Bangalore District Court
Karnataka Lokayukta vs H.Sajjad Wahab on 30 January, 2026
KABC010248232015
IN THE COURT OF THE XXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE & SPECIAL JUDGE ( P.C. Act) BENGALURU
(C.C.H.No.24)
Dated: This the 30th day of January, 2026
: PRESENT :
K.M. RADHAKRISHNA B.A.LL.B.,
XXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge
and Special Judge (P.C. Act),
Bengaluru Urban District, Bengaluru City.
Special C.C.No.499/2015
Complainant : The State of Karnataka, represented by
the Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Special Investigation Team,
Karnataka Lokayukta,
Bengaluru.
(By : Special Public Prosecutor)
-Versus-
Accused : 1. Mr. H. Sajjad Vahab,
S/o. H. Abdul Vahab,
Aged about 42 years,
Partner of M/s Sameera Trading Com.,
R/at : M.B.T House, 4th Ward,
Door No.377/1, Paatel Nagara,
Hosapete,
Bellary District.
2. Mr. H. Abdul Vahab,
S/o. H. Hussain Peera Vahab,
Aged about 70 years,
Partner of M/s Sameera Trading Com.,
R/at. #11, 3rd Cross,
Nandi Durga Road Extension,
Jayamahal, Bengaluru-46.
2 Spl. C. No.499/2015
3. M/s. Sameera Trading Company,
Hosapete.
Represented by its Managing Partner/
Accused No.1 - H. Sajjad Vahab,
S/o. Abdul Vahab.
(By : Sri Ravi L. Vaidya, Advocate)
Date of offence From 01.01.2009 to
31.05.2010
Date of report of offence 11.07.2014
Date of arrest of the accused -
Date of release on bail -
Total period of custody -
Name of the complainant Mr. Manjunatha Annigeri, IPS
Date of commencement of 14.03.2018
recording evidence
Date of closing of evidence 26.09.2025
Offences complained of Under Sections 379, 420 read
with Section 120(B) of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860, &
Sections 21 r/w Section 4(1A) of
the M.M(D&R) Act, 1957.
Opinion of the Judge As per the order
Sd/- 30.01.2026
(K.M. RADHAKRISHNA)
XXIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge
& Special Judge (PCA), Bengaluru.
3 Spl. C. No.499/2015
JUDGMENT
The Deputy Superintendent of Police - Sri. Anil Kumar M., from the Special Investigation Team of the Karnataka Lokayukta, has laid the charge sheet (original + two supplementary) along with a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C as contemplated under Section 22 of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short, MM(D&R) Act) against accused No.1 to 3 for offences punishable under Sections 379, 420 r/w Section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 4(1), 4(1A) read with Section 21 of MM(D&R) Act in the Crime No.11/2014.
2. Allegations in brief are that, the 1st accused is the son of the 2nd accused. Both of them are the partners of the 3rd accused, M/s Sameera Trading Company. Its business was to purchase, sell and export the iron ore fine. They were having their own stockyard in the land bearing Sy.No.209A & 208B at Ingalagi village. They have purchased 80000 MT of iron ore fine from, M/s Kariganuru Mining and Minerals Industries Pvt. Ltd., (for short, the M/s KMMI), during the period from 01.01.2009 to 4 Spl. C. No.499/2015 31.05.2010. Out of which, they have validly got transported 45000 MT of iron ore from the mine head bearing M.L.No.1799 of M/s KMMI to their stockyard at Ingalagi village. They have obtained 5 permits from the department of Mines and Geology for the transportation of 41924 MT of iron ore fine from their stockyard to Belekeri. Subsequently, they having changed the destination have transported 7392 MT of iron ore out of 41924 MT to Kakinada port. In the meanwhile, the 1st and 2nd accused being the partners of the 3rd accused, have conspired together with an intention to cheat the Government and gain wrongfully. In furtherance thereof, they have stealthily procured 1923.325 MT of iron ore fine from the unknown sources. They have got it transported along with remaining 34532 MT of the iron ore, in all 36455 MT to the Belekeri port. Out of which, the transportation of 1923.325 MT stolen ore is illegal. They have not paid the price of the ore, royalty, the TCS tax etc., thereon. They have made the state ex- chequer to sustain the monitory loss of Rs.38,24,847/-. Now according to the prosecution, accused No.1 to 3 have committed the afore-cited offences.
