Karnataka High Court
Ilc Industries Ltd. vs State Of Karnataka on 2 November, 2010
Equivalent citations: 2011 (3) AIR KAR R 529
Author: Jawad Rahim
Bench: Jawad Rahim
I
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 2"" DAY OF NOVEMBER 2010,.-.__
BEFORE II
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE JAWAD RA.H'I--M
CRL.P. NO.7645/2010, 7646/2010 AND '7BV7,3,/V29,:0,_
IN CRL.P NO.7645/2010
BETWEEN:
1. ILC INDUSTRIES LTD., A ~
A COMPANY INCORPORATED_.LJNDER_
THE COMPANIES ACT',~._ TU,
HAVING ITS BRANCHOFFICE I
NO.sF35/64,.}S_HO'P'NO'.~E52, ,
4" BLOCK, ,R'A.3'AJIN_AGA'R,. -
BANGALOE -- --.5V60'jj0.1'0I=..
REPRESENTED 'BY RI MAHDEV
2. ASHAPURAV MINECHEM LIMITED
ACOMPANV INC'G*-RPORATED
ALJNDE"R*,THE..._COMPANIES ACT
' V'VHAv_I'N.G'TIfTS, OFFICE AT 405, SOUTH BLOCK
_ M'A%NITPA:,.,TO'IrII'ERS, BANGALOE ~-- 560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMERCIAL EXECUTIVE
MR.VAIZE"AHMED.K
E' " DODDANAVAR BROTHERS
_A PARTNERSHIP FIRM INCORPORATED
UNDER THE PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932
{HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
DODDANAVAR COMPOUND, NEAR FORT,
BELGAUM -- 590 016
5/; X' 4/
I' f
1;'
2
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
MR.AMAR SARNOBAT
4. PJS OVERSEAS LIMITED
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
NO.501 &601, ST" FLOOR, L_ M
D--MALL PITAMPLJRA, NETAJI SUBH.AS_H P_LA_CE_, j
DISTRICT CENTER, wAzIRPuR,'2 " ' .
DELHI ~-- 110 088 I
ALSO HAVING ITS BRANCHVQFFICE AT. --
NO.161, MLA LAYOUT,
R.T.NAGAR, ,
BANGALORE -- 560 032- = L
REPRESENTED BY ITS 'CO--ORDINATOTR,._
MR.MANGAL,_D'.-XS I<A'MATg .' _ I
I ' PETITIONERS
(BY SR1 A ::'E$T|"IA1'KA--?SR», COUNSEL FOR SRI
B.C.LT.H.I_RUTVEi\§§3AD--A.W|.,_ A
AND:V"-_ _ S V. S' _
STATE OFKARNATARA
BY RANGE FOREST OFFICER
ANNO LA OT
'A V' - UTTAR-A KANNADA """ " A
I KARLNAWIA' 'A
A T(E3T.SRI*A;R.'PATIL, ASPP)
RESPONDENT
.T'VHIS4'.VCR1MINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C
~ SEEKING TO QUASH THE FCR No.17/20O9--10 DATED 15-
0391010 BY BELEKERE BEAT ANKOLA SECTION VIDE
'ANNEXURE ~--B ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED JMFC,
'ANKOLA AND STAY INVESTIGATION THEREON; AND QUASH
WSEIZURE REPORT DATED 20--03--2010 VIDE ANNEXURE-C;
AND QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED JMFC,
3
ANKOLA IN FCR NO.17/2009~10 ON 12.04.2010 VIDE
ANNEXURE K SUPRA AND DIRECT TO RELEASE THE
97,549.080 MT OF IRON ORE BELO!\EGINGMT.O'; THE
PETITIONERS PURPORTEDLY SEIZED BY THE RE'SP'O"N,DENT
TO THE RESPECTIVE STEVEDORES / HANDLINC§"'AG,,E--N:"FS_.
