Karnataka High Court
K V Nagaraj And Swastik Nagaraj vs State By Lokayuktha Police on 4 November, 2020
Author: John Michael Cunha
Bench: John Michael Cunha
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA
WRIT PETITION No.36677 OF 2018 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
K.V. Nagaraj @ Swastik Nagaraj,
S/o. late K. Gopal Setty,
Aged about 45 years,
Director,
M/s. Swastik Steel Hospet Pvt. Ltd.,
R/at 8th Cross, M.J. Nagar,
Geeta Gopal Mansion,
Hospet - 583 201. ...Petitioner
(By Sri. R. Nagendra Naik, Advocate)
AND:
State By Lokayuktha Police,
Special Investigation Team
for Mining Cases,
UAS Campus, Hebbala,
Bengaluru,
Rep. by Special Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Karnataka,
Bengaluru - 560 024. ...Respondent
(By Sri. Venkatesh S. Arbatti, Spl.P.P. and
Sri. B.S. Prasad, Spl.P.P.)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
2
praying to quash the entire proceedings in
Spl.C.C.No.469/2016 vide Annexure - A on the file of XXIII
Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Spl. Judge for Prevention
of Corruption Act, Bengaluru (CCH.No.24) and etc.,
This Writ Petition coming on for Admission this day,
the Court through video conference made the following:
ORDER
This petition is by accused No.18 in Crime No.17/2015 arising out of Spl.C.C.No.469/2016 to quash the said proceedings pending on the file of XXIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Spl. Judge for Prevention of Corruption Act, Bengaluru (CCH.No.24).
2. Though the substance of accusations levelled against the petitioner in the charge sheet is not happily worded, yet reading of Annexure - I of the charge sheet indicates that the petitioner forcibly transported 2000 MT of iron ore from the stock yard of Ashwath Narayan Singh to the stock yard of Star Mineral and from there to Belekeri port without valid dispatch permit and without payment of royalty and other charges to the Forest Department as well 3 as the Mining Department and thereby caused loss of Rs.24,13,415/- to the State Exchequer.
3. The charge sheet goes to show that the very same quantity of iron ore was later sold by M/s. Greentech Mining Industries to M/s. Alphine International, which was later exported by M/s. Pearls International.
4. The contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that the allegations made in the charge sheet are directed only against the exporter. The FIR was registered pursuant to the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court only against the exporter. Petitioner has been included in the array of accused in the charge sheet without there being specific accusations attracting the alleged offences. The material relied on by the Investigating Agency does not show that the petitioner herein was related or connected to the alleged exporters. As such, the charge under Sections 420 and 120B of IPC cannot stand against the petitioner. Further, it is contended that, Sri.Ashwath Narayan Singh, from whose stock yard the alleged material is stated to 4 have been lifted by the petitioner has not lodged any complaint against the petitioner and therefore, even the charge under Section 379 of IPC cannot stand and as such, the prosecution of the petitioner for the alleged offences being illegal and an abuse of process of Court is liable to be quashed.
5. These submissions are countered by learned Standing Counsel-Sri. B.S. Prasad, for respondent. Referring to the allegations made in the complaint, which are supported by the documentary evidence would submit that the petitioner having illegally transported 2000 MT of iron ore from the stock yard of Ashwath Naryana Singh to Belekeri Port without valid permit and without payment of royalty, the offences alleged against the petitioner are clearly made out.
6. Considered the submissions and perused the records.
5
7. The contentions urged by the petitioner, in my view, are misconceived. In the charge sheet it is alleged that 2000 MT of iron ore was exported by M/s. Pearl International. Though there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was involved in the exportation of the subject material, yet, the allegations against the petitioner are confined to the transportation of this material from the stock yard of Ashwath Naryana Singh to Belekeri Port without payment of royalty. These allegations, in my view, squarely attract the ingredients of the offences under Section 4-1A of the MMDR Act. Insofar as invocation of the charge under Sections 420 and 120B of IPC is concerned, the allegations made against the petitioner would indicate that he has played a role in the larger conspiracy of illegal mining and exportation of the iron ore. There is no requirement under law that an accused should be a party to the conspiracy right from the inception till the attainment of the object of conspiracy. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the invocation of the offences under Sections 420 and 120B of IPC as well as under 6
Section 379 of IPC are without any basis. As a result, I do not find any substance in the contentions urged by the learned counsel for petitioner.
Consequently, the petition being devoid of merits, is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE SV