Bangalore District Court
Unknown vs No.1: M/S. Daksh Minerals & Marine on 30 March, 2016
IN THE COURT OF XVII ADDITIONAL CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE.
(SPL.COURT FOR CBI CASES)
-: Present :-
SABAPPA.,B.COM., LL.B (SPL.)
XVII ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE.
C.C.No.20167/2015
30TH DAY OF MARCH, 2016
COMPLAINANT :
State by Inspector of Police,
Central Bureau of Investigation,
Economic Offences Wing,
Chennai.
[By learned Public Prosecutor, Bangalore.]
/ Versus /
ACCUSED NO.1: M/s. Daksh Minerals & Marine
Pvt. Ltd., Represented by Nimesh
Dhirajlal Vora, No.509/Town
Centre, Andheri Kurla Road,
Sakinaka, Andheri (E), Mumbai.
ACCUSED NO.2: Nimesh Dhirajlal Vora,
S/o Late Dhirajlal Navindhrandra
Vora, Aged about 40 years,
Director, Daksh Minerals &
Marine Pvt. Ltd., R/o No.7, Neem
Chayya, Joshi Lane, M.G.Road,
Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai.
2 C.C.No.20167/2015
Accused No.3: M/s Dream Logistics Company
(India) Pvt. Ltd., Dream
Chambers, Near Bus Stand,
Yellapur, Uttara Kannada,
Karnataka, Reptd., by Directors
Vivek S. Hebbar,
Prakash Hegde
ACCUSED NO.4: Vivek S. Hebbar,
S/o Shivarama Mahabaleswar
Hebbar, Aged about 33 years,
Manging Director of Dream
Logistics Company (India) Pvt.
Ltd, R/o Dream Chambers, Near
Bus Stand, Yellapur, Uttara
Kannada District, Karnataka.
ACCUSED NO.5: Prakash Hegde,
S/o Gopal Krishna Hegde,
Aged about 38 years,
Director of Dream Logistics
Company (India) Pvt. Ltd. R/o
House No.58, Akshya Colony, 1st
phase, Near Global College,
Chetana College Road, Hubli.
[By learned Counsel Sri R.N.N.
Advocate for A1 & 2, Sri M.D.N.
Advocate for A3 to 5)
JUDGMENT
This charge sheet submitted by Inspector of Police, C.B.I., E.O.W., Chennai, against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections under Section 120 B r/w 411 and 420 of Indian Penal code.
3 C.C.No.20167/2015
2. Brief fact of the prosecution case is that, accused No.1 company - M/s Daksh Minerals & Marine Pvt. Ltd. had exported iron ore fines (62% - 63% Fe content) of total quantity i.e. 69,800 MT from Belekeri Port. Out of the said quantity accused No.1 company purchased 19383.050 MT of iron ore fines from M/s Hospet Ispath Pvt. Ltd. Pvt. Ltd., under valid permit. Further accused No.1 company purchased 48,000/- MT of iron ore fines from A3 company, without valid permit of Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Karnataka. Accused No.2 being Director of A1 company also declared that, he purchased the iron ore fines from M/s Hospet Ispath Pvt. Ltd. Pvt. Ltd., and accused No.3 company, during the course of preliminary enquiry in PE5/A/2012 conducted by CBI, ACB, Bangalore as per the order of Hon'ble Apex Court.
3. It is further case of the prosecution is that, M/s Hospet Ispath Pvt. Ltd. Pvt. Ltd., generated about 20000- 25000 MT of iron ore fines as wastage during 2009-2010 and obtained bulk permit No.129 dated 13.02.2009 for a quantity of 20000 MT of generated iron ore fines from Department of 4 C.C.No.20167/2015 Mines and Geology, Koppal for the movement from the sponge iron plant (Hospet Ispath Pvt. Ltd.) to Karwar. However M/s Hospet Ispath Pvt. Ltd. Pvt. Ltd., surrendered and renewed the said bulk permit No.129 and obtained fresh bulk permit NO.76 dated 04.11.2009 from the Deputy Director, Department of Mines and Geology, Koppal, for the quantity of 19840 MT of iron ore fines from M/s Hospet Ispath Pvt. Ltd. Pvt. Ltd., to Karwar. Out of 19840 MT, about 500 MT was used as sample for testing. The remaining quantity around 19383.050 MT was supplied to accused No.1 company vide invoice No.3079 dated 12.01.2010 for Rs.19,38,305.00. Along with bulk permit, Department of Mines and Geology, Koppal issued 1240 trip sheets for the Ispath Pvt. Ltd. to Karwar. Accused No.1 company engaged M/s Friends and Friends Transport, Hospet for the transportation iron ore fines from M/s Hospet Ispath Pvt. Ltd. to Belekeri. Accused No.1 company has made payment of Rs.19,64,900/- to M/s Hospet Ispath Pvt. Ltd. on 31.10.2009 through RTGS from the current account maintained in U.B.I., Mumbai. Accused No.1 company also made payment of 5 C.C.No.20167/2015 Rs.3,15,35,534.00 to M/s Friends and Friends Transport, Hospet through RTGS from the above said current account.
4. Accused No.1 company also purchased total quantity of 48,000 MT of iron ore fines from A3 company vide invoices (i) No.09-10/08 dated 28.11.2009 for 20000 MT (ii) No.09-10/09 dated 02.12.2009 for 7000 MT, (iii) No.09- 10/11 dated 13.01.2010 for 9000 MT and (vi) No.2010- 11/001 dated 01.04.2010 for 12000 MT. The said quantity of 48000 MT was purchased from Belekeri port on ex-plot basis and the transportation was arranged by A3 company for the transport of iron ore from various plots at Hospet to Belekeri Port. A3 company supplied the above said quantity of iron ore fines to A1 company without bulk permit/trip sheets of Department of Mines and Geology and Forest way bills of Forest Department etc.
5. Accused No.3 company was incorporated on 03.03.2006 and the registered office of the company is situated at Uttar Kannada District, Karnataka. A4 and A5 are 6 C.C.No.20167/2015 the Director of accused No.3 Company, were engaged in trading and export of iron ores during the relevant period.
6. During the period from 01.01.2009 to 31.05.2010, A2 entered into criminal conspiracy with A4 and 5 with dishonest intention, knowing fully well that, iron ore has stolen property procured 48000 MT of iron ore fines illegally without valid permit from accused No.3 company and exported through Belekeri Port. Thus, they cheated the Department of Mines and Geology and Forest Department by evading payment of royalty and Forest Department tax for 48000 MT of iron ore fines, which caused wrongful loss of Rs.71,21,587.20 to the State Ex-chequer and corresponding wrongful gain to themselves.
7. During the period from 01.01.2009 to 31.05.2010, accused No.3 company purchased a total quantity of 2,87,976.000 MT of iron ore fines from M/s Eagle Traders and Logistics without permits of Department of Mines and Geology and Forest Department and transported the same to Belekeri port. It is further reveals that, above said quantity of 7 C.C.No.20167/2015 iron ore fines sold by M/s Eagle Traders and Logistics was loaded from the various places/stockyards and transported by A3 company from Hospet to Belekeri Port, during the period from 01.01.2009 to 31.05.2010. A3 company had supplied 12,300 MT and 36500 MT to accused No.1 company, out of the procured iron ore from M/s Eagle Traders & Logistics vide bill No.30 dated 07.08.2009 and bill No.56 dated 30.11.2009 for 50000 MT each.
8. Accused No.1 company has made total payment of Rs.31,22,66,754.29 to A3 towards supply and transportation of iron ore fines from various plots to Belekeri port through RTGS from the current account maintained with U.B.I., Mumbai. During the relevant period, accused No.1 company exported total quantity of 69800 MT of iron ore fines from Belekeri port vide shipping bill No.90/09 dated 21.11.2009 for 24,5000 MT, shipping bill NO.95/09 dated 24.11.2009 for 13450 MT, shipping bill No.06/10 dated 06.01.2010 for 10000 MT and shipping No.105/10 dated 19.03.2010 for 21850 MT for a total value of Rs.21,27,38,336/-. During the period from 01.01.2009 to 31.05.2009, A1 company engaged 8 C.C.No.20167/2015 M/s Mallikarjuna shipping Pvt. Ltd., a registered stevedore agent at Belekeri port to receive the iron ore fines at Belekeri port and made arrangements for export on behalf of accused No.1 company. A separate report is being sent to Government of Karnataka for a complaint under Section 22 of MMDR Act, for prosecuting the accused under Section 21 r/w Sec. 4(1) & 4(1) (A) of MMDR Act. Hence accused No.1 to 3 have committed the offence punishable under Section 120 B r/w 411 and 420 of IPC.
9. After receipt of the charge sheet, this court gone through the documents and materials available on record and come to the conclusion that, there are sufficient materials to proceed against accused persons, hence this Court took cognizance against the accused persons for the alleged offences as stated in the charge sheet and registered the case in 3rd register and issued summons to the accused persons. After receipt of the summons accused persons appeared before the court through their respective counsels and filed the bail application under Sec.437 of Cr.P.C. It is objected by the prosecution, the Court has gone through both sides 9 C.C.No.20167/2015 contentions of the bail application and objection, and passed necessary orders, accused enlarged on bail by executing self bond as well as surety, it is compiled by the accused. Copy of charge sheet served on accused under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. Later on the mater posted for draft charge. The prosecution has filed draft charge. Counsel for the accused persons submitted no draft charge. Hence matter is posted for Charge. Thereafter, this court framed the charge against the accused. The charges were read over and explained to the accused in the language known to them. They have pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried. Hence, the case posted for prosecution evidence.
10. In order to prove the case against the accused the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 30 and got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.109 and Ex.D.1 to 13. After closure of prosecution evidence, this Court recorded the statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C, accused denied some portion of evidence and some portion they do not know the version of the prosecution witnesses and 10 C.C.No.20167/2015 submitted no defence evidence. Therefore, the case is posted for arguments.
