MALAY KUMAR BANERJEE` Vs. STATE OF W B

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision arises out of an order of taking cognizance of offences under section 21 (2) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, and under section 290/379/447 of the Indian Penal Code on a chargesheet submitted by the police under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) THE learned Advocate of the petitioner contended before this Court that in view of clear restriction contained in section 22 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, for the sake of brevity hereinafter referred to as the "said Act", taking cognizance of any offence punishable under the said Act on a complaint made by a person not authorized either by the central Government or State Government in that behalf is wholly without jurisdiction. In this connection he relied on a decision of this Hon'ble High court in the case of Sima Sarkar vs. State, reported in 1995 (1) CHN 1.

(3.) AGAINST such contention it has been submitted by Mr. Debabrata Roy, the learned Advocate of the State that since the chargesheet on which the cognizance was taken relates to the cognizable offences punishable under Indian penal Code as well as the offence punishable under Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, the said bar has no manner of application. He further submitted in any event this is at best an irregularity and does not vitiate the proceedings, thus no interference by this Hon'ble Court is called for. Lastly, Mr. Roy submitted that even if taking cognizance in respect of an offence punishable under the said Act is illegal the question of taking cognizance in respect of the offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code ought to be sustained.