Karnataka High Court
S Muthaiah Ifs vs State Of Karnataka on 10 October, 2012
Author: H N Nagamohan Das
Bench: H.N. Nagamohan Das
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 10th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.N. NAGAMOHAN DAS
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 4858/2012 C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 4687/2012
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 4858/2012
BETWEEN :
--------------
S.MUTHAIAH , IFS
S/O SANNA SURAIAH
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
CONSERVATOR OF FOREST
(RESEARCH); DHARWAD
R/O No.1762, 'DATRI NILAYA',
1ST STAGE, 2ND CROSS ROAD,
SHRI SHIVAKUMARASWAMY
BADAVANE, OPP:ST.JOHN'S
HIGH SCHOOL,
DAVANAGERE- 577 005.
... PETITIONER
(By Sri.S.K.VENKATA REDDY, ADV.)
AND :
-------
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY CBI/ACB, BANGALORE-01. ... RESPONDENT
(By Sri.C.H.JADHAV, ADV.)
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
CR.P.C.BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING
THAT TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
SPL.C.C.No.116/2012 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE CITY CIVIL
AND S.J.& SPL.JUDGE FOR CBI CASES, BANGALORE CITY.
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 4687/2012
BETWEEN :
--------------
S.P.RAJU
S/O S.PAPAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
No.167, SRIGANDADAKAVAL,
GEOLOGY LAYOUT, NAGARBHAVI
II STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 072.
... PETITIONER
(By Sri.S.G.BHAGAVAN, ADV.)
AND :
-------
THE STATE BY
CBI/ACB,
BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
BELLARY ROAD, BANGALORE. ... RESPONDENT
(By Sri.C.H.JADHAV, ADV.)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
CR.P.C.BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING
THAT TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
SPL.C.C.No.116/2012 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE XLVI
ADDL.CITY CIVIL & S.J. & SPL.JUDGE FOR CBI CASES,
BANGALORE CITY.
3
THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
H.N.NAGAMOHAN DAS. J, PRONOUNCED THE
FOLLOWING;
ORDER
Petitioner in Crl.P.No.4858/2012 is Accused no.4 and the petitioner in Crl.P.No.4687/2012 is Accused No.6 in R.A.No.18(A)/2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 120- B, 420, 379, 409, 447, 468, 471, 477-A of IPC and Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1) (c) & (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. Accused No.4 is Conservator of Forest (Research) and Accused No.6 retired as Deputy Director, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Karnataka. During the relevant period 2009-2010 the accused were in service. The Supreme Court of India in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.7366-7367/2010 vide order dated 23.09.2011 directed the CBI to investigate certain illegalities committed by various persons in the matter of mining lease of M/s. Associated Mining Company. Accordingly, the case in RC 4 18(A)/2011 against 20 named persons and 21 unknown public servants and others came to be registered. In the course of investigation the CBI police arrested petitioners, investigated the matter and have now filed the charge sheet in Spl.CC. No. 116/2012. In the charge sheet it is alleged that these accused being the responsible officers, it was their duty to ensure that no illegal mining activities takes place in the area under their jurisdiction. But these accused failed to discharge their duties and intentionally connived with other accused persons and facilitated the lessee mining company to carry out illegal mining activities. These accused refused to take action when complaints were lodged with them with regard to the illegal mining activities. The stock verification certificates were issued by the accused without visiting the spot, accepted fake certificate produced by lessee company. The dereliction of duties on the part of the accused resulted in loss of crores of rupees to the State exchequer and has shaken the economy of the country.
5
3. Sri S.K.Venkatreddy, learned senior counsel for accused no.4 and Sri.S.G.Bhagwan, learned counsel for accused no.6 contends that the investigation is completed and there are no circumstances warranting the continuance of these accused in custody. The offences alleged against these accused are all punishable with the sentence is less than three years. These accused are permanent residents of Bangalore and are owning valuable immovable properties and are having reasonably good roots in the society. Due to continuance of accused in custody their families, children, aged parents are put to untold hardship, inconvenience and trouble. These accused will abide by any of the conditions imposed by this court.
4. Per contra Sri C.H.Jadhav, learned senior counsel for the respondent contend that the matter requires further investigation and therefore the continuance of accused in custody is necessary. The Supreme Court vide order dated 7.9.2012 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.562/2009 directed to hold further enquiry in the matter 6 and they have registered fresh cases against these accused. It is contended that in the investigation already done by the respondent police collected innumerable of documents and recorded the statement of number of persons. In the course of further investigation few more person's statement are to be recorded and evidence is to be collected. At this stage if accused are enlarged on bail the same will result in serious hamper for investigation.
5. Heard arguments on both the side and perused the entire petition papers.
6. Respondent Police submitted the charge sheet on 30.05.2012 . Para 27 and 29 of this charge sheet is relevant and the same is as under:
27. The role of other accused, who were named in the FIR namely previous partners of M/s Associated Mining Co. (A-3), M/s Associated Mining Co. (A-4), Shri V.Muniyappa (A-5), M/s Janadevi Minerals (A-8), M/s Lakshmi Aruna Minerals (A-9), M/s Eagel Traders and Logistics (A-10), M/s BR Yogendra Nath Mines (A-11), 7 M/s Bhakta Markandeshwara Minerals (A-12), M/s Divakar Minerals (A-13), M/s J.J.Impex (A-14), Smt.Shantha Lakshmi Jairam (A-15), M/s Brahmini Industries (A-16), M/s Vijaya Mining Infrastructure (A-17), M/s Eagle Traders (A-18), M/s.JSW Steels (A-
19), M/s.ILC (A-20), and the employees of Shri G.Janardhana Reddy (A-1) and M/s Devi Enterprises in which Shri M.Ali Khan was a partner (A-5 in the charge sheet), who had signed the production details of the illegally excavated iron ore, are being investigated and a further final report will be submitted to this court after the conclusion of further investigation.