11. Heard the arguments on both sides.
12. Now, the points that arise for my consideration are as under -
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, A1 company represented by accused No.2 as a Director and he has actively doing the business of export of iron ore fines, he had conspired with A3 to 5 and purchased iron ore fines of 48,000 MT from A3 rep. by A4 and 5 at Belekeri port on Ex-plot basis without valid permit of Department of Mines and Geology and same was exported to foreign country vide 4 shipping bills Nos. 90/09 dated 21.11.09, 95/09 dated 24.11.09; 06/10 dated 06.01.10 and 105/10 dated 19.03.10 knowing fully well that, it was stolen property procured from A3 and with an dishonest intention to cheat the Government and without payment of royalty and gained a corresponding monetary benefit to himself and caused financial wrongful loss to the Government of Rs.71,21,587.20 and thereby accused No.2 has committed the offences punishable under Section 120 B r/w 411 and 420 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, accused No.4 and 5 11 C.C.No.20167/2015 being the Directors of A3 company actively engaged in the business of export of iron ores to the foreign countries, they have conspired with each other and procured stolen quantity of iron ore fines of 2,87,976.00 MT from Eagle Traders and Log. without permits of Department of Mines and Geology and Forest Department and transported the same to Belekeri Port.
Out of the above said quantity with an intention to cheat the Government, supplied iron ore fines of 12,300 MT and 36,500 MT to A1 company for which they do not have any valid permits from Department of Mines and Geology and Forest Department. They caused a financial wrongful loss to the Government of Rs.71,21,587.20 and gained a corresponding monetary benefit to themselves and thereby accused No.3 to 5 have committed the offences punishable under Section 120 B r/w 411 and 420 of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, the accused No.1 to 5 during the period from 01.01.2009 to 31.05.2010 entered into criminal conspiracy among themselves and in pursuance of the same, A1 and 2 with an dishonest intention to cheat the Government of Karnataka, has purchased 48,000 MT of iron ore fines illegally without valid permits from A3 and exported the same through Belekeri port to the foreign country knowing fully well that, the above said quantity of iron ore fines were procured by him illegally without any valid permits obtained from the Department of 12 C.C.No.20167/2015 Mines and Geology and Forest Department and thereby the accused No.1 to 5 have cheated Government of Karnataka by evading the payment of royalty to the Department of Mines and Geology and Forest Department for the export of 48,000 MT of iron ore and to caused financial wrongful loss to the Government of Rs.71,21,587.20 and gained a corresponding monetary benefit to themselves and thereby accused No.1 to 5 have committed the offences punishable under Section 120 B r/w 411 and 420 of IPC?
4. What order?
13. My answers to the above points are as under:
POINTS NO.1 TO 3 : In the NEGATIVE
POINT NO.4 : As per final order, for
the following reasons :
:REASONS:
14. POINTS NO.1 to 3: These points are interlinked
with each other. To avoid the repetition of facts, evidence and documents, I took these points together for discussion.
The Learned PP vehemently argued and submitted that, 48,000 MT of iron ore materials exported by the accused without valid permit and caused loss 13 C.C.No.20167/2015 to the Government. In order to substantiate the said facts, prosecution has examined P.W.1 to 30 and got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to 109. P.W.1 deposed as per the statement as well as identified the shipping bills marked at Ex.P.1 to 4. The accused persons have exported iron ore materials without valid permit under different shipping bills. He further submitted that, P.W.2 assessed the shipping bills and collected the cess duty etc. P.W.3 has deposed that, he examined all the material documents as well as identified the duplicate shipping bills. P.W.4 Superintendent of Customs, Belekeri Port speaks about the procedure of the transport of iron ore to the foreign country and issued port clearance certificate and identified the duplicate shipping bills, which re already marked through P.W.1. The P.W.5 deposed that, he examined the cargo after going through the shipping bills. P.W.6 deposed that, he has submitted the documents pertaining to accused No.1 as per request of the I.O. and identified the export documents marked at Ex.P.5 to 8. It is proved that, accused persons have exported the iron ore materials without valid permit. P.W.7 has handed over the 14 C.C.No.20167/2015 documents to the CBI marked at Ex.P.9 and 10. P.W.8 is the incharge port conservator deposed about collection of revenue dues from accused No.1 company and A1 has exported 69,800 MT of iron ore to foreign countries and marked documents Ex.P.11 to 13. P.W.9 speaks about export of iron ore by accused No.1 company through M/s Mallikarjuna Shipping Pvt. Ltd. This evidence is supported the other evidence of prosecution witnesses. P.W.10 Deputy Director of Department of Mines and Geology, he deposed that, he know the procedure of Mining department and issuance of MDP etc. The person who is going to transport the iron ore has to obtain permit from the seller. P.W.11 is also deposed about MDP bulk permit issued by the department marked at Ex.P.16. P.W.12 Forest Officer deposed about procedure of issuance of mining license. P.W.13 Branch Manager of accused No.1 company speaks about account of accused No.1 and 2 as well as purchased the materials from accused No.3 company. But the accused No.3 company has not submitted permit etc. He has issued the letter about the permit, those letters are not disputed by the accused. P.W.18 15 C.C.No.20167/2015 General Manager of accused No.3 company is also deposed about the facts of the case as well as documents marked through this witness at Ex.P.58 to 68. P.W.16 and 17, 19 to 26 are the transporters deposed about the transportation of iron ores as per the instructions of accused persons from Hospet to Belekeri Port. The evidence of these witnesses as well as documents marked through these witnesses clearly established the case of the prosecution that, the accused persons have exported 48,000 MT of iron ore without valid permit to the foreign countries and they have caused wrongful loss to the Government, at the same time they have gained monetary benefits from the export of iron ores. The intention of the accused as well as conspiration is proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused persons are liable to convict in the interest of justice and equity.
15. The counsel for the accused No.1 and 2 vehemently argued and submitted that, as per the case of the prosecution FIR registered against the accused and some other persons under Sections of IPC as well as Section 21 r/w 16 C.C.No.20167/2015 Section 4(1) and (A) of MMDR Act. He also draws the attention of Court about Section 104 of Evidence Act. As per this Section -
"Burden lies upon the prosecution to prove the fact necessary to be proved in order to enable any person to give evidence of any other facts is on the person who wishes to give such evidence Burden of proving fact to be proved to make evidence admissible".
It seems that, the initial burden lies upon the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. In this case, prosecution is not able to discharge burden as per the above Section.
16. Learned counsel for accused No.1 and 2 also draw the attention of the Court about Section 420 of IPC. As per this Section "Any person cheating by dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security".
17. The entire evidence of prosecution witnesses never speaks that, the accused persons with dishonest intention, induced any persons to deliver the iron ore materials as 17 C.C.No.20167/2015 stated by the prosecution in this case. The ingredient of Section itself not proved by the prosecution by examining the person who is under influence of accused, has delivered the iron ore materials to export foreign countries. Moreover, none of the prosecution witnesses deposed before this Court that, the accused persons with dishonest intention inducing the lease holder to transport the iron ore materials from Hospet to Belekeri Port.
18. The learned counsel for accused No.1 and 2 also draw the attention of Court about Section 120 B of IPC. Before discussing this provision, the Court has to consider Section 120 (A) of IPC.
"Definition of criminal conspiracy. When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done (1) an illegal act or (2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy: provided that, no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall be amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof".
He further submitted that, "To establish a charge of conspiracy knowledge about indulgence in illegal act or a legal act by illegal means is necessary - To establish a charge of conspiracy, knowledge about indulgence in either an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means is necessary. In some cases, intent of 18 C.C.No.20167/2015 unlawful use being made of the goods or services in question may be inferred from the knowledge itself. This apart, the prosecution has not to establish that, a particular unlawful use was intended so long as the goods or service in question could not be put to any lawful use. Finally , when the ultimate offence consists of a chain of actions, it would not be necessary for the prosecution to establish to bring home the charge of conspiracy, that, each of the conspirators had the knowledge of what the collaborator would do so, so long as it is known that, the collaborator would put the goods or service to an unlawful use".
The above ingredient in this provision is not established by the prosecution.
19. Further he also draw the attention of the Court Section 23 of MMRD Act. As per this Section "If the persons committing an offence under this Act or any rules made thereunder is a company, every persons who at the time the offence was committed was in charge of, and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence".
20. Further he also draw the attention of the Court about the cross-examination of P.W.4 and 13. The P.W.4 during the course of evidence deposed that, Belekeri port is notified for exclusive export of iron ore. It is true that, his role 19 C.C.No.20167/2015 starts after issuance of LET export order issued by Superintendent of customs appraisal. Port conservator gives NOC. Port conservator gives the certificate about all the revenue dues collected by the department. Those revenues dues are payable to Government. Before loading the cargo to the barge, they will verify all the necessary documents submitted by the CHA. In this case TR form 6 is confirmed by them. Export duty is paid by accused No.1 company. Therefore they allowed to export the cargo. It indicates that, the accused persons are complied the requisite condition put by the concerned department. He also draw the attention of this Court about cross-examination of P.W.13. He deposed that, they have purchased the iron ore from accused No.3 company on ex-plot basis. 48,000 MT of iron ore was lying in the area of customs house at Belekeri at the time of purchasing iron ore. Every exporter has to claim the exemption of VAT charge. It is true that, exporter/purchaser has to submit to Form H to the VAT authority. It is true that, there must be noting on invoice against form H. There will be no noting of VAT payable in the invoice. It is true that, they 20 C.C.No.20167/2015 are under the impression that, there was a permit since it was lying in the customs area. The evidence of prosecution witnesses as well as documents and the admission given by the prosecution witnesses clearly noticed that, the prosecution is not able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, accused No.1 and 2 may be acquitted in the interest of justice and equity.
21. The learned counsel for the accused No.3 to 5 vehemently argued and submitted that, he has also referred the charge No.3 and 4 in respect of accused No.3 to 5. He has also referred the evidence of P.W.9, 10, 11, 18 and 19. He has draw the attention of this court that, the accused No.3 company being trader. It is admitted by the prosecution witnesses during the course of evidence. As per the evidence of prosecution witnesses, it is clearly noticed that, the lease holder has to pay royalty to the Government. He is also draw the attention of the Court that, the accused No.3 company being trader, he has purchased the iron ore from Eagle Traders and Logistics. It is stated by the P.W.27 during the course of evidence. Accused No.3 company has later on sold 21 C.C.No.20167/2015 the materials to accused No.1 company as per invoice issued by the Eagle Traders and other companies. As per the letter issued by the accused No.1 company, accused No.3 company made request to Eagle Traders and Logistics to issue the bulk permit. Inspite of it, Eagle Traders and Logistics is not able to furnish the same. Therefore, the accused No.3 to 5 are not able to submit said permit. As per the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the person who is lease holder of mining head is the best person to say about the permit or license. Once, the iron ore materials transported by Eagle Traders and Logistics. As purchase order issued by accused No.3 company, it is the duty of Eagle Traders and Logistics to submit all the relevant documents to the transporter. Moreover, the lease holder has obtained one bulk permit under which he has supplied so many tones of iron ore to the different customers. The person who has sold the materials, has to submit or handed over all the necessary documents to the lorry drivers to show the same at check port. After verifying the material documents all check post officers permit to move the iron ore materials to Belekeri. All these facts are admitted by the prosecution 22 C.C.No.20167/2015 witnesses during the course of evidence. As per evidence of prosecution, accused No.3 to 5 are not holding any lease or license or permit. They have placed purchase order to the Eagle Traders and Logistics. After that, Eagle Traders and Logistics has supplied the iron ore materials through various transporters. It is dumped in the Belekeri port. Such being the case, accused No.3 to 5 are not responsible to pay any royalty to the Government. He has also draw the attention of the Court about admission given by the prosecution witness during the course of evidence as well as the ingredient of Section 120 (B), 411 and 420 of IPC is not proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt.