5 Spl. C. No.499/20153. This Court has got registered the case after taking the cognizance of alleged offences. Accused No.1 to 3 were enlarged on bail. They have contested the case with the assistance of their counsel. After complying the requirements under section 207 of Cr.P.C., the charge against accused No.1 to 3 in respect of alleged offences have been framed and explained the same in the language known to them. As they pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried, the trial of the case has been fixed.
4. To prove its allegations, the prosecution has examined 13 witnesses as PW1 to 13 & got marked documents as per Ex.P1 to P.20. After closure of the prosecution evidence and getting compliance of Section 437(A), accused No.1 to 3 have been examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. They deny the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The learned defence counsel has got marked 3 documents as per Ex.D1 to D3 by way of confrontation during the cross-examination, in support of his contention that, accused No.1 to 3 are innocents. But no oral evidence has been adduced by them.
6 Spl. C. No.499/20155. Heard arguments and written arguments from both side.
6. Points for consideration are :
1. Does the prosecution prove beyond all reasonable doubt that, accused No.1 and 2 being the partners of the 3rd accused firm, have committed offences punishable under Sections 379, 420 r/w Section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860?
2. Does the prosecution prove beyond all reasonable doubt that, the 1st and 2nd accused being partners of the 3rd accused, have committed offences punishable under Section 4(1A) r/w Section 21 of the MM(D&R) Act, 1957?
3. Does the prosecution prove beyond all reasonable doubt that, the 3rd accused firm represented by the 1st accused has committed the offence punishable under Sections 4(1A) r/w Section 21 of the MM(D&R) Act, 1957?
7. My findings on the above points are:
Point No.1 In the affirmative
Point No.2 In the affirmative
Point No.3 In the affirmative for the
following :
7 Spl. C. No.499/2015
REASONS
8. Point No.1 to 3 : It is not in dispute that, the 1st accused is the son of the 2nd accused. Both of them are the partners of 3rd accused Registered Firm at Hospet, represented by the 1st accused. Their main business was the trading of the iron ore, having their own registered stockyard at Ingalagi village. On 14.07.2014, the Special Investigation Team (for short, the SIT) of the Karnataka Lokayukta has got registered this suo-moto case through its Superintendent of Police, PW2 Sri. Manjunatha Annigeri vide the FIR at Ex.P2 for the afore-refered offences. Initially, the 3rd accused firm, the unknown Government servants and private individuals were shown as accused in the FIR. The Police Inspector PW11 Sri. M. Anil Kumar (for short, the IO), has laid the chargesheet against accused No.1 to 3 after completion of the investigation. Allegations therein are as narrated in detail at para 2 hereinabove. Hence, the reiteration of allegations is avoided here for the purpose of brevity.
