Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: ommc rules in Munu @ Manoranjan Samantaray vs State Of Odisha .... Opp. Party on 18 October, 2023Matching Fragments
th 18 October, 2023 SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.
All four applications are filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and involves a common question of law. The facts, involved are also similar. Hence, all four cases were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. The sole point that falls for consideration before this Court is, whether the jurisdictional police has the authority to register FIR against any person for the offence under Rule 51 of Odisha Minor Mineral Concession Rule, 2016 (OMMC Rules) and /or Section 12 of the Odisha Minerals (Prevention of Theft, Smuggling and other Unlawful Activities) Act, 1988 (OMPTS Rules).
7. Heard Mr. P.C.Jena, learned counsel for the petitioners in all these cases and Mr. S.K.Mishra, learned Additional Standing counsel for the State.
8. It is argued by Mr. Jena that, firstly, that the jurisdictional police have no authority to launch a prosecution against any person alleged to have committed any offence under the OMPTS Act and OMMC Rules. Mr. Jena has referred to Section 14 of the OMPTS Act to submit that no Court can take cognizance of any offence punishable under the Act except on a complaint in writing made by a police officer not below the rank of Sub- Inspector or the person authorized by the Government. Mr. Jena has also referred to Rule 51 of the OMMC Rules which contains similar provision. He therefore, argues that the very basis of the prosecution is without authority and hence, cannot be allowed to continue. Mr. Jena, further argues on merits that no case is made out against the petitioners, prima facie, justifying the continuance of investigation against them.
(a) a Police Officer not below the rank of a Sub-Inspector; or
(b) any person authorised in this behalf by the Government."
11. It is clear that the legislature has provided for lodging of complaint by the police officer of the appropriate rank or by an officer specially authorized by the State Government. It is needless to mention that the procedure to be adopted in a complaint case is different from that arising out of information given to police. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that the jurisdictional police would have no authority to launch prosecution by registering an FIR under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. In this context, it has been argued on behalf of the petitioners that if such would be the finding of this Court then the entire proceeding has to be quashed because the alleged transaction being one and the same, more than one offence cannot be deemed to have been committed. It is further submitted that the alleged offence of Section 12 of the Act and Rule 51 of the OMMC Rules include the offences of Sections 379/411 and other IPC offences. Therefore, once the proceeding is held to be invalid for lack of jurisdiction of the police to prosecute the accused persons under the provisions of OMPTS Act and OMMC rules, there is no option but to quash the entire proceedings as otherwise it would tantamount to double jeopardy for the accused persons.
13. Thus, there can be no dispute as regards the authority of the jurisdictional police to continue with the investigation in respect of the IPC offences even if it is held that it has no authority to investigate the offences under the OMPTS Act and OMMC Rules.
14. Be it noted here that Section 22 of the MMDR Act is in pari materia with Section 12 of the OMPTS Act and OMMC Rules and therefore, the ratio of Sanjay(Supra) would be applicable to the facts of the present case.
15. Thus, from a conspectus of the analysis of facts and law involved in the cases as narrated hereinbefore, this Court is of the view that the proceeding initiated against the petitioners on the basis of the FIRs lodged by the jurisdictional police alleging commission of offences under Section 12 of OMPTS Act and Rule 51 of OMMC Rules, as the case may be, are invalid and therefore, cannot be allowed to continue. This Court further holds that notwithstanding such findings the proceedings in respect of the IPC offences on the basis of the same FIRs, which are distinct offences, are to be treated as valid as there is no embargo in law to prevent the same being investigated upon.