BASAVARAJUKAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned HCGP.

(2.) In all the above said petitions, the respective petitioners approached this Court seeking quashing of the proceedings pending before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru in Spl.C.Nos.66/2017, 375/2016, 526/2017, 440/2017 and 58/2017 respectively for the offences punishable under the provision of Mines and Minerals (Development of Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short, 'MMRD', for the sake of convenience) and Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rule, 1994 (for short, 'KMMC Rules', for the sake of convenience) and also investigating under the provision of Sec. 379 of Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC' for the sake of convenience) and under Indian Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short 'MVA' for the sake of convenience) as noted in the cause title.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously contends that though learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru has taken cognizance of the offences after committal of the proceedings by the Jurisdiction Magistrate but, it is clear that Sec. 22 of MMRD Act, the Magistrate himself has no jurisdiction to take cognizance and commit the case to the Special Court for the offences punishable under the MMRD and KMMC Rules.