MMDR Act | Special Court Cannot Take Cognisance Of Offence, Application For Releasing Vehicle Will Lie Before Magistrate: Madras High Court

Justice Anand Venkatesh thus took a different view than what had been laid down by the full bench of the Madras High Court last year. The judge noted that the full bench though had observed that the power of confiscation was with the court and not any other authority, had then gone on to hold the special court as the court having such powers. However, noting that the judicial pronouncements of the Apex Court had clearly laid down the law, the court was not inclined to make a reference.

“This Court did ponder as to whether a reference ought to be made since the inconsistencies noticed were that of a judgment of a Full Bench of this Court, which would ordinarily bind this Court. However, the Court has been spared the task since the points involved are directly covered by the decisions of the Supreme Court. Where the decision of the High Court is not in consonance with the decisions of the Supreme Court the said decision would be per incuriam,” the court said.

The court was hearing a batch of petitions challenging the docket order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Thirupathur refusing to entertain applications for release of vehicle on the ground that such applications could be filed only before the Special Court.

The court noted that under the Mines and Minerals Act, the Special courts were established for speedy disposal of the cases but these courts could not take cognisance of an offence without an order of committal. This was because under Section 30-C of the Act, a Special court was deemed to be a court of session and as per Section 193 CrPC, a Sessions Court was barred from directly taking cognizance.

The court noted that as per Sections 21 (1) and 21(4-A) of the Act, the power of confiscation and disposal lied with the court competent to take cognisance of the offence and not the court competent to try the offence. The court noted that the Special Court under the Act, being a court of Session was not specially vested with the power to take cognisance of offences. Thus, unless there was an order of committal by the Magistrate, the Special court could not take cognisance of the offence.

The court also pointed out that as per Section 21(1) of the Act, the prosecution commenced through a complaint being filed by the authorised officer. Relying upon the pronouncements of the Supreme Court, the court observed that a complaint could be made only before the court of Magistrate.

Thus, the court underlined that the power to initiate confiscation proceedings and issue directions for release/disposal of the property under the Act was with the court and not any other authority. The court added that an application for release of vehicle would lie only before the jurisdictional Magistrate, being the court competent to take jurisdiction.

Advocate S. Thiruvengadam Secretary also assisted the court in the discussion.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.E.Kannadasan

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. A.Damodaran Additional Public Prosecutor

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 48

Case Title: Annadurai v The Inspector of Police