IN CRL.P NOJ7646/2010 *
BETWEEN:
1. ILC INDUSTRIES LTD.,
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT, P" .
HAVING ITS BRANCH OPE1CE_AT_
NO.835/64, SHOP i,\£O.F~2',.------- _ 'I
4"' BLOCK, RA3A3I:\_I_A~:;AR, Z
BANGALOE -~ 560 010,» * _
REPRESENTED BY SSRIIIAIIDEVV I.
2. ASHAPU RA 'I#I«I.A!ECPI,,EM EIMITED."-- R.
A CvOMP.AN,Y IN:COR~PORATEDRwR--
UNDER .THE--vVC,O'MSPA1\EI«ES ACT
HAVING ITS 'Q'F~EICE'A_T'4_05, SOUTH BLOCK
MANIPA'L,,TOwE~R9',,_EIAINIGALOE -- 560 001
REPRES-ENTED-_BY._ITS.5COMMERCIAL EXECUTIVE
iY'R.\{AIZE V-A,HMED.I<
A I 3."'I'DOE:§DA'I-IAVARBROTHERS
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM INCORPORATED
tJND'ER"THESI.PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932
A '§TlAVINTC3----If'i}"=S REGISTERED OFFICE AT
"-.DOD'DA'N=AVAR COMPOUND, NEAR FORT,
BELGAUM - 590 016
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
" '*AaAR.AMAR SARNOBAT
PJS OVERSEAS LIMITED
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT
U
4
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
NO.501 & 601, ST" FLOOR,
D-MALL PITAMPURA, NETAJI SLJBHASH PLACE,
DISTRICT CENTER, WAZIRPUR,
DELHI -- 110 088
ALSO HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT
NO.l61, MLA LAYOUT, - ..
R.T.NAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 032 '
REPRESENTED BY ITS CO-'ORDINATOR,
MR.MANGALDAS KAMAT "
...I'P.E'rITIONERSI
(BY SRI RAVI '-B;~NA1',K--$R;'~...,C0u_NSEL FOR SRI
B.C.THIRuvENGADAM,_-_ADv.,,i),»' ''
AND:
1. STATE B1,ANP;OLA;PO~I.ICE 'STATION
ANKOLA'l.. ' I . ._
uTTA..RAI,KA'N;N.AD,A
I.(ARN,ATA_--F<A . _'
(REPRESENTEID I-BY -9.1 )5
2. ASSISTANT CONSE.R'vATOR OF FORESTS
; ANKOLA'-SUB DIVISION
~ ANKQLA, UTTARA KARNATAKA
, f RESPONDENTS
,(B_Y*SjRI"A.._ R. PATIL, ASPP)
TH'I'SL-CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 cR.P.C
SEEKING-_TO QUASH THE FIR NO.189/2010 DATED 08-06-
'V-.,--{;?..0V,10 (VIDE ANNEXURE--D) REGISTERED BY THE ANKOLA
--66f'-POLICE, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT, (PURSUANT TO
. 'P.C--.N'O.S4/10 DATED 03-06-2010 BEFORE JMFC, ANKOLA
v}IDE ANNEXURE-B)
;/ \
1/
IN CRL.P f\iO.76-43/2010
BETWEEN:
M/S ADANI ENTERPRISES LTD.,
ADANI HOUSE,
NEAR MITHAKALI CIRCLE
NAvRANGPuRA,AHMEDABAD, " ._ . -1' .
REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE P_RESID'EN*T._
CAPT. SAMUEL M.DA\fID *
* I ...'-PETITIO_NE.R~--..,
(BY SRI RAVI B.NAIK~SRAVIICOUNSE-!,_FORSR1 MURTHYVV
D.NAYAK, ADv.,)
AND:
1. THE STATE Ore"..I<ARjNA'rAi<A" 9 "
BY ANN-OLA PS PQLICE-.
