K. V. Nagaraj @ Swastik Nagaraj vs State By Lokayuktha Police on 4 November, 2020

[Cites 10, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

K. V. Nagaraj @ Swastik Nagaraj vs State By Lokayuktha Police on 4 November, 2020

Bench: John Michael Cunha

                         1



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

 DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020

                     BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA

   WRIT PETITION NO.37094/2018 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN

K.V. NAGARAJ @ SWASTIK NAGARAJ
S/O. LATE K. GOPAL SETTY,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
DIRECTOR, M/S.SWASTIK STEEL
HOSPET PVT. LTD.,
R/AT 8TH CROSS, M.J. NAGAR,
GEETA GOPAL MANSION,
HOSPET-583 201.             ...        PETITIONER

(BY SRI. R. NAGENDRA NAIK, ADV.)

AND

STATE BY LOKAYUKTHA POLICE
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION TEAM
FOR MINING CASES, UAS CAMPUS,
HEBBALA, BENGALURU,
REPRESENTED BY
SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU-560 024.                 ... RESPONDENT


(BY SRI. B.S. PRASAD, SPL.PP AND
    SRI VENKATESH S. ARBATTI, SPL. PP. )

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH
SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS IN SPL.CC NO.471/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE
                             2



XXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND
SPECIAL JUDGE FOR LOKAYUKTHA CASES, BENGALURU
AND TO QUASH THE SAID PROCEEDINGS, ETC..

     THIS  WRIT   PETITION    COMING  ON   FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THROUGH VIDEO
CONFERENCE/PHYSICAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                        ORDER

Sri. B.S. Prasad, learned Standing Counsel takes notice for Lokayuktha Police (SIT for Mining Cases). He is permitted to file Vakalath/Memo of Appearance in the office.

2. This petition is filed by Accused No.25-K.V. Nagaraj @ Swastik Nagaraj seeking to quash the proceedings registered against him in Special C.C. No.471/2016 arising out of Crime No.1/2014, now pending on the file of XXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge at Bengaluru (CCH-

82) (Special Court exclusively to deal with the cases registered by Lokayuktha Police under the Prevention of Corruption Act).

3. The allegations against the petitioner (Accused No.25) are that, the petitioner along with his employee 3 Sri.Mohammed Muneer opened a firm by name M/s. Shafia Minerals. Affairs of the said firm were looked after by the petitioner. It is alleged that, by entering into a conspiracy with the aforesaid Mohammed Muneer, petitioner purchased 7000 Metric Tons of Iron Ore from Sri. Shyam Naik in the name of M/s. Shafia Minerals and sold the same on the strength of fabricated documents without payment of requisite royalty to the Government and thereby caused loss of Rs.96,40,556/- to the State Exchequer and thereby committed offence punishable under Sections 379, 420, 409, 471, 120(B) of IPC and Section 21 read with 4(1) & 4(1)(A) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short, 'MMDR Act').

4. The primary contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the material allegations are levelled against the firm-M/s. Shafia Minerals. As per the charge sheet, the transaction was entered into by M/s. Shafia Minerals. Therefore, the firm having not been made as a party, the prosecution of the petitioner is not legal and tenable. 4

5. The said contention, in my view, is misconceived and unsustainable. The allegations made in the charge sheet proceeds on the basis that, the transactions of the firm were being carried on by the petitioner himself. Further, there are specific allegations that the petitioner entered into a criminal conspiracy with his employee and in furtherance of the said conspiracy, purchased 7000 Metric tons of Iron Ore, which in turn was sold by him, by fabricating false documents without valid permit and without payment of requisite royalty and fees to the State Exchequer. These allegations in my view squarely attract the ingredients of the offences charged against the petitioner. As the charge sheet is laid against 38 accused persons alleging conspiracy and the petitioner herein also having played his role in the larger conspiracy, in my view, the trial Court was justified in taking cognizance of the alleged offences and issuing process to the petitioner.

6. As a result, I do not find any justifiable ground to interfere in the matter. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE KGR*

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court