Karnataka High Court
M/S. Bhagawathi International vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 19 June, 2019
Author: P.S.Dinesh Kumar
Bench: P.S. Dinesh Kumar
1
CRL.P. NO.1243/2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1243 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
1. M/S. BHAGAWATHI INTERNATIONAL
NO. 3793, MCC "B" BLOCK
DAVANGERE-577 004
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER
SRI. A.M. MANJUNATH
2. SRI. SANTOSH B. N. @ TAKAPPA
S/O. LATE NAGANNA B
HOUSE NO. 3793, MCC "B" BLOCK
DAVANGERE-577 004 ... PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI. MURTHY D. NAIK, ADVOCATE)
AND:
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
ANTI CORRUPTION BRANCH
GANGANAGAR, BELLARY ROAD
BENGALURU-560 032 ... RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI. P. PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 31.01.2019 AT
ANNEXURE-A PASSED IN I.A.NO.3 IN SPL.C.C.NO.14/2014 ON THE FILE
OF XXXII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CBI CASES,
BENGALURU AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS
U/S 91 OF CR.P.C. AT ANNEXURE-B.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
2
CRL.P. NO.1243/2019
ORDER
This petition is directed against order dated 31.01.2019 in Spl.C.C.No.14/2014 passed by the XXXII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI cases rejecting petitioners' application filed under Section 91 of Cr.P.C.
2. Petitioners have filed an application under Section 91 Cr.P.C with the following prayer:
"Direct the Investigating Officer of this case to produce all the original permits and forest passes produced by the Accused No.2 during the course of investigation that are referred to in both the letters dated 08.04.2010 which have been produced by the CBI on 13.11.2018 before this Court."
3. CBI contested the said application contending that petitioners had not produced the original mineral dispatch permit and forest passes to the Port Authorities for verification.
4. Shri Murthy D.Naik, learned advocate for the petitioners strongly relied upon letter No.Bhoomi/CR-03/20 3 CRL.P. NO.1243/2019 08-09 dated 08.04.2010 written by the Port Authority to the Forest Department and a letter of the same date written by the Port Authority to the Port Conservator. He argued that said letters clearly indicate that petitioners had annexed original dispatch permits and forest passes. Therefore, logically, the said documents shall be in the custody of CBI. Accordingly, he argued that dismissal of petitioners' application is erroneous and prayed for allowing this petition.
5. Shri P.Prasanna Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the CBI contended that it is the specific case of the CBI that petitioners had not produced the said documents at any point of time. Similar application was filed in October 2018 and CBI contested the said application by filing objections on 13.11.2018. The specific stand taken by the CBI all through-out is that petitioners have not submitted the original dispatch permits and forest passes. He submits that the said documents are not in the custody of CBI and therefore, no exception can be taken to the order passed by the learned trial Judge.
4CRL.P. NO.1243/2019
6. I have given my careful consideration to the rival submissions and perused the records.
7. In substance, petitioners' case is that dispatch permits and forest passes were submitted by them to the Port Authorities which find reference in the aforementioned letters dated 08.04.2010. Therefore, the documents must be in CBI's custody as all files pertaining to petitioners were seized by the CBI. Therefore, logically, the documents must be available with CBI. The petitioners have placed reliance on the communications between Port Authority and Forest Department; and Port Authority and Port Conservator in support of their argument. In paragraph No.3 of the statement of objections, the CBI have averred that the petitioners have not produced the original permits and passes before the forest authorities but produced only attested copies. It is further averred that copies were attested by an advocate and notary by name Shri Satyavijay H.Nayak, of Ankola.
8. Learned trial Judge has accepted CBI's contention that the original documents are not available with the Investigating Officer and held that CBI cannot be compelled to 5 CRL.P. NO.1243/2019 produce the said documents. The stand taken in statement of objections dated 13.11.2018 and 25.01.2019 filed by the CBI to the applications moved by the petitioner is consistent that petitioners have not produced dispatch permits and forest passes to the port authorities for verification. In that view of the matter, no exception can be taken to the order passed by the learned trial Judge in rejecting the application.
9. Resultantly, this petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed.
No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE Yn.