2. ASSSTFANT?CC)'!'iiSEuR\,!}§iTC«:R OF FOREST
AVNi<,OaL;A1I§vL}BwDB/I--SIQ_I§i
ANI<oLA H X
I I_ RESPONDENTS
(av SRI A;R_.P..l.i'TIL;---._ASP'P)
THISL4CRI'MI.N.AL'*PE'i:ITION IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C
To THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN
P.jCI,NO,'c54S/%2.o'I.oM_ ON THE FILE OF JMFC, ANKOLA AND
*Q'uI,A%SH4:'TIfiE.i',j-..--I=IR NO.189/2010 AT ANNEXURE~The,
Ri5_G_i'$TEVP..E:l3:--.V.BiN' THE AN KOLA POLICE.
'FheSe petitions having been heard together and
iifreiseirxred at Circuit Bench, Dharwad, and at Principal Bench
" _ a.t_'Ba.nga|ore, this day the court pronounced the following
J
9
bought by traders and exported to China and in Karnataka
is shipped from Mangalore, Karwar and Belekere po_r,tv..s.V_.f-.._,_f'~._V
e) Belekere Port is situate in Uttara Kannacia"a'r'idfi-t .
notified under Section 7(a) of the,_Custo'nfis"<::'£5ct"'~ a_
Customs Notified Port. A copy7.Aof:'_'_'thie1in_o'tifi'ca:tiofndais.i
produced at Annexure--A. Kar__VviI'a.r and E3e!.ekeirfei-;po»rts5are = f'
not 'aII--weather ports' and before,'~the.._,adyent,,.of_rrionsoon
and during monsoon, and in this
Year, Le. 2010, the port,w'as* for export
activity from_, was effected on
28.5.2010. " Q
f) appointed various stevedores
or approved'ha%ndli,ng_ agerits of customs and port authorities
~"'~w_hiCh,.:'3iia§z,e t,heirAAown..--stocking yard within the precincts of
hf'B,ei.ekere"Po'i't'.'-~ :TSM.SPL is one such handling agent and other
handiifiig are Adani Enterprises Limited, Salgaocar
°a~i._»__Mining I~ndustries Pvt. Limited and Raj Mahal Silks. These
afgenfts'~«_.act as facilitators for the purpose of import and
ff'-..__'"'exp,ort and provide infrastructure like jetties, shelter, road
10
and other basic amenities at their cost, for stacking or
storing cargo for inspection and verification of Customs
authorities.
g) Petitioners urge that the respondent,__---ttigiyilfie'-nlqTe--.«_T'~-
Forest Officer, Ankoia, Uttara Kannada,y_regEste're'd:'_'¢cas'_e.Vin_ fl"
FCR.17/09-10 on 15.3.2010 andV.'se_i'ze:d
stacked by the petitioners (ofy_a'i<i.ous 'q'tiar.tity'}.:altffiveleitere r L'
port, vide seizure reportdated '-r:,:Qpig§ of the
same are produced at Anrie§{TL.i.res-B' g3n"clfC..respectively.
were inifornfzedyf'f'*by._bthye«:ha__nd|ing agent that Customs
authoritieslxhfaid f's--us'pend"ed44'export operations without
_ furnistyhjng udetaiis, the communication on 25.3.2010
Xyofy=._ssist'aAnt_"Commissioner of Customs as weil as
Siipe':?i_Uteiiti'e.,n_ti.f'of'"Customs vide Annexures--D and E. An
_undat'eo' lettefwas issued by the Forest Officer to the Port
'""nf'Coiis.e_rvator asking him to maintain necessary records along
"tile cancelled way permits for further action. Letter
'T --i'.4:i\i'o.'984/09-10 vide Anne-xure--F is relied by them to show
ii
that a blanket suspension of export activity has been
effected.