22. As per the charge sheet allegation as well as evidence stated by the prosecution is not connected with each other. None of the prosecution witnesses deposed about the intention as well as the accused persons procured stolen iron ore from mining head etc. Such being the case, it is not proper to attach any value of the prosecution witnesses evidence to believe that, the accused persons are committed the offences. The prosecution witnesses deposed categorically 23 C.C.No.20167/2015 they are verified necessary documents submitted by the exporters and collected the cess and other duty etc from the exporters, then they permitted to export the iron ore materials. Such being the case, it is not proper to say, these accused persons are liable to pay any royalty to the Government. The Government is empowered to collect the same as per the provisions under MMDR Act. He has also referred Section 9 of MMDR Act -
"Royalty in respect of mining lease - The holder of a mining lease granted before the commencement of this Act shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the instrument of lease or in any law in force at such commencement, pay royalty in respect of any (mineral removed or consumed by him or by his agent, manager, employee, contractor or sub lessee) from the lease area after such commencement, at the rate for the time being specified in the Second Schedule in respect of that, mineral. The holder of a mining lease granted on or after the commencement of this Act, shall pay royalty in respect of any (mineral removed or consumed by him or by his agent, manager, employee, contractor or sub-lessee) from leased area at the rate for the time being specified in the Second Schedule in respect of that, mineral".
In this present case, none of the accused persons are the lease holders/lessee, as per the evidence of prosecution 24 C.C.No.20167/2015 witnesses. As such they are not able to pay any royalty to the Government.
23. The counsel for the accused No.3 to 5, has drawn the attention of this Court that, the prosecution has already initiated proceedings against the accused persons in R.C.No.13(A)/12. It is pending before CCH 47 against the accused & Eagle Traders and Logistics and other officials of Department of Mines and Geology. The entire evidence of the prosecution witnesses noticed that, the I.O. collected the materials documents in R.C.No.13(A)/2012, the same is produced before this Court. The I.O. examined the persons in R.C.No.13(A)/12, the same persons are examined in this case also. The transporters who are examined in this case never stated anything against the accused persons. He is also draw the attention of the Court that, the I.O. mentioned para 19 of the charge sheet, that, he has not recommended for prosecution of Eagle Traders in this case. Moreover, prosecution witnesses clearly admitted that, the material which was supplied by the accused No.3 company is part and parcel of material 2.87 lakh MT in R.C.No.13(A)/12. All these 25 C.C.No.20167/2015 material admissions as well as evidence and documents reveals that, the prosecution is not able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, accused No.3 to 5 are liable to acquit in this case in the interest of justice and equity.
24. The learned Advocate for accused No.3 to 5 has also relied upon the following decisions-
1. (2013) 12 SCC 406
2. (2014) & SCC 716
3. (201) 13 SCC 412
4. (2015) 9 SCC 96
5. (2009) 3 SCC 78
6. AIR 1954 SC 39
25. I have gone through the records, evidence and documents relied by the prosecution. The case of the prosecution is that, accused No.1 company represented by the accused No.2, they have illegally received the stolen property of iron ore to the tune of 69,800 MT and illegally exported the same to the foreign country through Belekeri Port without payment of royalty and forest development tax. It is further alleged by the prosecution that, the accused No.1 26 C.C.No.20167/2015 company had exported iron ore of total quantity 69,800 MT from Belekeri port to foreign country. Out of that, accused No.1 company purchased 19383.050 MT of iron ore from M/s Hospet Ispath Pvt. Ltd. under valid permit. Remaining 48,000 MT of iron ores purchased from accused No.3 company without valid permit of Department of Mines and Geology. This is the sum and substantiates of the charge sheet allegation in this case. In order to prove the above allegation, prosecution has examined P.W.1 to 30 and got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to 109 and Ex.D.1 to 13.
26. Now I would like to refer the evidence of P.W.1 - Retired Deputy Director of Service Tax, Mumbai, deposed that, from July 2009 to August 2010 he was holding additional charge of Assistant Commissioner Customs Division, Karwar. He has assessed shipping bills pertaining to accused No.1 company. Those shipping bills are marked as Ex.P.1 to 4. He further deposed that, accused No.1 company has produced shipping bills along with relevant documents. He has gone through the entire shipping bills as well as other relevant documents and sent to Superintendent, after that, 27 C.C.No.20167/2015 they will give LET Export Order to transport the iron ores. At the same time, the documents Ex.P.1 to 4 shipping bills pertaining to accused No.1 company, annexed invoice, Mates Receipts, particulars of export, draft survey report, duplicate copy of invoice, shipment notes etc. The material documents Ex.P.1 to 4 coupled with the evidence of P.W.1, noticed that, the accused No.1 company has exported iron ore materials from Belekeri port to foreign country. As per evidence of P.W.1, one thing is gathered at the time of submitting shipping bills, accused No.1 company has submitted all the relevant documents as per required procedure stipulated under Customs Act. After due verification, the concerned officials have permitted to export the materials.
27. The learned counsel for the accused, testified this witness and elicited that, note sheets are prepared by superintendent to ascertain whether there is a due compliance for export formalities. It clearly indicates that, after satisfying all the relevant documents as well as clearance from the concerned department, shipping bills are assessed by P.W.1 and submitted to the superintendent. The 28 C.C.No.20167/2015 evidence of this witness noticed that, he never tried to say anything against the accused. On the basis of evidence of P.W.1 and Ex.P.1 to 4, it is not possible to hold that, in order to cheat the Government, the accused persons have tried to submit any false or fabricated documents to export the iron ore.
28. Now, I would like to refer the evidence of P.W.2. He deposed that, he has assessed the shipping bills and collected cess amount from the exporter and he has examined the goods and made a note in the duplicate shipping bill and sent to the inspector. Thereafter C.W.5 examined the materials and issued LET Export Order. This evidence indicates that, after collecting cess amount and other dues from the exporter, this witness has made note on the duplicate shipping bill and send it to inspector, after satisfying all the requirements, the inspector has issued LET Export Order. He never tried to say anything against the accused persons have submitted any false or forged documents.
29 C.C.No.20167/2015
29. At the same time, during the course of cross- examination, this witness deposed that, CBI has not recorded his statement in this case. At the time of assessment, he came to know that,, accused persons have paid the custom duty. In order to ascertain he had made a note in the shipping bills. If there is any infirmity or violation of valuation from the exporters, LET export order will not be passed. It indicates that, the exporter has complied all the requirements as well as paid the customs duty; thereafter the concerned officials have issued the LET Export Order. This witness evidence is nothing to do with this case.
30. Now, I would like to refer the evidence of P.W.3. He deposed that, he has examined the materials to be exported and drawing of samples and sending it to chemical examiner and supervising the loading. He has also identified the duplicate shipping bills and signature on the documents. It is marked as exhibits. During the course of testimony by the other side, this witness deposed that, unless completion of the formalities LET Export Order cannot be issued. He has mentioned note in the reverse side of duplicate shipping bills. 30 C.C.No.20167/2015 This evidence noticed that, nothing has been tried to elicit by the prosecution to believe that, the accused has made any inducement in order to issuance of LET Export Order. As such, in my opinion the evidence of this witness is also not helpful to the prosecution.
31. Now, I would like to refer the evidence of P.W.4. He deposed that, he has supervised the loading of cargo from Docks to Barge. He was aware of the procedure of export of iron ore materials to foreign countries. He has identified the duplicate shipping bills and signature on the documents. During the course of cross-examination, he deposed that, Belekeri port is notified for exclusive export of iron ore. His role starts after issuance of LET Export Order issued by Superintendent of customs appraisal. Port conservator gives NOC. Port Conservator is a government officer of Karnataka State. Port conservator gives the certificate about all the revenue dues collected by the Department. Before loading the cargo to the barge they will verify all the necessary documents submitted by the CHA. Export duty is paid by accused No.1 company. Therefore, they allowed to export the 31 C.C.No.20167/2015 cargo. This evidence noticed that, the accused persons have duly complied the procedure as contemplated under Customs and Port Acts. After verification of the relevant documents and satisfied by the officers, they have issued LET Export Order. It seems that, nothing has been noticed that, the accused persons are tried to induce or they have made any influence to issue such order. Such being the case, in my opinion, the question of conspiracy, cheating and tried to keep stolen property, does not arise at all.
32. Now, I would like to refer the evidence of P.W.5. He is also stated same set of facts as stated by the P.W.2 and he has identified the duplicate shipping bills and he has identified the signature and note made on the duplicate shipping bills at Ex.P.1 to 4. This evidence is also not much more important to discuss in detail on the side of prosecution.
33. Now, I would like to refer the evidence of P.W.6- Superintendent of Customs. He deposed that, he has verified the shipping bills and his duty is to boarding of vessels, 32 C.C.No.20167/2015 drawing of samples etc. As per request of CBI he has handed over the documents. He has identified the receipt memo, general manifest along with necessary documents from Ex.P.5 to 8. The evidence of this witness noticed that, he has verified the shipping bills along with relevant documents pertaining to export of iron ore by the accused No.1 company. Now, I would like to refer the Ex.P.5 to 8. These are receipt memo, general manifest, Form No.3 (cargo declaration) etc. These document reflected that, accused No.1 company has exported iron ore fines in bulk to the foreign countries. Form No.3 discloses CHA and name of the ship, Port name, loading point, nationality of the ship etc. Various export general manifest form indicates quantity of the iron ores, descriptions, to whom shipped, ship bill number, remarks etc. It is noticed that, some of the quantity of iron ore exported by the accused No.1 company to China. These documents as well as oral testimony of P.W.6 noticed that, they have gone through the entire records and other relevant documents and permitted to export cargo. He never speaks anything against the accused persons as alleged by the 33 C.C.No.20167/2015 prosecution. Moreover, the documents marked through this witness also not disclose anything committed by the accused.