9. On the other hand, the chargesheet allegations are denied by accused No.1 to 3 as baseless and 8 Spl. C. No.499/2015 sought for their acquittal on various grounds. Admittedly, accused No.1 to 3 have validly purchased 80000 MT of iron ore fine under 8 permits from M/s KMMI (M.L.No.1799) during 07.01.2007 to 17.02.2009. Out of which, they have got transported 45000 MT from the Mine head of M.L.No.1799 to their stockyard at Ingalagi village under 3 permits at Ex.P5(a), 5(b) & 5(c). The payment of Rs.17,19,009/- to PW7 Sri. Alimuddin H. towards transportation as per invoices marked at Ex.P5(d), Ex.P5(e) and Ex.P5(f) is relevant to that extent. It is not in dispute that, subsequently 5 permits marked at Ex.P7(a) to (e) were obtained by the 1st and 2nd accused in the name of the 3rd accused, from the department of Mines and Geology for transportation of 41924 MT out of 45000 MT from their stockyard at Ingalagi to the Belekeri Port as per the following details while locally selling the remaining ore :
Permit No.1010 dated 01.01.2008 - 7484 MT Permit No.1048 dated 23.01.2008 - 3504 MT Permit No.1107 dated 18.02.2008 - 19936 MT Permit No.583 dated 07.03.2008 - 6000 MT Permit No.599 dated 13.03.2009 - 5000 MT Total - 41924 MT 9 Spl. C. No.499/2015
10. The contention of the prosecution is that, the 1st and 2nd accused have stealthily procured 1923.325 MT of iron ore fine (for short, the disputed ore) from an unknown source. They have got it illegally transported along with the valid ore of 41924 MT from their stockyard to Belekeri port without paying any royalty and TCS tax etc. The IO, while asserting the same in his evidence, has reiterated the charge sheet allegations. Here, the transportation of 41924 MT of iron ore under 5 permits at Ex.P7(a) to (e) is not disputing by the accused. The transportation of the disputed ore and its disposal in the name of the 3rd accused firm is only under the challenge before this Court. Therefore, the burden is on the prosecution to discharge and prove.
11. Needless to say that, the entire allegation relating to the disputed ore is rested on the documentary evidence, rather than the oral evidence.
I am to reiterate that, the permit at Ex.P7(c) was obtained by the accused for transportation of 19936 MT to the Belekeri port. Subsequently, they made an application dated 12.03.2008 (page 990 of Ex.P7) to the department of Mines of Geology (for short, the 10 Spl. C. No.499/2015 DMG) at Hospet for the change of destination to transport 7392 MT, out of 19936 MT to the Kakinada port. The DMG has accorded the permission vide the endorsement found on the back page of Ex.P7(c). Here, the transportation of 7392 MT ore under the said endorsement to the Kakinada port at Andra Pradesh is not in specific dispute. Even otherwise, the undisputed endorsement itself proves it.
12. Interesting is the unbelievable suggestion by the learned defence counsel to the IO in the cross- examination at para 25 that, ¤¦.7 (¸ÀA¥ÀÅl 3) gÀ ¥ÀÅl 990 gÀ°ègÀĪÀ zÁR¯É ¥ÀæPÁgÀ PÀ©âtzÀ C¢gÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÁV¸ÀĪÀ ¤¢ðµÀÖ ¸ÀܼÀ §zÀ¯ÁªÀuÉ DVzÀÝ PÁgÀt (¨ÉïÉ0PÉÃj §A¢j£À §zÀ°UÉ PÁQ£ÁqÀ) ¨ÉgÀ¼À0ZÀÄÑ vÀ¦à¤AzÀ 7392 ªÉÄ.l£ï JAzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄÆzÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®èè. ¢£ÁAPÀB12.03.2008 gÀAzÀÄ destination §zÀ¯ÁªÀuÉ PÉÆ0Ãj DgÉÆ0ævÀgÀÄ ¸À°è¹zÀÝ ªÀÄ£À«AiÀÄ°è 6053 ªÉÄ.0l£ï §zÀ°UÉ vÀ¥ÁàV 7392 ªÉÄ.0l£ï JAzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄÆzÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀļÀÄî. The reason to rule out, this after thought suggestion is that, the transportation charges admittedly paid in respect of 7392 MT of iron ore. The point to appreciate is that, to believe the typographical mistake, there must have the correct figure either in their application or in the endorsement of the DMG. But both the documents 11 Spl. C. No.499/2015 indicates 7392 MT only. The recitals in the letter of the accused reveals, the change of destination for 7392 MT. The defence of typographical mistake has been raised by the accused for the first time and their conduct of keeping silent on this aspect since 2008. Therefore, the question of typographical mistake would not arise. Hence, the suggestion of the learned defence counsel to that extent would not inspire to believe.