i) The 15*' petitioner, aggrieved by the
respondent, filed W.P.10347/10 and",obtained.._:a~n:"i~nterinfi"
order, permitting export of ore
They ailege as per the narration-.__i_n FIVR.,_i'i,/09~t=i'UL=.j
MT of Iron ore at Belekere Port r.e_port'ed: have been
seized, but the petitioVr:--e.i§s_héereinh"w'e.re~._not accused of
having indulged inany c.r-Mina!'V--activ"i.t'y,V"rriuch less any of
the offences :~.vT'i¥.Ve"'F'IR was registered
only agaVivtns'ti'th.¢j:j:Por?fjDfficjer. T'_h'e"offences aiieged against
him are u'ndet thevptoyis'ivQ:niS.,',0f~ Sections 2 (7)(b)(iv), 62, so
of the Forestfict,' 1.963,-._read with Ruies 143 and 152 of the
"'~i?ores.i§_:'iRu,>ies,.._1960."aggrieved by the seizure they filed an
."appriiéc'_ati,o'n..:_:under"-'Sections 451 and 457, Cr.P.C. in Crime
No.i*7_'/"09-1_0'vitifoi' release of iron ore seized as per seizure
'report dated 20.3.2010. In support thereof, petitioners put
a:co_.mmon piea that on ciosure of the port, they were
.._i'e'ntVii:ied to take possession of iron ore, but it was declined.
V0"'..,__4":Referring to the order passed in the writ petition stated
; "x
'i
"i
'fig. c,
if
12.
above, it is urged though this court directed release of the
Iron ore, the Forest Officer failed to Comply uyith-.,,_:'th_e
direction. Instead, they fiied an application .
A dated 29.5.2010, seeking extensionmof timeto "
ore. In the said application, the Deoarthr-.e.r}t did hot ireier
the alleged seizure of iron ore v-5n'«-.2_VO.3V."2-0'iO Vasii\fy'a»S'.r.e,pVo_rted
in FCR.17/09-10.
j) Despite effortsVo-t.V:i':he"._pet'it'io'*nevvrs"to impress upon
the authorities (including-i--vth:e eagmp:'a,na;i,i;i that despite
court order toéppr-e|eaiS'e., the s.ei2:u_roj-reiportiiwas iliegal and in
terms offthe'rd.i'riectVi':o:ri1"oftgh-is co_ur't,4 they were required to
hand over.pinterimVVcustody_'i'ie.f:'iron Ore to them, the officers
failed. It isiassertiy'eIy~--._ur'ged by all the petitioners that in
""t.erm:;[iof;,,,'t:he.i.Adirection-s' issued by the High Court by its
."rvri1tevr'ifm,o'r»o,,eii-fdateo 31.3.2010 in W.P.10347/10, and their
wiII.ing'1ness_égtoirfuilrnish indemnity bond towards the value of
owne_dt.by each of the petitioners, the officers of the
Fio_rest"'*ii3epartment have faiied to release the quantity of
-.._':ore.§
13
k) The petitioners have seriously questioned the
legality of initiation of prosecution as well as alleged seizure
on the ground that it is in contravention of the proviVsio.ns.of
the Code of Criminal Procedure relating to invest'igatj_io..n_V'7of
cases relating to non--cognizable offences _avn»d_:f's.eiz.u:re
properties. To substantiate illegaiity .0
respondent, they highlight the.r'in,_comp'e.te'nce orfithe_offi§:ers
to initiate prosecution or seizureflelferrging to Section 155(2)
of Cr.P.C.
