R.M.SIDDAROODASWAMY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though the matter is listed for admission, with the consent of both the parties, the same is taken up for final disposal. A case has been instituted against the petitioner by the Torangal Police for the offences punishable under Section 21.4(1) and (1a) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter called as 'the Act' for short). The institution of the case in C.C. No. 549/2006 by the police has been challenged on the ground that the complaint made by the police to the JMFC Sandur under Section 22 of the Act is liable to be set aside for the reason that the Torangal police are not authorized to make complaint to the Court. In support of the submissions, learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Abdul Samad Mulla & Another v. Government of Karnataka, 2007 3 AIRKarR 499, in which it has been held chat the authorized officer is only the officer who has been appointed by the Government under Section 22 of the Act.

(2.) I have heard both the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and gone through the judgment referred to by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The said judgment was followed by this Court in Crl.P. No. 8026/2009 disposed of on 08.12.2009 in the case of Murali Raju @ Murali v. P.S.I. Sandur, wherein at paragraph 5 of the judgment, it is observed thus: