Karnataka High Court
Twenty First Century Wire Rods Ltd., vs State By Central Bureau Of ... on 30 March, 2016
Author: A.V.Chandrashekara
Bench: A.V.Chandrashekara
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MARCH 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.CHANDRASHEKARA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.186/2016
C/W
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.187/2016
IN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.186/2016
BETWEEN:
1. TWENTY FIRST CENTURY WIRE RODS LTD.,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED
OFFICE AT PLOT NO. FC/B1, MOHAN COOP,
INDL. ESTATE, MATHURA ROAD,
BADRAPUR, NEW DELHI
AND ALSO HAVING ADDRESS AT
#408, 12TH MAIN, SADASHIVANAGAR,
RMV EXTENSION, BENGALURU-560 080,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR,
VINOD KUMAR GOEL.
2. VINOD KUMAR GOEL
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
S/O. LATE MADANLAL GOEL,
DIRECTOR,
TWENTY FIRST CENTURY WIRE RODS LTD.,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
PLOT NO.FC/B1, MOHAN COOP INDL. ESTATE,
MATHURA ROAD,
BADRAPURA, NEW DELHI,
AND ALSO HAVING ADDRESS AT
2
#408, 12TH MAIN, SADASHIVANAGAR,
RMV EXTENSION, BANGALORE-560 080.
... PETITIONERS
(By Sri: M.T. NANAIAH, SR. ADV FOR
SRI: VINAYA KEERTHY M, ADV.)
AND:
STATE BY CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
(ECONOMIC OFFENCES WING),
CHENNAI,
AND ALSO HAVING OFFICE AT
BALLARI ROAD, GANGANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 032.
... RESPONDENT
(By Sri: C.H. JADHAV, SR ADV. FOR
SRI: HEGDE DEVARU GANAPATHI, ADV.)
THIS CRL.RP FILED U/S.397(1) CR.P.C BY THE
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS
HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18.01.2016 PASSED BY THE
HON'BLE XVII ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU (SPECIAL
COURT FOR CBI CASES) IN C.C.NO. 1476/2015 AND
DISCHARGE THE PETITIONERS.
IN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.187/2016
BETWEEN:
1. DARSHAN BHARAT CHURIWALA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
S/O. BHARAT SATYANARAYAN CHURIWALA,
DIRECTOR,
3
TWENTY FIRST CENTURY WIRE RODS LTD.,
101, MANMANDIR, INDIRANAGARYANA LANE,
SANTA CRUZ WEST,
MUMBAI- 400 054.
2. GAURAV VINOD GOEL
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
S/O. VINOD KUMAR GOEL,
DIRECTOR,
TWENTY FIRST CENTURY WIRE RODS LTD.,
#301, JANKI KUTIR, VIKAS VILLAGE,
JUHU, MUMBAI-400 049.
... PETITIONERS
(By Sri: M.T. NANAIAH, SR. ADV FOR
SRI: VINAYA KEERTHY M, ADV.)
AND:
STATE BY CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
(ECONOMIC OFFENCES WING),
CHENNAI,
AND ALSO HAVING OFFICE AT
BALLARI ROAD, GANGANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 032.
... RESPONDENT
(By Sri: C.H. JADHAV, SR ADV. FOR
SRI: HEGDE DEVARU GANAPATHI, ADV.)
THIS CRL.RP FILED U/S.397(1) CR.P.C BY THE
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS
HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18.01.2016 PASSED BY THE
HON'BLE XVII ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU (SPECIAL
4
COURT FOR CBI CASES) IN C.C.NO. 1476/2015 AND
DISCHARGE THE PETITIONERS.
THESE CRL. RP's COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioners have filed these revision petitions under Section 397 of Cr.P.C.
2. Petitioners in Crl.R.P.No.186/16 are accused Nos.1 and 2 and petitioners in the connected petition Crl.R.P.No.187/16 are accused Nos.3 and 4 in criminal case registered by the CBI in FIR No.RC 25/E/2013- CBI/EOW/CHENNAI dated 14.01.2015. The said first information was registered pursuant to the direction given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in W.P.(C) No.562/2009 dated 07.09.2012, in the light of the large scale illegal execution and transportation and export of iron ore from Belekeri port. Hon'ble Apex Court had directed the CBI to institute FIR's and investigate the cases relating to the illegal extractions of about 50.79 5 lakh MT of iron ore during the period commencing from 01.01.2009 to 31.05.2010. It was noticed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that 50.79 lakh MT had been illegally exported outside the country and over 8 lakh MTs iron ore were found lying at Belekeri port at Karnataka and was actually under orders of seizure by the Forest Department Authorities.
3. The first accused is a limited Company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act with accused Nos.2 to 4 as its Director. A preliminary report was prepared against first accused in regard to the illegal export of more than 1 lakh MT of iron ore. Preliminary report indicated that the first accused - Company had exported more than 1 lakh MT of iron ore out of India. On the basis of the preliminary report case came to be registered against the first accused and its Director and thorough investigation was conducted. After conducting investigation, the CBI as zeroed down 6 the exact quantity of iron ore illegal exported to an extent of 42,606 MT only. In the charge sheet it is specifically mentioned that 62,634 MT were legally exported with valid permit. Ultimately, it is alleged that the first accused Company represented by its Director - accused Nos.2 to 4 had conspired amongst themselves and received from different mining companies a quantity of 42,606 MT of iron ore, knowing fully well that it was stolen iron ore.