I) In this regard, they'con.tenid~.._th'at.on 13.4.2010, a
meetingfw'a's-..,i§i;gEdfi:f¥;iy~ or.%lice'rs1i of the State in the
chambers] of ' .I5ri.n:ci,p'ai|..4r'"Secretary to Government,
Department of-. Forest, AEco'l~~o:gy and Environment, regarding
"V'~seAlzuvfié"i~ofiron ore 'i'n""r<-arwar and Befekere Ports and further
"--.T.n"the:V's~aid meeting, the officers having realised
thatgrlégistrgatlityriil of the case and seizure was not legal,
VV"--«___'addresse-cl't.a letter on 26.4.2010 to the concerned
(ie_partrnent under the signature of the Principal Secretary,
0""flliepgartment of Forest, Ecology and Environment, enclosing
copy of the proceedings of the meeting on 26.4.2010 (A
5
<"'%w'\"'/
'-. I
\.:
I4
and B), that there was no prescribed system or ruie for
investigation and seizure and that it proposes to formulate
some mechanism for future action. Thus, it is urgveduthat
seizure is per se iiiegai and contrary to the Custo_n"i's«
Foreign Trade Policy of the Government of V
m) As things stood thus, newsipapneirsv
that the seized cargo of various_ex.porte'i's.__hasii:i.ee'n"'ii'§egja|iy " '
transported after seizure... Actipng-ion. the nevirspaper report
dated 6.6.2010 and and AD),
petitioners on theiiirito appoint an
iz'iciepen<;:i'e'n'ti' there was any
export activiity the alleged seizure and that
report was nVe"g-atived; A it
I;'n:AgthVVe"«meantime, another F-'IR in Crime No.189/IO
is".re-g_ivsitered.d___ the Port Officer for the offence
punish"able'"u'n:der Section 406 and 379 I.P.C. in which
.,'_'g;eyera_i exporters including the petitioners are arraigned as
4'_'_A€:_O'¥"aiccu'sed. The FIR is at AE. They seek quashing of FIR
it :{'\io;'1V7/09-10 dated 15.3.2010 vide Annexure~B on the file
T\
J
'6,:~'- '-«
/.
15
of JMFC, Ankoia, as also seizure report dated 20.3.2010
vide Annexure--C and they further seek quas'h.iVngn7.of
proceedings dated 12.4.2010 vide Annexuref.!<i:""r'e}e'Ct§ifi1:g___".
their application under Section 451_mand
release of 97,549,080 MT of iron ore, Ttirosie are-the 'p'.9aye'rs_*é
in Cr|.P.7645/lO. . _
0) CrI.P.7646/10 is by p'et'itVi:opnfiersVféand on
the same grounds seek initiated
against them in FCRV. 189,'-1-0. dated
3.6.2010) video Ankola.
M/S Adani Enteprises Limited
which is neither the 'r'nii1.e""'owner nor importer or exporter,
'V out c»iagjims.to be.._aH"Iicenced stevedore. It claims to have
ingovijtained_;iease'of an area within the limits of Beiekere Port.
8éi.ng'.__aA it provides infrastructure facilities like
_jetty,"'she--i'ter,'iapproach roads to the jetty and other basic
gA"'----arnenti_ties"'t0 exporters. It relies on Annexure--A, a contract
'_'_ren"tered into with owners/exporters of iron ore for providing
00 :'..:se:2r'\rices for shipping of iron ore from the port. Petitioner
I',
U
I6
igrges that on 15.3.2010, the Section Forester, Ankola,
registered FCR.17/09-10 under the provisions of Ka.r.n_at_al:_a
Forest Act and Rules thereunder and seized sto_r--e:d"irio'ri~--.:gjre__._" .
under mahazar on 'as--is--where-is-- basis and .h'a'nd:ewd it. over. "
to the Port Conservator, Befekere Port, :_fo;g3sa'Fe_'
20.3.2010. It contends that iwrioriaoreiifiniest
Forest lZ)epartment--respondent beiong
to various ciients of the tune of
93,079.21 MT. to the
Port Conservator who owned the
ore, is at Annexures--2.