13. However, the learned defence counsel contends as if, the letter dated 12.03.2008 at page 990 of Ex.P7 is not proved in accordance with law, so as to accept it as evidence. In other words, he mean to say that, the contents of this letter cannot be construed to have proved with its marking as exhibit, without the examination of its author. Therefore according to him, it cannot be used against the accused. In support of his contention, the reliance is placed on the following authorities.
1. (2003) 8 SCC 745 - Narbada Devi Gupta Vs. Birendra Kumar Jaiswal.
2. (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 354 - State of UP Vs. Mohammed Iqram.
3. (2023) 13 SCC 563 - Harendra Rai Vs. State of Bihar.
12 Spl. C. No.499/2015The common principles of law laid down in all these authorities with reference to facts of each case is that, "Mere production and marking of a document as an exhibit by the Court cannot be held to be a due proof of its contents. Its execution has to be proved by the admissible evidence i.e. by the evidence of its author for the truth of facts in issue."
14. In the light of the above position of law, I am to make a mention that, the said letter was admittedly addressed by the 1st accused in the name of his 3rd accused firm, to the DMG seeking the permission for change of destination. The DMG has accorded the permission vide an endorsement. On the basis of which, the accused has got transported 7392 of MT of iron ore to Kakinada port. Therefore, the accused cannot dispute the contents of the letter, admittedly produced by themselves before the investigation officer through their own employee PW6 Sri. H. Srinivas. In other words, there is no reason for the accused to dispute the transportation of 7392 MT of iron ore, as it has been substantially proved. Thus needless to say that, the law relied on by the learned defence counsel would not justify his contention to that extent.
13 Spl. C. No.499/201515. In view of the above observations, the ore remains under the permit at Ex.P7(a) to (e) after the deduction of 7392 MT out of 41924 MT as per the following details.
Exhibits Permit No. Quantity in MT
Ex.P7(a) 1010 7484
Ex.P7(b) 1048 3504
Ex.P7(c) 1107 12544
Ex.P7(d) 599 5000
Ex.P7(e) 583 6000
Total 34532
But the evidence of the IO, unfurls the illegal transportation of the disputed ore of 1923 MT along with the valid ore of 34532 MT, in all 36455.325 MT to the Belekeri port as per details hereunder :
Invoice Date Permit No. Permitted Transport Excess No. quantity ed transported in MT quantity quantity in in MT MT 50 01.01.2008 1010 (Ex.P7(a)) 7484 7607 123 52 23.01.2008 1048 (Ex.P7(b)) 3504 4065 561 74 18.02.2008 1107 (Ex.P7(c)) 12544 13847 1303 15 13.03.2009 599 (Ex.P7(d)) 5000 5092 92 01 07.03.2009 583 (Ex.P7(e)) 6000 5842 -158 Total 34532 36455 1923
16. PW7 Sri. H. Alimuddin is the transporter of the above said ore. His undisputed evidence at para 2 that, ªÉÄÃ¯É G¯ÉèÃ0TvÀ 5 ¥À«Äðmï UÀ¼À ¥ÀæPÁgÀ MlÄÖ 34532 ªÉÄ.0 l£ï 14 Spl. C. No.499/2015 PÀ©âtzÀ C¢gÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁvÀæ EAUÀ¼ÀV¬ÄAzÀ ¨ÉïÉPÉ0Ãj §AzÀjUÉ ¸ÁV¸À®Ä C£ÀĪÀÄw EvÀÄÛ. DzÀgÉ 1923 ªÉÄ.0l£ï PÀ©âtzÀ C¢gÀ£ÀÄß ºÉZÀÄѪÀjAiÀiÁV 1 jAzÀ 3£Éà DgÉÆ0æUÀ¼ÀÄ £À£Àß ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¸ÁUÁl ªÀiÁr¹zÁÝgÉ etc., corroborates the evidence of the IO on the one hand. On the other hand, the evidence of PW6 Sri. H. Srinivas, the Manager of the 3rd accused firm fortifies the illegality with reference to document at Ex.P5(Volume -III, Page 633-758). He claims to have produced them, before the IO under the direction of the 1st and 2nd accused. Indeed, the evidence of PW6 and 7 has not been disputed nor under the challenge. The payment of transportation charges by the accused under 5 invoices found at Ex.P6, makes everything unambiguous, as rightly argued by the learned Special Public Prosecutor.