34. Now, I would like to refer the evidence of P.W.7. He deposed that, as per request of CBI, he has handed over the documents i.e. receipt memo, notifications, export application. Customs manual, exim policy etc. marked at Ex.P.9 and 10. These documents and evidence, noticed that, he has furnished the documents as per request of the CBI. He has never tried to say anything about other documents relied by the prosecution. Except this, nothing has been stated by this witness.
35. Now, I would like to refer the evidence of P.W.8. He deposed that, he has collected revenue dues from the vessels and CHA. He has also identified the statement of iron ore exported by the accused No.1 from Belekeri port and the export applications pertaining to accused No.1 company, Covering letter, receipt memo etc. marked as Ex.P.11 to 14. Except collecting the revenue dues from the vessels and CHA, he has not made anything in this case. He has identified the 34 C.C.No.20167/2015 export applications and signature of the person who has prepared those documents and submitted to the CBI. Except this, nothing has been stated by this witness against the accused.
36. Now, I would like to refer the evidence of P.W.9 - Deputy Port Conservator. He deposed that, he has collected the shipping dues from stevedores and CHA. After collecting the export charges from the stevedores, he had issued clearance certificate and he has identified the statement of accused No.1 company for export of iron ore. He has also identified the signature on the port clearance certificate. Those are already marked through P.W.8. This evidence also seems that, after collecting the export charges from stevedores, port officer issued the clearance certificate. Thereafter the cargo has exported to the foreign country.
37. This witness is testified by the accused counsel at that time, he deposed that, day to day affairs report intimated to port conservator who inturn report it to port officer. He was working in the notified area of customs. He was not 35 C.C.No.20167/2015 aware about draught survey report. This report is done after iron ore is loaded into vessels. Random quantum was loaded from the heaps of iron ore. Heaps were lying on the port. He further deposed that, there is one toll naka at the entrance and another one main gate. Iron ore trucks are permitted to enter into the port after collecting the charges. Stevedores will collect the necessary documents from the lorry drivers such as minerals Ispath Pvt. Ltd. permits, bulk permits and other relevant documents. Stevedores are responsible to undertake all procedural formalities and transact with customs and port officers. There are no connecting exporters.
38. This evidence noticed that, whenever the truck came along with iron ore inside of the port area, the stevedores are the responsible persons to collect the documents from the lorry drivers. It is not connected to exporters. It seems that, the lorry drivers handed over all the necessary documents to the stevedores, when they are unloading the iron ore in the specified area. The evidence of this witness is also noticed that, they have collected export fees and other charges from the exporter and permitted to 36 C.C.No.20167/2015 transport the cargo. Such being the case, there is no procedural lapse on the side of the accused. They have complied all the formalities as stated by the customs and port officials. Thereafter the concerned authority has issued the clearance certificate and LET Export Order. It is admitted by all the prosecution witnesses. As such, in my opinion, the evidence of this witness is also not helpful to the prosecution.
39. Now, I would like to refer the evidence of P.W.10 - Retired Deputy Director of Department of Mines and Geology. He deposed about the procedure regarding sanction of mining lease and issuance of MDP and bulk permit etc. As per MMDR Act Schedule II, licensee has to pay the royalty to the Government. The lessee has to submit the application along with the details of place of loading, destination and quantity of iron ore along with royalty for permits. After receiving the application and royalty they will endorse the same in concerned register. After that, field officer will inspect the stock of the minerals and collect the samples for verification of grade of iron ore. After receiving the report from field officer, they will issue permits. In 2009-10 average royalty 37 C.C.No.20167/2015 fixed by IBM ranges from Rs.73-166/- per MT for different grades of iron ore. The bulk permit validity is 30 days. Without payment of royalty nobody can transport iron ore. It seems that, the person who is going to hold the mining lease license as to excavate the iron ore from the mining head. No body has right to excavate the iron ore from the mining head. Before going to excavate the iron ore from the mining head, the lease holder has to pay royalty as well as he has mentioned the loading point and destination etc. After verifying, the inspection report, they have issued bulk permit. It is no doubt, in the present case, accused persons are not the lease holder or lessee to excavate the iron ore. They are traders. They have purchased the iron ore from other companies and exported the same by paying customs duty and other charges in the port area. It is admitted by the prosecution. As per the evidence of this witness, the lease holder is liable to pay royalty to the Government. In the present case, prosecution is not able to disclose lease holder name and qty of iron ore excavated from mine head. The accused No. 3 company have purchased the iron ore 38 C.C.No.20167/2015 materials from Eagle Traders and Logistics and exported the same to the foreign country. Moreover, the traders are not possible to get any bulk permit or MDP etc.
40. At the time of cross-examination by the accused counsel, witness deposed that, it is the sole responsibility of the lessee to pay the royalty and obtain the permit. Their department has to issue MDP. They have issue the bulk permit and also on the capacity of the truck they issued trip sheet. All these permits are issued to lessee only. In turn lessee has to give the same to respective truck driver. The accused counsel showed the bulk permit and states that, it looks like D.33. The said document is marked as Ex.D.1. Witnesses voluntarily states that, Ex.D.1 looks like Xerox. They have issued entire quantity of iron ore as one bulk permit. Bulk permit is common in respect of the total quantity. They have issued one trip sheet in one truck i.e. original but bulk permit is copy of the original. He was unable to say whether it is original or duplicate. If it is tampered it is identified. There are several check posts between Hospet to Belekeri. One check post is at Balegudi. 39 C.C.No.20167/2015 All the check post officials will verify the documents and permitted the vehicles to move. Except the mine lease holder no one can apply for any permits.
41. This evidence noticed that, the lease holder is the competent person to pay royalty to the Government. None other than is responsible to pay royalty to the Government. It clearly noticed that, the accused No.3 has purchased the iron ore from Eagle Traders and Logistics. Thereafter he has sold 48,000/- of iron ore to accused No.1 company. It is part and parcel of iron ore materials mentioned in S.C.No.21/2014. It is admitted by the I.O. during the course of evidence.
41(a). This witness again recalled by the prosecution for further examination. AT that, time he deposed that, for the transportation of iron ore fines from one place to another, trip sheet is must along with bulk permit. The purchaser has to obtain the bulk permit and also trip sheet from the lorry drivers. Lessee will issue the same to lorry drivers. The witness further deposed about the procedure for obtaining bulk permit etc. Though, he was 40 C.C.No.20167/2015 recalled and reexamined by the prosecution, nothing has been stated against the accused.
42. This witness again testified by the accused counsel, at that time he deposed that, lease holder has to obtain the MDP from their department. Intermediaries like traders, agent exporters have no scope to apply for MDP. The lessee or stock yard owner has to hand over copy of bulk permit and respective trip sheet to the lorry driver. Then the truck driver has to show the said documents in all check post and unload the same in the last destination. He voluntarily states that, at the last destination, the person who present in the port, will take all the documents. There is no scope for handing over all the above documents to the purchaser.
43. The entire evidence of this witness noticed that, the purchaser has no role to handing over the documents at the destination point. Moreover, the accused persons are being traders; they have placed orders and purchased the materials from Eagle Traders and Logistics. On that basis, Eagle Traders and Logistics has exported the iron ore from 41 C.C.No.20167/2015 Hospet to Belekeri. It is no doubt, as per the evidence of this witness, the lessee i.e. the person who is going to sell the iron ore materials has to hand over the bulk permit, trip sheet, other relevant documents to the lorry drivers. It is shown by the lorry drivers in all the check posts, the officials has verified the same and permitted to move the vehicle to the last destination. In this case, none of the check post officials are cited as prosecution witness to show that, the lorry drivers have not shown the relevant documents at the time of transporting the iron ore materials to Belekeri. Moreover, the material which was purchased by the accused persons belongs to Eagle Traders and Logistics. They have supplied the iron ore materials to accused No.3 company. Eagle Traders and Logistics is the best person to say that, they have paid royalty to the Government or not. The traders or agents or exporters are not possible to obtain any MDP or bulk permit etc. As such, in my opinion, the evidence of this witness is not possible to hold that, the accused persons have submitted any false or fabricated documents as well as induced the check post officials or port, customs officials to 42 C.C.No.20167/2015 transport the iron ore materials without valid permit. Once, there is no scope for handing over the documents to the purchaser, then the question does not arise that, these accused persons are withheld any material documents or tried to submit any false documents before the concerned authority. As such, the evidence of this witness is not possible to believe that, the accused persons are having any intention to cheat the Government, they have induced and tried to export the iron ore materials to the foreign country.
44. Now, I would like to refer the evidence of P.W.11 - Geologist. He deposed that, as per request of CBI, he has handed over the documents i.e. covering letter and bulk permit handed over by Hospet Ispath Pvt. Ltd. in favour of accused No.1 company, they have issued bulk permit. It is not disputed by the prosecution as well as accused. As such, in my opinion, it is not proper to discuss in detail.
45. Now, I would like to refer the evidence of P.W.12 - Superintendent, Forest Officer. He deposed that, He know the procedure of issuance of permits to transport of iron ore. 43 C.C.No.20167/2015 They have received the application along with Department of Mines and Geology permit, DD, tax paid receipt through range forest officer. Based upon that document, they will make stock verification of iron ore and issue book No.31 and official memorandum. In the year 2008-09 pass fees is Rs.15/- per tonne, forest development tax is fixed by the Government. The lease holder has to submit the permit obtained from Department of Mines and Geology in order to take forest clearance certificate.
46. This witness is testified by the accused counsel, at that point of time, he deposed that, at the loading point the nominated staff of DCF will be present. They will note the lorry number and issue the forest pass. Only lessee has to apply the MDP. Lessee has approached the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka for challenging the collection of FDT and the said writ petition has been allowed.
47. The evidence of this witness noticed that, on the basis of permit, they have collected forest development tax as per the rate mentioned by the Government. Except this 44 C.C.No.20167/2015 nothing has been elicited by this witness. Moreover, the lessee only has obtained the MDP. As such, in my opinion, the evidence of this witness is also not helpful to the prosecution.
48. Now, I would like to refer the evidence of P.W.13 - Branch Manager of accused No.1 company. He deposed that, he has collected documents and send it to the head office at Mumbai and supervising of the company. AS per request of CBI officers he has submitted document i.e. covering letter, details of export made by accused No.1 company, MOA and AOA, invoice, shipping bills, tax invoice, VAT certificate marked as Ex.P.17 to 34.