Three of.,_th__e--A3cVii3e'ntsfi"in,".'i_rii1.exure~A, viz., Greentech, ILC
Industriestjrriited 'and.V,AsharjuV.ra Minichem, approached the
_ High c_;omt,in w';»P.,,'1V'i\ios.10349/10, 14551/1o and 14552/1o
Znytarjdiv.o"bta:i'i'iedVi"intterim order on 31.3.2010, directing the
respo3n_d.er:'t:s'_~i.,to'Dpérmit petitioner's clients (exporters and
_ciients'~of.-thefaetitioner), vide Annexure--B. Similar order
passed in W.P.145S1/10 dated 4.5.2010 directing
'_'_:r__e|"eVa'se'A'of 33,000 MT of iron ore which is at Annexuremc. It
2 :'.,:i's""'L:irged in ail, 17,549.08 MT of ore was seized by
1 :"V'
.3
I': -. /'
2 4
X/'-
17
respondent no.2 and kept in the custody of the 3"'
respondent vide Annexure~D. As per the interim orpder-,.44_:th_e
exporters informed the petitioner to ioad the ca_r{§j:o"in~t'o~~:the____"' _
vessel after obtainin hecessar clearance. .~Uevs':'ite"'l.t,the4
respondent restrained export of ore :a4nd,fai.lfed'rtorire'lea'se.._ttiiee_ié
same.
q) It is further urged are was under
permit granted by ForeVst....3Z>eppartihen'~t;L»V.,oAt:'ustoms clearance
was also obtained which isj:E-€si_spi_mAi'l'ar;clearances are at
E9, E--1O each of the
shipping export". It was
issued pInod'ds_trie"$ which is at Annexure-12
and is supported' "by"thelitioliVfidated 1.4.2010. Petitioner
vfurnishgeld' details"o_:f"ali shipping permits in paragraph 5 of
In?_th:e«pe'titio'hAédetails of which need not be incorporated in this
oweh_.*"
er.) In short, petitioner's contention is that under
""*C".""--iia':ious pverrnits and Customs clearance, iron ore fines
sta.cked5in Belekere Port on the leased portion was iawful
.:j'_'and.i§there was no illegality.
'ii 17';
\.r"fi§\\~1\§";//
1.8
s) Referring to the fact situation, it is urged that on
4.6.2010 the Assistant Conservator of Forest,
division, filed a private complaint before
iincharge of JMFC Ankola, for the offences
(7)(b)(iv), s2, 80, 24(e) of the F0r_'eé~filt*Act,';.s53,.
contravention of provisions of'-vE,§'u!.es 1.§43.._.. if-"forest
Rules. The learned magistrate-tegliwsitereddlit'*as~-'l§>.C.54/10
and referred the sanded under Section
155(3), by 26.7.2010.
Consequen': vlrelsvpondent herein submitted
a detailed to the 15' respondent
which allegations against one
Mahesh Bile, l§o'rt.h.'-Cohselrvator, Belekere Port, Ankola, for
A:'ofi7e=nc"es, unddflerdvsections 405, 406, 379, Cr.P.C.
-.S'irni|a'rlv,--.._t'i1e"s-eomplainant has levelled allegations against
the-.peti_t~ione-rdlwcompany and 11 others for the offence 379,
and the petitioner is arraigned as accused no.3 in
of the complaint. It is further urged that on
_,_8§6.2G10, the 15' respondent registered FCR.O1.89/10 for the
if offence under Section 406, Cr.P.C. against Mahesh Bile, Port
_ \
.:'i\
3/' \
./'
19
Conservator, Beiekere Port, Ankola, vide Annexure~H. On
9.6.2010, 15' respondent sent a report to JMFC incharge of
Ankola vide Annexure*3 which according t them isfwrholly
illegal.
t) The petitioner has _,,,therefore',=~-.f'_~~qu'estion.ed'=at
registration of FIR against it for the c;'ffence.,_'undergegctivoin
379, I.P.C. in FCR.189/1@lV_'i--n_
Mr.Mahesh Bile is charged. It__i_s"'-contendedthat registration
of case against it is ?ille{ga.|'"'a's« the allegation in the
complaint does not reyieavl.{;orrii'n':ss'io'n ;ori,iainy offence. The
petiticnelrly a person, such action is
untenal3le.'« For theft, only a natural person as
envisagedtinder.S'ectE.on"'378, I.P.C. could be charged.
it «.j"he_ second ground urged is, complaint filed by
«'r'e.s_p'o,ndent shows petitioner company is roped in,
witf'iou't:'n1entioning the basis for creating vicarious liability.