4. What is argued by Sri.M.T.Nanaiah, learned Senior counsel is that the very investigation conducted by the CBI in the present case is contrary to the direction given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in W.P.(C) No.562/2009 dated 16.09.2013. Attention of this Court is drawn to paragraph Nos.(a) and (b) of the order dated 16.09.2013.
"(a) The CBI is permitted to register criminal case against those exporters who were enquired into in the preliminary enquiry and 7 who had exported iron ore of more than 50,000 MT without valid permits and as recommended by the Central Empowered Committee in its report dated 5th September 2012.
(b) The CBI is permitted to refer the mater
with respect to the exporters who had
exported less than 50,000 MT and were not enquired into in the preliminary enquiry, to the Government of Karnataka for taking further necessary action under the relevant laws, as recommended by the Central Empowered Committee in its report dated 5th September, 2012."
5. It is further argued that Hon'ble Apex Court has specifically directed the CBI not to conduct any investigation provided the metric tones of iron ore transported illegally is below 50,000 MT and therefore the charge sheet so filed by the CBI is not in accordance with law and therefore the trial Court could not have framed charges. It is further argued that Section 120-B 8 of IPC is wholly inapplicable to the facts of the case, since no other accused with whom these accused have conspired, is made as accused.
6. Per contra, Sri.C.H.Jadhav, learned counsel representing CBI has vehemently argued that the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 07.09.2012 and 16.09.2013 will have to be read together. It is further argued that Section 120-B is absolutely applicable to the facts of the case, since the Directors had conspired among themselves to receive the stolen iron ore, knowing fully well that they were excavated and transported without valid permits. He has argued that the preliminary report which is the basis for the investigation disclosed the exporting of more than 1 lakh MT of iron ore. Therefore, investigation conducted discloses that the actual quantum of iron ore illegally purchased by the first accused - Company represented by its Director was 42606 MT. He has argued that the 9 learned Judge has rightly rejected the applications filed under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. He has further argued that no apparent illegality or perversity is found in the approach adopted by the Special Court while rejecting the application filed under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. Hence, request this Court to dismiss both the revision petitions.
7. By way of reply Sri.M.T.Nanaiah, learned Senior counsel has argued that even the provisions of Sections 411 and 420 of IPC are not applicable to the facts of the case on the ground that the first accused company represented by its Director was not involved in excavating and transporting of iron ore from the place of excavation to Belekeri port. He has argued that the accused had purchased the iron ore on the same being officially notified by the Port Officer of Belekeri port and therefore the provisions of Sections 411 and 420 of IPC are not applicable to the facts of the case. It is further 10 argued that entire payment relating to iron ore was made through RTGS.
8. As rightly pointed by the learned Senior Counsel the orders passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in W.P.(C) No.562/2009 dated 07.09.2012 and 16.09.2013 will have to be read as a whole.
9. In the order dated 07.09.2012 Hon'ble Apex Court has clearly observed as follows:
"It is made clear that 'no authority or Court shall entertain any challenge to the CBI's investigation of the cases(s) as directed by this Court."
10. Case came to be registered on the basis of the preliminary report. Preliminary report discloses that more than 1 lakh MT of iron ore had been transported by the first accused represented by other accused. Consequent upon the registration of the said case, thorough investigation was done with reference to the 11 permits furnished by the accused and ultimately zeroed down the exact quantity of iron ore illegally exported as 42,606 MT. If there was no preliminary report and CBI had registered the case for illegal exporting of 42,606 MT of iron ore, it would have been something different. If the very preliminary report had disclosed exporting of less than 50,000 MT of iron ore, then SIT would be competent to investigate. Just because the actual quantum of iron ore exported falls below 50,000 MT, it cannot be said that CBI has no competence to conduct investigation.
11. Insofar as the other contention relating to the applicability of Section 120-B of IPC is concerned, there is a lot of force in the submission made by Sri.M.T.Nanaiah, learned senior counsel. As rightly pointed out by him there is no other accused with whom the first accused represented by its Director could have entered into some criminal conspiracy to attract Section 12 120-B of IPC. This aspect of the matter will have to be kept in mind by the learned Judge while framing exact charges. Nothing comes in the way of the Court to apply appropriate Section in regard to the constructive liability of all the Directors of first accused - Company
12. In the light of thorough investigation being conducted and CBI having zeroed down the exact quantity of iron ore being exported without valid permits, framing of charge for the offences punishable under Sections 411 and 420 of IPC cannot be found fault with.
13. Insofar as not making Port Officer of Belekeri Port as party in the present case, Sri.C.H.Jadhav, learned counsel appearing for CBI submits that Port Officer of Belekeri Port has already been made accused in the other connected cases and nothing comes in the way of CBI to make necessary application to invoke Section 319 of Cr.P.C. at an appropriate stage before the 13 trial Court. There is lot of force in the said submission made by the learned counsel.
14. Viewed from any angle, no good grounds are made out to interfere with the well considered judgment passed by the trial Court. No apparent, illegality or perversity is found in the approach adopted by the trial Court rejecting the applications filed under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, petitions are dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE VMB