49. This witness is testified by the counsel and elicited that, accused No.1 Company has paid all the legal dues payable for export through bank. They have purchased the iron ore from accused No.3 on ex-plot basis. 48,000 MT of iron ore was lying in the area of customs house at Belekeri at time of purchasing iron ore. Every exporter has to claim the exemption of VAT charge. Exporter/purchaser has to submit 45 C.C.No.20167/2015 form H to the VAT authority. There must be noting on invoice against form H. There will be no noting of VAT payable in the invoice. They are under the impression that, there was a permit since it was lying in the customs area. He further stated that, it is not the duty of accused No.3 company to provide Department of Mines and Geology permit. Mine owner has to provide the Department of Mines and Geology permit. Accused No.3 has made correspondence to Eagle Traders and Logistics for production of DMG permits and awaiting the same.
50. It is noticed that, though he was working under accused No.1 Company as branch manager, he has collected the documents and sent it to the Head Office. He also identified the necessary documents for export of iron ore marked through this witness. These documents reflected that, accused No.1 company has made correspondence with accused No.3 company for furnishing Department of Mines and Geology permit as asked by the CBI. It is not disputed that, the accused No.1 Company has purchased iron ore materials from accused No.3 company. At the time of 46 C.C.No.20167/2015 exporting the said material, it is lying in the port yard. The accused No.1 company presumed that, there is a valid permit issued by the lease holder, on that ground, he has purchased the iron ore materials and exported the same. Ex.P.19 is memorandum of article of association seems that, accused No.1 company registered under Companies Act and it is having memorandum of Articles and articles of association. Ex.P.20 is invoice cum delivery challan issued by Hospet Ispath Pvt. Ltd. in favour of accused No.1 company. Ex.P.21 is bulk permit. Ex.P.22 to 32 are the iron ore transport details. Invoice, tax invoice, shipping bills. These documents clearly noticed that, the materials which was purchased by the accused No.1 company from Hospet Ispath Pvt. Ltd. is valid permit. It is admitted by the prosecution during the course of trial. As per Ex.P.33 accused No.3 company has issued the letter to the accused No.1 company as they have made correspondence with Eagle Traders and Logistics and furnished DMG permit for the supply made by them and they are awaiting for the same, when ever they received the same they are immediately furnished to the accused No.1 company. 47 C.C.No.20167/2015 Ex.P.34 is letter written by accused No.1 company to accused No.3 company for supplying of DMG permit. These corresponding documents as well as oral testimony of P.W.13, one thing is noticed that, the material which was purchased from Hospet Ispath Pvt. Ltd. is valid permit. At the same time, the material which was purchased from accused No.3 company is not having valid permit. However, accused No.3 has made correspondence with Eagle Traders and Logistics and requested to submit the DMG permit. It is not found in the record. Once the prosecution has admitted that, the accused No.1 and 3 companies are the traders, they used to place the orders and purchased the iron ore materials from Eagle Traders and Logistics and other mining companies. Such being the case, the person who is having license as well as permit to extract the iron ore material, is the best person to speak about payment of royalty. As such, the evidence of this witness is not going to believe that, the accused No.1 and 3 companies have violated the procedure prescribed under MMDR Act. He has never tried to say the material which was 48 C.C.No.20167/2015 purchased by them is stolen property as well as accused persons having intention to cheat the Government.
51. Now, I would like to refer the evidence of P.W.14 - Owner of Hospet Ispath Pvt. Ltd. deposed about the supply of 19,383 MT Of iron ore to accused No.1 company. He has also identified the covering letter, authorization letter, monthly summary report, reconciliation statement, MOA and AOA, permit etc. marked as Ex.P.35 to 42.
52. This witness is testified by the accused counsel, at that time he deposed that, one Balasubba Shetty & Sons are the mine owners. They take iron ore lumps from them and manufacture sponge iron ore. The bye product of that, is low grade iron ore fines. As a manufacturer they also obtain permit from Department of Mines and Geology. This evidence is also supported the say of P.W.13. Moreover, the evidence of this witness noticed that, he had obtained DMG permit from the Department of Mines and Geology and furnished the same to the accused No.1 company at the time of supplying 19.383 of MT iron ore materials. It is admitted by the 49 C.C.No.20167/2015 prosecution. As such in my opinion, it is not proper to discuss in detail.
53. Now, I would like to refer the evidence of P.W.15 - Chief Manager, SBI, SME branch, Jayanagar. He deposed that, as per request of CBI officers, he has handed over the documents pertaining to Accused No.3 company. The documents are current account opening form, account statement, certificate u/Sec.65(B) of Indian Evidence Act, covering letter, marked as Ex.P.43 to 50. These documents and oral testimony of this witness noticed that, accused No.3 company had account in SBI bank and said documents furnished by the branch manager as per request of CBI. It is not disputed by the accused. At the same time, the document marked at Ex.P.50 does not contain date and certificate issued u/Sec.65 (B) of Indian Evidence Act. It does not disclose the I.P.address of the computer from which statement of account is generated. As such in my opinion, the evidence of this witness is not proper to discuss in detail. 50 C.C.No.20167/2015
54. Now, I would like to refer the evidence of P.W.16. He deposed that, he started a transport business in the name and style as Friends & Friends transport at Hospet. He has transported the iron ore of accused No.1 company from Hospet Ispath Pvt Ltd. to Belekeri. As per request of CBI, he has submitted documents i.e. covering letter certified copy of transportation bills, certified copy of ledger extract marked as Ex.P.51 to 54. It is no doubt, as per the order placed by the accused No.1 company, he has transported the iron ore from Hospet to Belekeri.
55. The testimony of this witness noticed that, they have received permit from Hospet Ispath Pvt. Ltd. and submitted to the various check posts at the time of transporting the iron ore materials. The evidence of this witness noticed that, he being the transport agent, he has obtained the necessary documents at the time of loading iron ore in the truck. He furnished the same before check post authority. After verifying, the said authority permitted to move the vehicle to the last destination. It seems that, in the last destination, the drivers are unloaded and handed the 51 C.C.No.20167/2015 necessary documents to the concerned officials and endorse the same. As such, in my opinion, the evidence of this witness is also not helpful to the prosecution.
56. Now, I would like to refer the evidence of P.W.17. She is also one of the transporter of Mayura Minerals and Logistics. She deposed that, as per request of CBI, she has submitted the documents along with covering letter marked as Ex.P.55 to 57. These documents reflected that, Mayura Minerals & Logistics having account in SBM branch and having transportation bill. As per the bills it is consignment note. Consignee is accused No.1 company and Consignor is Hospet Ispath Pvt. Ltd. It seems that, accused No.1 company has purchased low grade iron ore from Hospet Ispath Pvt. Ltd. The said company has issued valid permit. It is admitted by the prosecution. As such in my opinion, it is not proper to discuss in detail.
57. Now, I would like to refer the evidence of P.W.18. He deposed that, he was working as GM of accused No.3 company. He used to look after letter correspondence and day 52 C.C.No.20167/2015 to day business affairs. Accused No.3 company is doing export of iron ore business. Accused No.4 and 5 are the director of accused No.3 company. As per request of CBI, he has handed over documents pertaining to accused No.3 company i.e. covering letter receipt memo, invoices, tax invoices marked as Ex.P.58 to 67.
58. This witness is testified by the accused counsel and elicited that, accused No.1 company has purchased the iron ore materials lying in the port yard. Before sending the iron ore from port zone they have completed all the formalities. They have charged the VAT from accused No.1 company. He voluntarily states that, if it is against form H, they do not charge VAT, otherwise they charge VAT. This witness testified by the accused No.3 and 5 counsel, at that time he deposed that, in normal practice whenever they place order and advance is paid to the supplier and the balance money is paid after the completion of the entire supply of the quantity and sale bill is raised depending upon the consolidated bulk quantity. They have given amount to Eagle Traders and Logistics. They in turn supplied the iron ore from 53 C.C.No.20167/2015 Ganesh Mines, Megha Minerals to them. Ganesh Mines, Megha Minerals raised the invoices. They are not the mine owners. They are not responsible to obtain DMG bulk permit and trip sheet. Loading point of cargo is informed to them by their suppliers and in turn they inform to transporters. They go to loading point as per information furnished by the suppliers. Then they load the iron ore and unload at the destination point. Loading point & unloading point they do not put any persons of their company. They are not responsible to check the documents. The supplier has to hand over DMG bulk permits and trip sheets to the respective truck drivers at the loading point. Thereafter truck drivers show necessary documents in the check post and cargo is unloaded in the final destination. Without necessary documents check post officials do not allow to transport the iron ore. They have submitted the original documents in other case i.e RC 13[A]/2012 which is pending before CCH 47 in spl. CC No. 21/14. The IO of this case requested to submit the receipt and seizure memo as earlier in RC 13[A]/2012. Accordingly he submitted the same. The iron ore material 54 C.C.No.20167/2015 48,000 odd MT supplied to A1 by A3 is part and parcel of materials purchased from Eagle traders to the tune of 2,87,821.32 MT. It is subject matter of RC 13[A]/12.
59. This evidence clearly noticed that, he has deposed about the iron ore purchased by the accused No.3 company from Eagle Traders and Logistics. Thereafter, the accused No.3 company has supplied 48,000 MT of iron ore materials to accused No.1 company on the basis of invoices raised by Ganesh and Megha Minerals. As per the admissions of official witnesses, the lease holder has to obtain DMG permit. The trader or any other persons are not having any right to submit application for obtaining DMG permit. Such being the case, in my opinion, once the accused No.3 company has placed the order to supply the iron ore materials, the Eagle Traders and Logistics has supplied the iron ore. He has to submit the DMG permit. The entire evidence as well as documents noticed that, on the basis of invoices raised by the suppliers, accused No.3 company has supplied 48,000 MT of iron ore to accused No.1 company. It is not on the part of the accused No.3 company to obtain or furnish any DMG permit. 55 C.C.No.20167/2015 The documents marked through this witness noticed that, the invoices, letters, details of transportation of iron ore, production of memo all are clearly noticed that, as per order placed by the accused No.3 company, Eagle Traders and Logistics has supplied iron ore materials.
60. It is further noticed that, at the time of testifying the witness, the admissions given by this witness, noticed that, it is duty of the lease holder has to pay royalty to the Government and obtained DMG permit. In this case Eagle Traders and Logistics is the proper person to submit the said document. Moreover, another case is pending before CCH 47 against Eagle Traders and Logistics & accused persons of this case in respect of 2.87 MT of Iron ore. The material which is in question in this case is part and parcel of 2.87 MT of iron ore. Moreover, the entire evidence of this witness noticed that, they have purchased the iron ore material from Eagle Traders and Logistics with valid invoice as raised by the said company. They have made correspondence for furnishing DMG permit. As such, in my opinion, the evidence of this witness is not helpful to the prosecution.