*l"he,_.thi"rd ground urged is, respondent no.2 knowing fully
liighiatil the seized cargo belonged to various clients of the
it 'V"'petitioner who are exporters, and in whose favour the High
i:'"§i'9"'5/'
20
Court had granted an interim order vide Annexures B, C and
D, has illegally registered the case. So far as the petitioner
is concerned, the ingredients which constitute theg'v0ffe_n~c..e
under Section 378, I.P,C. are not made out.
ground urged is, the role of the petitioner com"p.a'_ey'V"'i:nV"theE "
alleged theft is not indicated.
4. In support of the grounVds:u'r=gedtin to
seek quashing of llllgrouvnds in
Crl.P.7646/10 seeking quiashrsgsgi g_ci;;§;is*i;svi.i'g:sf9/09, learned
counsel, Sri the following
Qroundszi" llll H
I) feel conipiiaiintV_ini.V_lfe':if{.;~1f/09-10 was registered on
1S.3.2Q1_O against_the7~._por'tV Officer who is public servant,
,j"'wi_thou_jt'* pl3ta.iningV"V'priolr permission and is thus, in
Section 197, Cr.P.C. and is liable to be
A.,1;)V""".The investigation in FCR.17/O9~1O dated
'.'_;_i5§'3V.'2OAiO could not have been taken up without prior
'L
_./-*:?m-\?/'/
'\_/'
2}
permission of the jurisdictional magistrate as the offences
alleged are all non--c0gnizable.
III) That the 15' respondent complgai_n4ant'iflin',_
FCFL17/09-10 on 15.3.2010, could not have
fines without the permission of the:v'rnagi'st.rate
to a non--c0gnizab|e offence.
IV) The complaint does of the
petitioners as to commission offences and
there is no prima on record for
sustaining investigate.
V) iron. orewwthe petitioners was in the
lawful oVwvnersh~ip_"f0r,whichfithey had relevant documents like
("V'F'0resvt._p'er_mit~-.and Cus'to'ms clearance.
._ "'i"h"e..__1'5E"p.etitioner (ILC Industries) claims iron ore
if En ste"c:< np}13 and 14 to the tune of 33,000 MT; 2"
H"5at'pe:titionerVV(Ashapura Minichem Limited) claims its ore is in
',f,statk"ne.2 to the tune of 17,549.08 MT; 3"' petitioner
T -4'.,:(V"{)'o'ddanavar Brothers) claims ore is in stack no.15 to the
\
'5' ''..\L?/'
_./""i§'v' 1/'
,-"
22
tune of 31,000 MT; and the 4"' petitioner (PJS Overseas
Limited) ciaims its ore is in stack no.5 to the tune of 16,000
MT, in ali, 97,549.08 MT. It is urged, the High CoVoi5t:'"'has
granted permission to transport and therefore,
registered iiiegaliy.
VII) The complaint is iilegai per
be effected in contravention of Svection "11__(i) .rea:d""i{v'i'tii' Sec. "
7 of the Customs Act.
