Bandipora, Apr 22: A local court in Bandipora has acquitted an accused in an illegal mining case, holding that prosecution under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act cannot proceed without a mandatory complaint by an authorised officer.
The Additional Sessions Court in Bandipora has acquitted Imtiyaz Ahmad Bhat in a case registered under the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, ruling that the prosecution was vitiated due to the absence of a mandatory complaint by an authorised officer, a legal prerequisite for taking cognisance of offences under the Act.
The order was passed by Additional Sessions Judge Bandipora, Mir Wajahat who was designated as Special Judge for offences under the MMDR Act, in connection with FIR No. 10/2026 registered at Police Station Sumbal. The case also involved offences under Section 169(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 5/192 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
The court held that proceedings against the accused could not be sustained as the statutory requirement under Section 22 of the MMDR Act—mandating a written complaint by an authorised officer—had not been fulfilled.
It ruled that a police report could not substitute such a complaint, and therefore, cognisance taken based on the charge sheet was legally untenable.
According to the prosecution, the case originated from a written communication dated January 14, 2026, by the District Mineral Officer (DMO), Bandipora, alleging illegal extraction of minerals.
Acting on this, police registered an FIR and conducted an investigation, following which a charge sheet was filed before the Special Court. Statements of witnesses were recorded and material evidence collected during the investigation.
During the proceedings, the defence through Advocate Irshad Ahmad Dar raised a legal objection at the stage of charge, arguing that the entire prosecution was invalid as no formal complaint had been filed by an authorised officer as required under the MMDR Act.
The prosecution, represented by the Additional Public Prosecutor, contended that the DMO was an authorised officer and that the communication addressed to the police, followed by registration of FIR and investigation, satisfied the legal requirements.
The court framed the issue as a question of jurisdiction and examined whether it could take cognisance of the offence based on a police report in the absence of a statutory complaint.
It noted that Section 22 of the MMDR Act explicitly bars courts from taking cognisance of offences punishable under the Act except upon a complaint made by an authorised officer.
In its analysis, the court observed that the communication sent by the DMO to the police could not be treated as a complaint in terms of the law. It held that such communication merely initiated the investigative process and did not fulfil the statutory condition required for prosecution.
The court further clarified that a complaint must be made to a Magistrate or Special Court with a view to initiating judicial proceedings, and not merely to the police for registration of an FIR.
The court also examined the interplay between the MMDR Act and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), noting that while police are empowered to investigate cognizable offences, the special provisions of the MMDR Act override general procedural law when it comes to taking cognisance. It held that compliance with Section 22 is a condition precedent and not a procedural formality that can be cured at a later stage.
Relying on judicial precedents, including rulings of the Supreme Court, the court reiterated that offences under the MMDR Act are complaint-based and require strict adherence to statutory provisions.
It stated that allowing prosecution based solely on police reports would defeat the legislative intent of maintaining regulatory control over mining activities through designated authorities.
The court further observed that the limitation period for filing a complaint under the applicable rules begins from the date of the alleged offence and not from the date of registration of the FIR. It noted that even if a complaint were to be filed subsequently, it must comply with the prescribed limitation period and procedural requirements.
Concluding that the foundational requirement for invoking jurisdiction had not been met, the court discharged the accused from the offences under the MMDR Act. It clarified that the acquittal was based on legal grounds and not on an assessment of the merits of the allegations.
With respect to the offences under the Motor Vehicles Act, the court directed that the relevant part of the charge sheet be transmitted to the court of the jurisdictional Magistrate for appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.
The court also ordered that the bail bonds furnished by the accused stand discharged and that the case record be consigned to the record room after completion of necessary formalities. (KNS)