56 C.C.No.20167/2015
61. Now, I would like to refer the evidence of P.W.19 to
26. They are the transporters. They were deposed that, as per request of CBI, they have submitted covering letter along with their respective firms details, process memo, transport details, marked as Ex.P.69 to 75. They categorically deposed that, they have transported the iron ore materials from Hospet to Belekeri as per order placed by accused No.3.
62. The learned counsel for the accused testified the P.W.19, at that time he deposed that, the supplier will inform about the place of loading to accused No.3 who in turn will inform him as a transporter and then he sent the respective lorries to the loading point. The supplier has handed over the DMG bulk permit at the time of loading the iron ore. After obtaining all the necessary documents the respective truck drivers transport the goods from the loading point to the final destination. The truck drivers has to hand over all the necessary documents to the stevedore agents. He further deposed that, P.W.30 recorded his statement. At that time at para 2 he has stated that " He now shown his further statement recorded on 04.12.2012 and admitted as correct 57 C.C.No.20167/2015 which is now marked as Ex.D2. It is true that on 13.08.2013 P.W.29 recorded his statement in RC 13[A]/12. In that, case he was cited as CW23. P.W.29 recorded his statement and at that, time he has stated transportation details. But the remaining contents of the statement he do not know and said portion is marked as Ex.D3. On being asked he further stated that, DLC along with invoice marked as Ex.D3(a). P.W.29 recorded his further statement on 13.08.2013 which is marked as Ex.D4 where in also he has stated transportation details. But the remaining contents of the statement he does not know. I now see the Ex.D4 page 3 para 3 contents are not stated by him before the IO and same is marked as Ex.D4(a). The transportation details mentioned in Ex.D3 and 4 are in tabular form are correct as provided by him. They have transported cargo with legal documents.
63. The evidence of this witness noticed that, they have transported the iron ore from Hospet to Belekeri along with necessary documents. It is shown to the concerned department etc. It clearly noticed that, the suppliers who has supplied the iron ore to the accused No.3 company has 58 C.C.No.20167/2015 provided all the DMG permit as well as necessary documents to the truck drivers, in turn they have shown the said document in all check post, thereafter unloaded the material at the last destination point. It is not disputed by the prosecution.
64. The learned counsel cross-examined P.W.20. He deposed same set of facts as stated by the P.W.19. He further stated that, accused No.3 company employees were not in the loading point. The suppliers employees, their truck drivers were present in the loading point. They have transported cargo with legal documents to accused No.3 company. All the transporters examination by the prosecution stated same set of facts as stayed by the P.W.19 and 20. The evidence of P.W.19 to 26 clearly noticed that, they have transported the iron ore materials to Belekeri as per order placed by the accused No.3 company. Eagle Traders and Logistics have supplied the materials to the accused No.3. The P.W.19 to 26 are the different transporters. As per information furnished by the suppliers they went to the said place and loaded the materials in the truck and after obtaining the necessary 59 C.C.No.20167/2015 documents, they have unloaded the iron ore material at the last destination point. None of the official witnesses deposed that, all the truck drivers are not able to furnish any legal document at the time of transportation of iron ore. It is admitted fact that, there were 5 to 6 check post in between Hospet and Belekeri. All the check post officials examined the documents submitted by the truck drivers and permitted to move the vehicle. As such, in my opinion, on the examination of these witnesses by the prosecution, it is not possible to establish the allegations against the accused. All the transporters deposed categorically about transportation of iron ore materials with legal documents. As per cross- examination conducted by the accused counsel it is noticed that, the some of the witnesses are examined by the P.W.29 in R.C.13(A)/2012. The same persons again examined by the P.W.30 in this case also. Except this nothing has been disclosed as they have stated as per Ex.D2 to 13. As such, in my opinion, the evidence of these witness are not helpful to the prosecution.
60 C.C.No.20167/2015
65. Now, I would like to refer the evidence of P.W.27. Material witness on the side of the prosecution case. He deposed that, they have transported the iron ore from Hospet to Belekeri port. He know accused No.4 & 5. They have purchased the iron ore materials from other company and then sold it to the accused No.3 company. They have submitted the original documents in R.C.No.13(A)/2012.
66. This witness is testified by the accused counsel, at that point of time he deposed that, the supplier will inform about the place of loading to accused No.3 company who in turn will inform him as a transporter and then he sent the respective lorries to the loading point. The supplier has handed over the DMG and bulk permit at the time of loading the iron ore. After obtaining all the necessary documents the respective truck drivers transport the goods from the loading point to the final destination. He further deposed that, at the loading point accused No.3 company people were not there. On 06.03.2014 P.W.29 recorded his statement in RC 13[A]/12. In that, case he is cited as CW202. P.W.29 recorded his statement and at that time he has stated 61 C.C.No.20167/2015 transportation details and regarding invoice raised by Eagle Traders and Logistics in favour of accused No.3. But the remaining contents of the statement he do not know and he has not stated. The said portion of the statement in RC 13[A]/12 is marked as Ex.D13. It clearly noticed that, the Eagle Traders and Logistics are the suppliers of iron ore materials to the accused No.3 company. He is proper person to hand over the document. The prosecution has never tried to obtain the necessary documents from the Eagle Traders and Logistics and got marked through this witness. There is no impediment on the part of the prosecution to ask the bulk permit from the Eagle Traders and Logistics, whether they have paid the royalty to the Government or not. It is not done so. Once P.W.27 categorically admitted that, they have supplied to the accused No.3 company, it is duty of the Eagle Traders and Logistics to furnish necessary documents. Inspite of it knowingfully well that, the documents are in the hands of Eagle Traders and Logistics, the prosecution is not able to trace out those document and got marked through this witness. It clearly noticed that, the prosecution is not 62 C.C.No.20167/2015 able to secure the materials documents from the Eagle Traders and Logistics.
67. Now, I would like to refer the evidence of P.W.28. He deposed that, as per request of CBI he went to the office of accused No.1 company at Mumbai. P.W.30 has conducted mahazar in the office of accused No.1 company and recovered the documents marked as Ex.P.76 to 83.
68. This witness is testified by the accused counsel. At that point of time he deposed that, he has attended the search mahazar conducted in the office of accused No.1 company. He does not remember the place. He has stated that, office of the accused No.1 company situated in the ground floor. There are 5 rooms. In all the rooms they have taken the files. CBI officers have not recorded his statement. Remaining suggestions denied by this witness.
69. The evidence of this witness noticed that, he was present at the time of conducting seizure mahazar by the I.O. he has put the signature on the mahazar. Except this nothing has been elicited by the prosecution through this witness. 63 C.C.No.20167/2015
70. Now, I would like to refer the evidence of P.W.29 - I.O. He deposed that, he investigated the case which pertains the export of iron ore by M/s. DLC from Belekeri port during period 01.01.09 to 31.05.10. The Accused persons have exported 9.15 Lakhs tones of iron from Belekeri port to foreign country. He has collected the document and examined the witnesses pertaining to purchase of iron ore by accused No.3 company and transported by them and subsequently exported by them. He has also identified certified copy of order sheet in S.C.No.21/14 and production memo along with details of transportation bills of Sree Durga Road lines and various transporters. They are marked as Ex.P.84 to 97 and He has recorded the statement of P.W.19, 21, 22, 23 to 27 marked as Ex.D2 to 13.
71. This witness is testified by the accused counsel. At that point of time he deposed that, he has not recorded any statement of witnesses and collected any documents in this case. He has collected all the original documents from the office of accused No.3 as well as transporters in respect of 64 C.C.No.20167/2015 R.C.No.13(A)/12. The evidence of this witness is no way concerned to this case.
72. Now, I would like to refer the evidence of P.W.30 - I.O. He deposed that, he investigated this case and collected the documents and recorded the statements of witnesses and filed the charge sheet against the accused persons. Those documents are marked as Ex.P.98 to 109. He has stated that, on the different date he has collected the documents from the various witness and recorded the statement of witnesses on various dates. He has collected the documents on the basis of covering letter submitted by the all the witnesses.
73. This witness is testified by the accused counsel at that point of time he deposed that, he has collected the documents pertaining to accused No.3 in respect of charge sheet para 13. He has not referred any H form in respect of any invoice. He has intimated the day to day progress of investigation to his higher officers. Bill No. 30 & 56 are against H form mentioned. The first purchaser can claim the H form for the export of iron ore. He has discussed about H 65 C.C.No.20167/2015 form with his higher officer but he do not remember. As per his case diary nothing has been noticed that, he has discussed about H form with his higher officer.
74. The learned counsel for accused No.3 cross- examined this witness and elicited that, during the course of his investigation of this case, he has referred to Section 9 of MMDR Act. It deals with royalty in respect of mining leases. During the course of his investigation of this case, he has examined stevedore by name Abhay Kochrekar of Shree Mallikarjuna Pvt. Ltd. but he is not cited as a witness. He has independently recorded the statement of P.W.19 to 27 in respect of documents produced before P.W.29 in respect of R.C .No13[A]/12.
75. The evidence of this witness noticed that, though he has recorded the statement of witnesses collected the documents and filed charge sheet against the accused persons. I would like to discuss the evidence of this witness later on.
66 C.C.No.20167/2015
76. In over all considering the facts and circumstances case as well as evidence and documents, the prosecution is not able to prove the ingredient of Sections as stated in the charge sheet. The first and fore most allegation of the prosecution is that, the accused No.1 to 5 conspired with each other and tried to procure the stolen property and with an intention to cheat the Government, they have transported 48,000 MT of iron ore from Belekeri port to foreign country. As I have already discussed in all the witnesses evidence and come to the conclusion that, the official witnesses deposed about the procedure of obtaining the license as well as tax etc. The P.W.1 to 8 are categorically deposed that, they have collected all the required tax as per provisions laid down in the Act. None of the official witnesses deposed against the accused that, the accused persons at the time of transporting the iron ore material, they are violated the Rules and Regulations as well as they have not paid cess, development tax, port tax etc. The remaining witnesses deposed about the transportation of the iron ore material as per order placed by the accused No.3 company. The material 67 C.C.No.20167/2015 witness in this case P.W.27 who was working as branch manager in Eagle Traders and Logistics stated that, they have supplied the iron ore materials as per order placed by the accused No.3 company. It is clearly noticed that, the Eagle Traders and Logistics is the proper person to secure necessary documents before the concerned authority at the time of lifting iron ore material from Hospet to Belekeri. It is further noticed that, the accused No.3 being trader has placed order for purchase of iron ore material. The Eagle Traders and Logistics has supplied the same through various mine agents. Such being the case, the question does not arise that, the accused No.3 company is liable to pay royalty to the Government as contended by the prosecution. Moreover, the official witnesses are categorically deposed before this Court on oath stating that, the lease holder or lessee has to obtain the bulk permit to transport the iron ore material from mine head or other last destination point. Here in this case, Eagle Traders and Logistics is lessee for supplying the iron ore material to accused No.3 company. As such Eagle Traders and Logistics has to furnish bulk permit or other relevant 68 C.C.No.20167/2015 documents at the time of transport the iron ore material from Hospet to Belekeri. It is admitted by the official witnesses during the course of evidence. Such being the case, in my opinion, the entire evidence of the prosecution witnesses never discloses any allegation against the accused.
77. Now, I would like to mention in order to prove conspiracy between the accused persons, the prosecution is not able to examine the direct witness. However, it is burden on the prosecution to prove the said allegation against the accused has to examine any circumstantial witness to prove the said allegation. In ever criminal case, it is not possible to prove the conspiracy against the Accused by the direct evidence. However, the prosecution has not made any efforts to prove the said ingredient of criminal conspiracy by examining any circumstantial witness. None of the witnesses deposed before this Court that, the accused persons are conspired with each and with an intention to cheat the Government; they have exported the iron ore material to foreign country without valid permit.
69 C.C.No.20167/2015
78. At the same time, I would like to mention in order to prove the ingredient cheating by the accused. the prosecution has to prove the same by examining the witnesses. It is no doubt, the prosecution has examined P.W.1 to 30 in order to prove the allegation against the accused. None of the prosecution witnesses deposed that, the accused persons are having any dishonest intention to cheat the Government, they have transported the iron ore material without valid permit. Moreover, the prosecution has made allegation that, the accused persons are dishonestly received the stolen property. But the prosecution is not able to establish by oral or documentary evidence, whether the material which was exported by the accused persons is stolen property by the suppliers or the accused persons are having knowledge about the stolen property purchased by the Eagle Traders and Logistics. None of the witnesses deposed any single word against the accused that, the accused persons have purchased the stolen property from the suppliers. The entire prosecution evidence noticed that, the witnesses never disclose anything about the stolen property purchased by the 70 C.C.No.20167/2015 accused. Moreover, the entire evidence noticed that, the accused persons are complied the required provisions as contemplated under Customs Act and Port Act. It is categorically admitted by the official witnesses examined by the prosecution. Merely, the allegation as the accused persons conspired with each other as well as purchased the stolen property and exported to foreign country will not support any evidence. There must be some concrete evidence by the side of prosecution to believe that, the accused persons with an intention to cheat the government, they have purchased the stolen property. Moreover, the prosecution is not able to disclose the material which was exported by the accused persons belongs to whom. The persons who has lost the property has never tried to lodge any complaint to the concerned authority. Moreover, the iron ore material which was exported by the accused was supplied by the Eagle Traders and Logistics. The said firm has already made accused in S.C.No.21/2014. The present accused persons are also made as accused in that case.
71 C.C.No.20167/2015
79. In order to punish the accused under Section 120 (B), it is essential to establish that, there was some common object to be achieved and that, there was an agreement by the accused persons to achieve that, object i.e. there was a 'meeting of mind'. In the present case, it cannot be said that, the conspiracy was hatched by the accused persons in furtherance of some common object. The evidence of prosecution witnesses never discloses that, the accused No.1 to 5 are conspired with each other, they have made an agreement etc. As such in my opinion, the prosecution is not able to prove the ingredient of Section 120(B) of IPC.
80. At the same time, I would like to mention in order to prove ingredient of Section 420 of IPC, it is essential to prove dishonest intention of the accused to purchase the iron ore material which was the stolen property in this case. The prosecution witnesses never stated anything that, the accused persons are having dishonest intention to procure the iron ore material from Eagle Traders and Logistics. The above Section further deals "cheating and dishonestly inducing of property - Whoever cheat and thereby dishonestly 72 C.C.No.20167/2015 induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven year, and shall also be liable to fine". But In this case, none of the witnesses deposed against the accused that, the accused persons have induced any person to deliver the iron ore material as well as they have dishonest intention to purchase iron ore material. Such being the case, ingredient of Section 420 of IPC is also not proved by the prosecution.
81. At the same time, I would like to refer Section 415 of IPC. "Cheating and dishonest inducement to deliver property
- Ingredients of offence - Fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making promise or representation - Need for - Held, in the absence of culpable intention at the time of making initial promise, offence under Section 420 is not prove". In this case also there is no evidence on the side of prosecution to believe that, the accused persons with a dishonest intention induced 73 C.C.No.20167/2015 any other person to buy the iron ore material. At the same time, the prosecution has also alleged against the accused persons that, they have committed offence under Section 411 of IPC. The prosecution witnesses never tried to depose that, the accused persons have procured the stolen material from the suppliers etc. "It is duty of the prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of a person under Section 411 of IPC, to prove that, the stolen property was in the possession of the accused, that, some person other than the accused had possession of the property before the accused got possession of it, and that, the accused had knowledge that, the property was stolen property. There is no reliable evidence to prove either of these facts". The prosecution witnesses never stated anything that, the material which was exported by the Accused is the stolen property.
82. The case of the prosecution is that, Accused persons have exported the iron ore materials to the foreign country without payment of royalty. On this point the evidence of prosecution witness noticed that, the lessee is only the person to obtain the permit from the competent authority. Nobody is 74 C.C.No.20167/2015 having any right to obtain permit. In this case, the Accused No. 3 being a trader is admitted by the prosecution witnesses. Such being the case, A3 is not responsible to pay royalty to the Government. For the sake of argument, if a person has to buy any article/material from the mall, he is not responsible to pay any tax to the concerned authority. At the most he has to pay VAT Tax. Here, in this case the Accused persons have already paid Cess, VAT, port tax, etc. it is admitted by the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, Accused persons are not responsible to pay the royalty. Moreover, the Government officials were present at the time of excavating the iron ore from mine head and permitted to transport the same. Those persons are able to speak whether the lessee has to pay the royalty or not. All the witnesses categorically stated original bulk permit and necessary documents are handed over by the truck driver at the last destination point. Those material documents are not collected by the IO. It is further noticed that, the IO has examined Stevedore agent but he is not cited as a witness. The stevedore agents has received all the documents handed over by the truck drivers. It is admitted by 75 C.C.No.20167/2015 the prosecution witnesses. Moreover, IO has not examined the check post officials in this case. All these material defects on the side of the prosecution, is clearly noticed that, IO has not properly conducted the investigation.
83. The I.O. of this case, never tried to say anything against the accused persons that, the accused persons with dishonest intention they have procured the stolen property and exported the same. The I.O. has simply recorded the statement of the witnesses and collected the shipping bills and other transportation documents and filed the charge sheet against the accused. In every criminal case, the burden lies upon the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. In this case, the evidence of prosecution witnesses as well as material documents never discloses that, the accused persons are having dishonest intention and procured the stolen material and exported the same. There must be some corroborative evidence and documents by the side of prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses itself indicates that, Accused never had 76 C.C.No.20167/2015 any dishonest intention to cheat the Government, they have purchased the stolen property. As such, in my opinion, the prosecution is not able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. At the same time, I have gone through the decisions relied by the accused counsel in this case. The principles laid down in the above respected judgments as well as the facts and circumstances of the present case are one and the same. Therefore, the decisions relied by the accused counsel are applicable to the facts of the present case. In view of the above discussion, the evidence of the prosecution witness creates doubts about the allegations against the Accused. Hence, I come to the conclusion, the prosecution is not able prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Therefore, benefit of doubt given to the Accused. Hence, I answer the above points No.1 to 3 in the Negative.
84. Point No.4 : In view of the foregoing reasons and in the result, I proceed to pass the following order. 77 C.C.No.20167/2015
ORDER Acting under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C., the accused No.1 to 5 found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 120 (B) r/w Sections 411 and 420 of Indian Penal Code and the accused No.1 to 5 are acquitted for the above offence.
The bail bond of the accused No.1 to 5 and surety bonds stand cancelled.
[Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the day of 30th day of March, 2016] [SABAPPA] XVII ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE.
-: ANNEXURE :-
I. LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION :-
P.W.1 : S.B.Samanth P.W.2 : Chandrashekar Bhat P.W.3 : A. Nagamohan P.W.4 : A.L. Indurkar P.W.5 : S.A. D'souza 78 C.C.No.20167/2015 P.W.6 : Rajesh Ganapathi Pawar P.W.7 : Ravi Shankar Gaonkar P.W.8 : Arun Atmaram Pawar P.W.9 : Yogesh Anand Shetty P.W.10 : Sidananjaiah P.W.11 : Muthappa P.W.12 : G. VenuGopal P.W.13 : Sanjay Chougule P.W.14 : R. Sharana Basaveshwara P.W.15 : Dileep A. Bankapur P.W.16 : P. Atul Kumar P.W.17 : Smt. Pista Devi P.W.18 : M.G. Hegde P.W.19 : Lalith Kumar P.W.20 : Abdul Ghani M. Attar P.W.21 : Chandrakanth Kamath P.W.22 : Prashanth M. Hadagali P.W.23 : Prabhakar Devadiga P.W.24 : Ashish A. Shete P.W.25 : Chetan Bhat 79 C.C.No.20167/2015 P.W.26 : Suresh Babu P.W.27 : B. Nalla Reddy P.W.28 : Vijay P. Pendhari P.W.29 : A.V.S. Sai P.W.30 : T. Santhosh Kumar II. LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENCE :- -NIL-
III. DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 : Shipping Bill dated 21.11.2009
Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of P.W.1
Ex.P.1(b) : Invoice annexed to Ex.P.1
Ex.P.1(c) : Exchange Control Form No.B.
