civil Judge, Manvi and the judgment and order dated 20.09.2018 passed in Crl.A. No.10/2015 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge at Raichur, are hereby set aside. (iii) The petitioner is acquitted for the offences under Sections 4(1A), 21 and 22 of MMDR Act. (iv) Bail bonds executed, if any, stand cancelled. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE RSP/UN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 60 CT:PK