17. The accused through their counsel admits the transportation of 34532 MT + the disputed ore of 1923 MT in all, 36455 MT to the Belekeri port. The surprising is an attempt made by them with the suggestion, in the cross-examination of the IO at para 22 that, DgÉÆ0æUÀ¼ÀÄ rJAf¬ÄAzÀ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆ0ArzÀÝ ¥À«Äðmï £ÀA.1010, 1048, 1107, 583 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 599 gÀ°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹gÀĪÀ 41924 ªÉÄ.0l£ï ¥ÀæªÀiÁtQÌAvÀ PÀrªÉÄ ¥ÀæªÀiÁt CAzÀgÉ, 36455.21 ªÉÄ.0l£ï PÀ©âtzÀ 15 Spl. C. No.499/2015 C¢gÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÁV¹gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ §zÀݪÁVzÉ. The IO denies it as false. No need to say that, the transportation of 7392 MT of ore to the changed destination out of 41924 MT is the proof to rule out the defence as such. Therefore, the arguments of the defence counsel that, 13847 MT of iron ore was got transported to Belekeri port, when the permit at Ex.P7(c) was legal and subsisting etc., is without any basis. Rather, the illegal transportation of disputed 1923 MT ore gets established.
18. It is true that, the IO admits to have caused the notice vide Ex.D1 to accused persons, during the investigation of this crime and got provided two permits bearing No.8 & 17 from them as detailed at Ex.D2. Admittedly, these permits are relating to the transportation of 5000 MT to the Belekeri port. He has not submitted them to the Court along with the charge sheet. On this context, the learned defence counsel contends that, the IO is bound to produce both the relied upon and not relied upon documents before the Court. Therefore according to him, the acts of the IO in not producing the said two permits results in violation of fair trial and the present proceedings gets vitiated. Here admittedly, the said two permits and the iron ore 16 Spl. C. No.499/2015 specified therein is of a different transaction and have no relevancy to this case. Therefore, the question of fair trial or infringement of right under article 21 of the Constitution would not arise.
19. PW13 Sri. Abhay Kocharekar is the executive of M/s Mallikarjuna Shipping Private Limited. He speaks on behalf of his company about the stevedore services rendered to accused persons to export the ore. PW9 Sri. A. N. Ramachandra is the GST Superintendent from the Customs department at the Karwar division. The evidence of these two witnesses to the extent that, accused No.1 and 2 have in all, got exported totally 51900 MT (40500 MT vide the shipping bill No.27/2009 and 11400 MT vide shipping bill No.28/2009 dated 26.03.2009) of iron ore to China country on 07.04.2009 is not disputed by accused persons. The related documents deposes to have produced by PW13 at Ex.P20 are relevant.
20. Admittedly, the disputed ore of 1923 MT is the part of the exported ore. This is evident to expose that, the illegality is also possible inside the port with the blessings of the authorities concerned for their own 17 Spl. C. No.499/2015 reason. Therefore, the statement of PW9 Sri. A. N. Ramachandra, the GST Superintendent from the Customs department marked at Ex.D3 relied upon by the accused that, "At Belekeri port for every 24 hours we check the documents regards to vehicles, quantity, vehicle numbers, DMG permits, Trip sheets and return back the documents to the party. The iron ore transported to the STC (Sameera Trading Company) plot at Belekeri port, for which, we had maintained the records in out computer server has been seized by the Karnataka Lokayukta dtd:
20.02.2010 etc.," ceases its sanctity and reliability.
21. Ex.D3 makes me to express with a heavy heart that, the illegal mining and trading has become the talk of the country for the last more than 2 to 3 decades. The natural resources are being looted by the vested interests in the process, apart becoming responsible for various pollution affecting the health and wealth of common people. Such illegality, and transportation of iron ore from one destination to another destination, is highly impossible in the absence of blessings, by officials from the department of Mines and Geology, Forest, Revenue, Commercial Tax, Transport, Port and Customs authorities 18 Spl. C. No.499/2015 including the service providers. This is the reason as to how, the state ex-chequer had sustained and been sustaining the loss of millions and millions crores of rupees on one hand, and the environmental challenges on the other hand affecting the economy.
22. Very unfortunate is, the failure of the investigating agency (SIT) and its negligency to look into and subject the true culprit officials along with the erring mining owners and traders to the law. I do not understand as to why, the investigating officers are not investigating into the possible involvement of the officers and officials of these departments in joining their hands with the vested interests and committing the crimes. Rather and as observed by this Court in many cases, they used to give go-by to the prime accused and bless the official culprits. The officers themselves found to have destroyed, the crime related evidence with the delay of 5 to 10 years even 15 years to conclude the investigations for various reasons.
23. The delay as such, and the poor investigations at the hands of incompetent and inexperienced officers are the serious lapses. Such lapses ensures the 19 Spl. C. No.499/2015 acquittal orders in many cases and the true culprits escapes from their criminal liabilities. This approach of impropriety on the part of the investigating agency, amounts to true injustice to the society at their hands.
No purpose would be served, by such kind of investigations. Rather, it defeats the purpose for which, the very SIT came to be constituted, because of the officers who lacks the commitment, honesty, and social responsibility while discharging the official duties. Therefore, the authority concerned needs to concentrate towards these lapses in the larger interest of the society.
24. While coming to the case on hand, admittedly the disputed ore was of 65% grade. The IO deposes to have got evaluated the cost of the disputed ore and the monitory loss sustained by the state ex-chequer at the hands of accused persons. PW8 Sri. S. Prakash is, the Geologist from the department of Mines and Geology. He claims to have assessed and provided the information to that extent. According to him, the cost of the disputed ore is Rs.37,88,310/-, the royalty of Rs.36,537/- and TCS tax at Rs.730.74 in all, Rs. 38,25,577.74 payable to the state ex-chequer. In fact, 20 Spl. C. No.499/2015 the evidence of PW8 at para 2 to that extent and the liability of the accused to pay is not disputed by them.
25. In so far as, the source of disputed 1923 MT ore is concerned, the accused failed to explain as to how and wherefrom, they have procured it to their stockyard. Their failure itself is the proof to uphold the allegation of the prosecution that, the disputed ore is a Government property and fraudulently procured by them without any authority to their stockyard. Needless to say that, the illegal transportation of the disputed ore without any permit and payment of royalty to the state ex-chequer renders to have already proved. These acts on the part of accused No.1 and 2 in the name of their 3rd accused firm, cannot be expected without prior meeting of minds i.e., conspiracy and intention to gain wrongfully and cheat the Government.
26. The analytical evaluation of the overall discussion hereinbefore, unambiguously exposes the necessary ingredients to constitute the offences of criminal conspiracy punishable under Section 120(B), the theft under Section 379, the cheating under 21 Spl. C. No.499/2015 Section 420 of IPC, and the offence under Section 4(1A) r/w Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 against accused No.1 to 3. No circumstances are forthcoming to extend the benefit of doubt. In the circumstances, I am to hold that, the prosecution has become successful to establish its allegations and bring home the guilt of accused No.1 to 3. With this, Point No.1 to 3 are answered in the Affirmative. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Section 248(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, accused No.1 & 2 are convicted for offences punishable under sections 120(B), 379 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 4(1A) r/w Section 21 of the MM(D&R) Act, 1957.
Similarly, the 3rd accused company represented by the 1st accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 22 Spl. C. No.499/2015 21 r/w Section 4(1A) of the MM(D&R) Act, 1957.
The respective bail bonds of accused No.1 to 3 shall stand cancelled forthwith.
(Dictated to the Steno-III directly on computer, computerized by him, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 30th day of January, 2026) Sd/- 30.01.2026 (K. M. RADHAKRISHNA) XXIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge (PCA), Bengaluru.
Case is called out at 5 p.m. Accused No.1 and 2 with their counsel and SPP are present. Heard the 1st and 2nd accused in the presence of their counsel on the quantum of sentence to be imposed. They submit and assert the innocenceness of themselves. The 2nd accused submits that, he is a senior citizen and now at the age of 84 years. He has been suffering from different ailments and not even a condition to move. He informs to have been to this Court today inevitably, 23 Spl. C. No.499/2015 since the case is for judgment. His further submission is that, he requires the attendant to meet out his day to day activities. The 1st accused submits that, he is the only person, not only to look after his aged parents, but also to maintain the family consisting of himself his parents, children and wife. With this, both the accused sought for the leniency in the matter of imposing the sentence. Their submission is placed on record. The plea of the accused persons that, they are innocents cannot be accepted for reasons and observations made in the body of the judgment. Since offences stands established under the Special enactment, accused persons are not entitle for the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act. This type of offences at the hands of the true culprits, now has become the challenge to the environment on the one hand, and compels the people to face the natural disasters on the other hand, apart affecting the economy. Therefore, I do not find any justification in the prayer of the accused for leniency. The stringent punishment warrants, to prevent this kind of offences. With this, I pass the following:
24 Spl. C. No.499/2015ORDER The 1st accused H. Sajjad Vahab and the 2nd accused H. Abdul Vahab are sentenced to undergo the rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand Only) each for the offence punishable U/Sec.120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. In default to pay the fine, they shall undergo the simple imprisonment for a period of one month each.
The accused No.1 and 2 are sentenced to undergo, the rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- each (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) for the offence punishable U/Sec.379 of the Indian Penal Code. In default to pay the fine, they shall undergo the simple imprisonment for a period of 5 months each.
Accused No.1 and 2 are sentenced to undergo the rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years each and to pay fine of 25 Spl. C. No.499/2015 Rs.50,00,000/- together (Rupees Fifty Lakhs Only) for the offence punishable U/Sec.420 of the Indian Penal Code. In default to pay the fine, they shall undergo the simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months each.
Accused No.1 and 2 are sentenced to undergo the simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.25,000/- each (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) for the offence punishable U/Sec.21 r/w Sec.4(1A) of the MM(D&R) Act, 1957. In default to pay the fine, they shall undergo the simple imprisonment for a period of 5 months each.
The 3rd accused partnership firm represented by the 1st accused, is sentenced to pay the fine of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) for the offence punishable U/Sec.21 r/w Section 4(1A) of the MM(D&R) Act, 1957.
26 Spl. C. No.499/2015The substantive sentence shall run concurrently and the default sentence separately.
Office is directed to furnish the true copy of this judgment free of cost to the accused forthwith.
(Dictated to the Steno-III directly on computer, computerized by him, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 30th day of January, 2026) Sd/- 30.01.2026 (K. M. RADHAKRISHNA) XXIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge (PCA), Bengaluru.
27 Spl. C. No.499/2015ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution:
PW 1 : Mr. K. Durgappa PW 2 : Mr. Manjunatha Annigeri PW 3 : Mr. Chandrashekar PW 4 : Mr. Gogga Gurusiddaiah PW 5 : Mr. Galappa PW 6 : Mr. H. Srinivas PW 7 : Mr. H. Alimuddin PW 8 : Mr. S. Prakash PW 9 : Mr. A. N. Ramachandra PW10 : Mr. Sharad Kumar Doddavada PW11 : Mr. M. Anil Kumar PW12 : Mr. Arun Pavar PW13 : Mr. Abay Kocharekar
List of documents marked on behalf of prosecution:
ExP1 : Office Search Mahazar dtd 5.8.2014 conducted at MTB complex, Hospet Ex P1(a) : Signature of PW1 Ex P1(b) : Signature of PW5 Ex P2 : FIR in Crime No.11/2014 of SIT Ex P2(a) : Signature of PW2 Ex P3 : Attested copies of documents related to sale of iron ore to accused No.3 firm.
Ex.P3(a) Signature of PW3 Ex.P3(b)-(d) Invoices (3 in Nos.9, 10 & 11) ExP4 : Attested copies of documents related to sale
& Ex.P4(a)-(c) of 3504 MT iron ore from G. G. Mines by Padmavathi Commercial and transported from A3 firm 28 Spl. C. No.499/2015 Ex.P5 & : Attested copies of documents produced by Ex.P5(a)-(f) PW6 regarding transportation of 36455 MT iron ore to Belikere port from A3. Ex.P6 : Attested copies of documents produced by PW7 regarding transportation of 36455 MT iron ore from Ingalagi to Belikere port Ex.P7 & : Attested copies of permits related to Ex.P7(a) to (e) transportation of iron ore from A3's stockyard to Belikerer port Ex P8 : Attested copy of the permit No.6361 related to transportation of iron ore from M/s Nadem Minerals to Belikere.
ExP9 : Attested copies of permits etc., relating to transportation of from ore from various mines to A3's stockyard Ex P10 : Shipping bill No.27/09 & other documents relating to export of 40500 MT iron ore by accused No.3 ExP11 : Shipping Bill No.28/09 & other documents relating to export of 11,400 MT of iron ore by A3 firm Ex P12 : Statement of accounts in respect of A/c No. xxxx8247 along with certificate U/Sec.65-B & 2A provided by SBM, Hospet Branch Ex P13 : Copies of CAF & statement of A/c in respect of A/c No.xxx1922 held in the name of M/s Kalyani provided by Canara Bank, Hospet Branch Ex P14 : Statement of account in respect of A/c 29 Spl. C. No.499/2015 No.xxx 0707 held in the name of M/s Kariganuru Mines provided by canara bank, Hospet branch Ex P15 : Statement of account in respect of A/c No. xxxx1386 held in the name of H. Alimuddin provided by Canara bank, Hospet Branch Ex P16 : CAF & Statement of account in respect of A/c No. xxx 2022 held in the name of H. Tajuddin provided by Canara bank, Hospet branch Ex P17 : CAF & Statement of account in respect of A/c No. xxxx2134 held in the name of M/s A. R Transport provided by Canara Bank, Hospet Branch Ex P18 : CAF & Statement of account in respect of A/c No. xxx 2319 held in the name of accused No.3's company and provided by Canara bank Ex P19 : M/s Padmavathi Commercial & Cash vouchers and truck-wise details Ex P20 : Documents related to export of iron ore from accused No.3 to China with a covering letter of Port office, Belekeri List of material objects marked on behalf of the prosecution :
- Nil -
List of witnesses examined on behalf of defence side :
- Nil -30 Spl. C. No.499/2015
List of document marked on behalf of defence side :
Ex.D1 : Notice dated 27.11.2014 issued by PW11 to A3 firm Ex.D2 : Receipt Memo dated 17.02.2015 Ex.D3 : Relevant portion of the statement given by PW13 u/Sec.161 of Cr.P.C dated 25.02.2015 Sd/- 30.01.2026 XXIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge (PCA), Bengaluru.