Ex.P.1(c1) : Signature of P.W.2
Ex.P.1(d) : MATE's Report
Ex.P.1(e) : Conformation of Contract
Ex.P.1(f) : Test Memo
Ex.P.1(g) : Draft Survey Report
Ex.P.1(h) : Duty Payment challan
Ex.P.1(i) : Short Ship Notice
Ex.P.1(j) : Signature of P.W.2
Ex.P.1(k) : Note in duplicate shipping bill,
Signature of P.W.2
Ex.P.2 : Shipping Bill 95/09 dated 24.11.2009
Ex.P.2(a) : Signature of P.W.1
Ex.P.2(b) : Invoice annexed to Ex.P.2
Ex.P.2(c) : Exchange Control Declaration Form
Ex.P.2(c1) : Signature of P.W.2
Ex.P.2(d) : MATE's Report
Ex.P.2(e) : Conformation of Contract
Ex.P.2(f) : Test Memo
Ex.P.2(g) : Draft Survey Report
Ex.P.2(h) : U.T. Payment challan
80 C.C.No.20167/2015
Ex.P.2(i) : Certificate of clearance
Ex.P.2(j) : Port Clearance certificate
Ex.P.2(k) : Note Sheets
Ex.P.2(l) : Signature of P.W.2
Ex.P.2(m) : Signature of P.W.2 Note
Ex.P.2(n) : Note in duplicate shipping bill,
Ex.P.3 : Shipping Bill dated 06.01.2010
Ex.P.3(a) : Invoice
Ex.P.3(b) : Exchange Control Form No.B.
Ex.P.3(c) : MATE's Report
Ex.P.3(d) : Contract Agreement
Ex.P.3(e) : Test Memo
Ex.P.3(f) : Draft Survey Report
Ex.P.3(g) : Challan
Ex.P.3(h) : Inspection Certificate of quality
Ex.P.3(i) : Certificate of clearance
Ex.P.3(j) : Port Clearance certificate
Ex.P.3(k) : Note Sheets
Ex.P.3(l) : Signature of P.W.2
Ex.P.3(m) : Signature of P.W.2 Note
Ex.P.3(n) : Signature of P.W.3
Ex.P.3(o) : Signature of P.W.4
Ex.P.4 : Shipping Bill dated 06.01.2010
Ex.P.4(a) : Signature of P.W.1
Ex.P.4(b) : Invoice
Ex.P.4(c) : Exchange Control Form No.B.
Ex.P.4(c1) : Signature of P.W.2
Ex.P.4(d) : MATE's Report
Ex.P.4(e) : Contract Agreement
Ex.P.4(g) : Test Memo
Ex.P.4(g) : Draft Survey Report
Ex.P.4(h) : Challan
Ex.P.4(i) : Certificate of clearance
Ex.P.4(j) : Port Clearance certificate
Ex.P.4(k) : Note Sheets
Ex.P.4(l) : Signature of P.W.2
Ex.P.4(m) : Signature of P.W.4
81 C.C.No.20167/2015
Ex.P.5 : Receipt Memo dated 28.12.2013
Ex.P.5(a) : Signature of P.W.5
Ex.P.6 : Export General Manifest 04.12.2009
Ex.P.6(a) : Signature of P.W.2
Ex.P.6(b) : Signature of P.W.1
Ex.P.6(c) : Cargo Declaration Form No.3
Ex.P.6(d) : Export General Manifest
Ex.P.7 : Export General Manifest 02.04.2010
Ex.P.7(a) : Signature of P.W.1
Ex.P.7(b) : Cargo Declaration Form No.3
Ex.P.7(c) : Signature of P.W.7
Ex.P.8 : C/c of Export General Manifest
Ex.P.8(a) : Signature of P.W.2
Ex.P.8(b) : Signature of Signature of P.W.1
Ex.P.8(c) : Cargo Declaration Form
Ex.P.9 : Receipt Memo dated 18.12.2013
Ex.P.9(a) : Signature of P.W.7
Ex.P.10 : Notifications
Ex.P.11 : Statement showing the details of export
of iron ore
Ex.P.11 (a to c) : Export Application pertaining to A1 Co.
Ex.P.11(d to f) : Signature of Mahesh Bilege Ex.P.11(g) : Signature of Arun Pawar Ex.P.12 : Covering Letter Ex.P.12(a) : Signature of V.R.Naik Ex.P.13 : Receipt Memo dt. 18.12.2013 Ex.P.13(a) : Signature of P.W.7 Ex.P.14 : Notifications Ex.P.15 : Covering Letter Ex.P.15(a) : Signature of Rawal 82 C.C.No.20167/2015 Ex.P.16 : Statement of Details of Bulk Permit Ex.P.16(a) : Signature of Rawal Ex.P.17 : Covering Letter dated 11.12.2012 Ex.P.17(a) : Signature of P.W.13 Ex.P.18 : Details of Export made A1 along with Index Ex.P.18(a) : Signature of P.W.13 Ex.P.19 : Memorandum of Article of Assn. of A1 Ex.P.20 : Invoice Cum Delivery Challan Ex.P.21 : Permit Issued by Hospet Ispath Ex.P.22 : Transport Details (invoice) Ex.P.23 to 26 : Shipping Bills Ex.P.27 to 30 : Invoices by A3 Co., Ex.P.31 : Letter Dated 10.07.2012 Ex.P.32 : VAT details of A1 Co., Ex.P.33 : Letter dated 16.11.2012 by A3 to A1 Ex.P.34 : Covering Letter 30.11.2012 Ex.P.34(a) : Signature of P.W.13 Ex.P.35 : Covering Letter dated 04.04.2014 Ex.P.35(a) : Signature of P.W.14 Ex.P.36 : Authorization Letter Ex.P.36(a) : Signature of P.W.14 Ex.P.37 : Monthly Summary of iron ore Ex.P.37 (a) : Signature of C.W.18 83 C.C.No.20167/2015 Ex.P.38 : Reconciliation Statement Ex.P.39 : Covering Letter Ex.P.39(a) : Signature of C.W.18 Ex.P.40 : Memorandu of Assn. & Article Assn. Ex.P.41 : Permit Issued by DMG with enclosures Ex.P.42 : Invoice cum Delivery Challan Ex.P.43 : Covering Letter dated 01.08.2014 Ex.P.43(a) : Signature of P.W.15 Ex.P.44 : Current account Opening Form Ex.P.45 : Statement of accounts Ex.P.46 : Certificate under Evidence Act Ex.P.46(a) : Signature of P.W.15 Ex.P.47 : Letter dated 01.08.2014 Ex.P.48 : C/c of Account opening Form Ex.P.49 : Statements of Accounts Ex.P.50 : Certificate under Evidence Act Ex.P.50(a) : Signature of P.W.15 Ex.P.51 : Covering Letter dated 23.07.2014 Ex.P.51(a) : Signature of P.W.16 Ex.P.52 : C/c of transportation Bill pertaining to A1 Ex.P.53 : C/c of Statements of Accounts Ex.P.54 : C/c of Extract of ledger accounts 84 C.C.No.20167/2015 Ex.P.55 : Covering Letter dated 05.08.2014 Ex.P.55(a) : Signature of P.W.17 Ex.P.56 : Statement of accounts Ex.P.57 : Bills/Goods Consignments Notes Ex.P.58 : Covering Letter dated 02.04.2014 Ex.P.58(a) : Signature of P.W.18 Ex.P.59 : Receipt Memo dated 02.04.2014 Ex.P.59(a) : Signature of P.W.18 Ex.P.60 : Search List, Seizure memo, production memo Ex.P.61 to 64 : Invoices Ex.P.65 : Covering Letter dated 17.07.2014 Ex.P.65(a) : Signature of P.W.18 Ex.P.66 : Tax Invoices of 3 Companies Ex.P.67 : Covering Letter dated 03.08.2014 Ex.P.67(a) : Signature of P.W.18 Ex.P.68 : Transportation details pertaining to A1 Ex.P.69 : Covering Letter dated 06.08.2014 Ex.P.69(a) : Signature of P.W.19 Ex.P.70 : Production Memo dated 13.08.2013 Ex.P.71 : Transportation details Ex.P.72 : Production Memo dated 19.12.2012 Ex.P.73 : Covering Letter dated 07.08.2014 Ex.P.73(a) : Signature of P.W.21 85 C.C.No.20167/2015 Ex.P.74 : Covering Letter Ex.P.74(a) : Signature of P.W.22 Ex.P.75 : Transportation details Ex.P.76 : Search List Ex.P.76(a) : Signature of P.W.28 Ex.P.77 : One entire file contains documents Ex.P.78 : One file containing invoices Ex.P.79 : One file containing bank Statements Ex.P.80 : one file containing Port Charts Customs duty challan of A1 Co., Ex.P.81 : One file containing Invoices of iron ore Ex.P.82 : One file containing Bank Statements of A1 Ex.P.83 : One file containing Export of Iron ore Ex.P.84 : C/c of Order sheet in Spl.C.C.No.21/14
Ex.P.85 to 88 : Production Memos along with details of transportation bills Ex.P.89 to 97 : Production Memos Ex.P.98 : Original FIR Ex.P.98(a) : Signature of S.P. CBI Ex.P.99 : Covering Letter dated 22.10.2014 Ex.P.100 : Customs Advice pertaining to A1 Ex.P.101 : Covering Letter dated 02.08.2014 86 C.C.No.20167/2015 Ex.P.102 : Statement of Account SBI Hospet Ex.P.103 : Documents received by ROC Mumbai Ex.P.104 : Covering Letter dated 24.07.2014 Ex.P.105 : Certificate of Incorporation of M/A Ex.P.106 : Receipt Memo dated 07.12.2013 Ex.P.106(a) : Signature of P.W.30 Ex.P.107 : Letter dated 11.04.2014 Ex.P.108 : Account opening form of A1 Co., Ex.P.109 : Statement of accounts of A1 Co., IV. LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR DEFENCE :-
Ex.D.1 : Bulk Permit Application Ex.D.2 : Witness Statement of C.W.24 Ex.D.3 & 3(a) : Witness Statement of C.W.23 Ex.D.4 & 4(a) : Further Witness Statement of C.W.23 Ex.D.5 : Witness Statement of C.W.22 Ex.D.6 to 8 : Witness Statement of C.W.28 Ex.D.9 & 9(a) : Witness Statement of C.W.18 Ex.D.10 & 10(a) : Witness Statement of C.W.31 Ex.D.11 &
Ex.D.11(a & b) : Witness Statement of C.W.30 Ex.D.12 & 12(a) : Witness Statement of C.W.30 87 C.C.No.20167/2015 Ex.D.13 & Ex.D.13(a to c) : Witness Statement of C.W.202 V. LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
- NIL -
VI. LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE:--
- NIL-
XVII ADDL. A.C.M.M., BANGALORE.