Karnataka High Court
Mr Prasanna Gowda vs State Of Karnataka on 24 June, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 KAR 1222, 2020 (4) AKR 236
Author: S R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1014 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
MR. PRASANNA GOWDA
S/O SRI. M.THIMMEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
MANAGING DIRECTOR
M/S. PRABATH GRANITES PVT LTD.,
NO.19, 1ST 'A' MAIN ROAD
BANNERGATTA ROAD
AUDGODI
BENGALURU - 560 030.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. P.PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY SATHNUR POLICE STATION
KANAKAPURA
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY ITS
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
DR B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. SRI. WILLIAM
S/O LATE MR DEVARAJU
AGED 47 YEARS
INCHARGE REVENUE INSPECTOR
SATHNUR HOBLI
KANAKAPURA TALUK
RAMNAGARAM DISTRICT - 562 159.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP FOR R-1
R-2 - SERVED)
-2-
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED: 26.10.2016
PASSED BY THE I ADDL.C.J AND J.M.F.C., KANAKAPURA IN
C.C.NO.860/2016 THEREBY TAKING CONGNIZANCE AGAINST THE
ACCUSED/PETR. HEREIN FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 21, 4, 4(1A) OF
THE MINES AND MINERALS (DEVELOPMENT & REGULATION) ACT,
1957, AND SEC.379, 467 OF IPC AND SEC.94(3) OF KARNATAKA
LAND REVENUE ACT, 1964 AND CONSEQUNETLY QUASH THE
ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.860/2016 BY THE I ADDL. C.J, AND
J.M.F.C., KANAKAPURA THEREON AS AGAINST THE PETR-
COMPANY/ ACCUSED IS CONCERNED.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No.860/2016 pending on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Kanakapura, wherein he has been arrayed as accused for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 21, 4, 4(1A) of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957, and Sections 379, 467 of IPC and Section 94(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.
2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for the 1st respondent - State. -3-
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the Managing Director M/s. Prabhath Granites Pvt. Ltd., a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act. On 12.10.1999, a quarrying lease was issued in favour of the said Prabhath Granites by the State Government in respect of a land bearing Sy.No.53 of Achlu village, Sathanur Hobli, Kanakapura Taluk, for a period of 10 years. Subsequently, exercising powers under Rule 9 (2A) of the Karnataka Mines and Mineral (Concession) Rules, 1994 (for short "the Rules"), working permission was issued in favour of the said company till 17.05.2012. Meanwhile, since the lease was due to expire on 11.10.2009, the said Company made an application seeking renewal of lease and since the said application was not disposed of by the State Government, the lease period was deemed to have been extended by virtue of Rule 9 (2A) of the Rules. Further, the said Company also obtained environmental clearance.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that despite the aforesaid Company being entitled to the benefit of deemed renewal of the lease, respondent No.2 - -4- Complainant lodged a complaint with respondent No.1 - police alleging that the said Company was guilty of the aforesaid offences. Pursuant thereto, an FIR was registered against the said company for the alleged offences.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that pursuant to the amendment to the aforesaid Rules, there was correspondence between the said Company and the State Government. Thereafter, by order dated 14.07.2014, the State Government extended the period of lease in favour of the said Company for a period of 20 years with effect from 12.10.1999. Consequent to the said renewal, the said Company is deemed to have a valid lease for a period of 20 years from 12.10.1999, which includes the year 2012, during which the offences are alleged to have been committed. It is therefore contended that by virtue of both the deemed renewal in favour of M/s. Prabhath Granites as well as the subsequent renewal of lease for a period that extended from 1999 to 2019, the said Company cannot be said to have committed the aforesaid offences in the year 2012 and as such, the proceedings in C.C.No.860/2016 pending on the file of the I Additional Civil -5- Judge and JMFC, Kanakapura against the petitioner deserve to be quashed.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that alternatively, it was not permissible for respondent No.1 to initiate criminal action against the petitioner, particularly when the company - M/s. Prabhath Granites, which is an independent, juristic and legal entity had not been arraigned as an accused in the proceedings. In this context, learned counsel for petitioner placed reliance upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Aneeta Hada Vs. God Father Travels and Tours Pvt. Ltd., - (2012) 5 SCC 661 in order to contend that the prosecution as against the petitioner who was only a Managing Director without arraigning the Company-M/s. Prabhath Granites Pvt. Ltd., was not maintainable and the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.860/2016 deserve to be quashed on this ground also.