28. In view of above, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to take cognizance of the offences against the accused Shri.G.Janardhana Reddy(A-1), Smt.Lakshmi Aruna (A-2), Shri M.E.Shivalinga Murthy (A-3), Shri S.Muthaiah(A-4), Shri M.Ali Khan(A-5), Shri S P Raju(A-6), Shri Mahesh Patil(A-7), for criminal offences punishable under Section 120-B, 420, 379, 409, 447, 468, 471, 477-A of IPC and under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1) (c) & (d) of PC Act 1988 and to issue process, in accordance with law, in the interest of justice and equity.
7. The Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.562/2009 vide order dated 7.9.2012 directed as under: 8
We have perused the Supplementary Report dated September 5, 2012 submitted by the CEC in continuance of its earlier report on the same issue dated April 27, 2012.
We accept the report and in light of the recommendations made in it we direct the CBI to immediately institute FIR(s) and to investigate the case(s) relating to the illegal extraction of about 50.79 lakh MT of iron ore from the forest areas of Karnataka during the period January 1, 2009 to May 31, 2010, the illegal transport of the aforesaid quantity of iron ore from the area(s) of extraction to Belekeri Port and from there its illegal export to other countries.
It may be noted at this stage that out of the aforesaid quantity of 50.79 lakh MTs which got illegally exported outside the country, over 8 lakhs MTs iron ore, found lying at Belekari Port was actually under orders of seizure by the Forest Department authorities and the court before it was exported in violation not only of different laws but in teeth of the seizure order. The investigation of the case of illegal export over
8 lakh MT iron ore while it was under order o seizure is recommended at sub-paragraph (IV) at page 14.
As recommended in the report of the CEC the CBI should institute FIR(s) as suggested in sub paragraphs (I) and (IV) at pages 12 and 14 respectively of the report and carry out thorough and intensive 9 investigation including, if so required, custodial interrogation of any accused.
At the same time, the CBI should also conduct preliminary inquiry as suggested in the report of the CEC in sub-paragraphs (II) and (III) at pages 13 and 14 respectively.
Let copies of the CEC reports dated April 27, 2012 and September 5, 2012, be given to the CBI that may form the basic material for institution of FIR(s). It will be open to the CBI to refer to the other reports of the CEC on the issue submitted earlier. Pursuant to the institution of the FIR(s) by the CBI as directed above, further proceedings in case no.189/2010 investigated by the CB, CIB, Karnataka, shall remain stayed. The CID, Karnataka shall hand over all records in regard to that case to the CBI. All Authorities and Agencies of the Government, including the Income Tax Department shall extend full cooperation to the CBI in its investigations.
It will be open to the CBI to take into account the reports of the Lokayukta as well.
10A preliminary report of the investigation should be submitted to the Court within six weeks from today.
If the CBI needs any clarification, it will be open to it to approach to this court in the matter.
It is made clear that no authority or court shall entertain any challenge to the CBI's investigation of the case(s) as directed by this court.
I.A.Nos.105, 106, and 108 & 109 in WP(C)562 of 2009. As prayed by Mr.Ram Jethmalani, learned senior advocate, put up these applications on September 24, 2012.
(underlining is by me)
8. Pursuant to the direction issued by the Apex Court in W.P.No.562/2009, the CBI has now registered cases as under:
Sl. Crime No. Date of Registered under the
No. registration offences punishable
a) RC 13(A)/2012 13.09.2012 Sections 120-B, 420, 379, 411,
447 r/w Section 13(2) r/w
13(1)(d) of Prevention of
Corruption Act, Section 21 r/w
4(1), 4(a) and 23 of the Mines
& Minerals (Development &
Regulation) Act, 1957 and
11
Section 24 of Karnataka Forest
Act, 1963.
b) RC 14(A)/2012 13.09.2012 Sections 120-B, 420, 379, 411,
447 r/w Section 13(2) r/w
13(1)(d) of Prevention of
Corruption Act, Section 21 r/w
4(1), 4(a) and 23 of the Mines
& Minerals (Development &
Regulation) Act, 1957 and
Section 24 of Karnataka Forest
Act, 1963.
c) RC 15(A)/2012 13.09.2012 Sections 120-B, 420, 379, 411,
447 r/w Section 13(2) r/w
13(1)(d) of Prevention of
Corruption Act, Section 21 r/w
4(1), 4(a) and 23 of the Mines
& Minerals (Development &
Regulation) Act, 1957 and
Section 24 of Karnataka Forest
Act, 1963.
d) RC 16(A)/2012 13.09.2012 Sections 120-B, 420, 379, 411,
447 r/w Section 13(2) r/w
13(1)(d) of Prevention of
Corruption Act, Section 21 r/w
4(1), 4(a) and 23 of the Mines
& Minerals (Development &
Regulation) Act, 1957 and
Section 24 of Karnataka Forest
Act, 1963.
9. In the above registered cases these accused are the prime accused. The matter is under investigation. The respondent police contends that more than 2000 crores worth iron ore was 12 illegally exported. Having regard to the nature of allegations, the involvement of the petitioners and that the matter is under further investigation and huge financial implications, I am of the considered opinion that this not a fit case to enlarge the accused on bail.
10. Admittedly, during the relevant period these accused were holding responsible positions in their departments. The statement of subordinate employees who worked under these petitioners are required to be recorded and some of the documents to which these accused are parties are required to be recovered. In the circumstances, the apprehension in the mind of respondent police that the accused may tamper with the witnesses and also hamper further investigation cannot be brushed aside. Therefore, the prayer of the accused is liable to be rejected. For the reasons stated above, the petitions are hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE.
DKB.