7. The respondent No.2 - complainant having been served with notice of the present petition, he has chosen to remain unrepresented.
-6-
8. Per contra, learned HCGP for respondent No.1 would submit that there is no merit in the petition and that the same deserves to be dismissed.
9. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record.
10. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the material on record indicates that the petitioner is the Managing Director M/s. Prabhath Granites Pvt. Ltd., a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act. On 12.10.1999, a quarrying lease (Annexure-C) was issued in favour of the said Prabhat Granites by the State Government in respect of land bearing Sy.No.53 of Achlu village, Sathanur Hobli, Kanakapura Taluk, for a period of 10 years. Subsequently, exercising powers under Rule IX (2A) of the Rules, working permission was issued in favour of the said company till 17.05.2012. Meanwhile, since the lease was due to expire on 11.10.2009, the said Company made an application seeking renewal of lease and since the said application was not disposed of by the State Government, -7- the lease period was deemed to have been extended by virtue of Rule 9 (2A) of the Rules. Further, the said Company also obtained environmental clearance on 19.07.2012 (Annexure- E).
11. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, since the aforesaid Company became entitled to the benefit of deemed renewal of the lease as contemplated under Rule 9 (2A) of the Rules and the lease in favour of the Company stood extended till the State Government passed appropriate orders on the renewal application, in the light of the undisputed fact that no orders were passed by the State Government until 14.07.2014, the said Company, M/s. Prabhath Granites became entitled to deemed renewal till the said date which included the year 2012 during which the said Company is alleged to have committed the aforesaid offences. In other words, in the year 2012, it cannot be said that M/s. Prabhath Granites were guilty of the aforesaid offences since they had the benefit of deemed renewal of lease and consequently, the lease in their favour was valid and -8- subsisting. Viewed from this angle, the instant proceedings for the alleged offences deserve to be quashed.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner is also correct in submitting that subsequently by order dated 14.07.2014 (Annexure-H), the State Government extended the period of lease in favour of the said Company for a period of 20 years with effect from 12.10.1999. Consequent to the said renewal, the said Company is deemed to have a valid lease for a period of 20 years from 12.10.1999, which includes the year 2012 during which the offences are alleged to have been committed. It is therefore clear that by virtue of the subsequent renewal of lease for a period that extended from 1999 to 2019, the lease in favour of M/s. Prabhath Granites was valid and subsisting during the year 2012 and the said Company cannot be said to have committed the aforesaid offences in the year 2012 and as such, the proceedings in C.C.No.860/2016 pending on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Kanakapura against the petitioner deserve to be quashed on this ground also. -9-
13. The material on record also indicates it was not permissible for respondent No.1 to initiate criminal action only against the petitioner, who was only the Managing Director, particularly when the company - M/s.Prabhath Granites, which is an independent, juristic and legal entity had not been arraigned as an accused in the proceedings. In the case of Aneeta Hada (supra), arising out of the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the Apex Court held that criminal prosecution as against only the Managing Director without arraigning the Company was not maintainable. Applying the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid case referred to supra, I am of the considered opinion that the instant proceedings in C.C.No.860/2016 only against the petitioner - Managing Director without arraigning the Company - M/s. Prabhath Granites Pvt. Ltd., was not maintainable and the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.860/2016 deserve to be quashed on this ground also.
14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I proceed to pass the following Order:
(i) Criminal Petition is hereby Allowed.
- 10 -
(ii) The proceedings in C.C.No.860/2016 pending on the file of I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Kanakapura are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Mds.