VIII) No seizure cang_ijie._effecterj»..inibgistoms Notified
Area and the "p;re.§/agiisiwfov-eir any other iaw
including, the Act which is state
enactment. *
2/_T.ha.tutheiflpetitioners have not been arraigned as
in-..the'i'compiaint before the JMFC, Ankoia, nor any
i case'i.s'madeo}i.;t:;against them. Therefore, the stock cannot
seized,
The complaint filed by the respondent does not
i "'..:spe'cify the role of the petitioners in commission of the
I':
'\
'\/'
23
alleged offences and therefore, when they are not persons
against whom the case is, registered, their property is not
~'i
liable to be seized. '
XI) Neither the rnahazar nor any other '
on by the Range Forest Officer indicates.involye'n*teI,nt'.Vof'_'_the.,. it
petitioners. He has no jurisdiction a:ti_thority-
material stacked in Customs Noltiafieol Are"a,__ V
XII) The seizure co}jittave"he;§fVcieaVe§'e--s%2.42'Aehld 2.42.1
of the Foreign Trade Policywof "IV.nVd'i*a (AG).
XIII)' the'._"VV'Asst. Commissioner of
Customs,V7seizure- is'w'Vpe_r'vase'-..il'|.egal and is contrary to law.
The com_p|aint~witse.lffisAtzontrary to law and the Forest Act
'and rnéde Vthe'i"e'under which cannot override the
vCerit:Vra"l',.e:ra«aVctn1en"t.. which fall within the Union List of the
l Const,i_tutio_n.."tilfieince, the act of the respondent is ultra vires
d'-..«.,_'tl~":.e Cons'titution of Indta.
'"XI:V) On account of seizure, irreparable hardship has
caused t the petitioners which cannot be quantified in
' I
e
24
terrns of money. The complaint is not maintainable against
the Port Officer who is in Govt. service and in custody of the
goods.
XV) The seizure report is not accompayniesvi§yvl"ainly«f
detailed report and thus is unsustainable;'* -1'
XVI) The complaint is not__'m.aintai~nab!.e adi'n.i.ttéd|y = L'
the State has no mechanism toy_d.5l'Cu'nient transportation of
minerals as noticed in t'iie'ymeeting""iield:'by the Principal
Secretary to Govt~._._ De:p'a'rtn5fent.._of'l5ore"s:t,' Ecology and
Environment.__u ' 1
On xthilsi.basis;'."g.;i'f'*ifhi*r.iiv-engadam seeks quashing of
FCR.1 7/oV9~ 1 O " and .Fc.R[1_89y'o9.
Crl.P.7673/10, learned senior advocate for
the,;j'etyi.rio'nér,__ :§:r'i"V'.Ravi E».Naik, has sought quashing of the
v.Fir re'gis'cered'; against M/s Adani Enterprises, firstly
ifff.'iiicgiestioning the competence of Forest Department officers
'.'_i:_o "'inv'estigate offences which fall within the competence of
T --4'.4:poii'ce officer named in the Code of Criminal Procedure. The
WV /
U
»$§i»»\\\~'
25
main ground of challenge posed by him is, the FIR has been
registered against the company for the offencefu-nldegr
Section 379,I.P.C. Such a charge is
complaint for the offence of theft cangbe_ filed"o'r'ilQ_'aga»in's,t S"
natural person as envisaged underV"~Sec'tiron
the complaint, no statement r-nadellthat .Cou,l'dA~{co--n.stitute
an allegation against the petiti_o_ln'e.r__re_gard'ingivithevi alleged
theft of iron ore which levelled against
Mahesh Bile, Port'.O_ffice:r;'~~~:fi'i:eVV'o.t.her«"Vgro&u.vnd of challenge
posed by hinjgare Vlinflfiparagraphs supra
which I shall refer tlégsgub.s'eg.uent.l${.
6. Learned. counsei,V"lSrri:lVl'T.hi--ruvengadam and designated
I i
senior advoca't~e,"SriV','--Ra\»zi V;E'>".VI\lail< seek citational support to
:_'j"'V'i;heir 'c._o°nt:entions fron1""t'r§e following case laws:
::5Tl#TEr_:.0F was? BENGAL & omens .v.
GUHI (1982 (1) sec 569) wherein the
referring to the scheme of Cr.P.C., with
reference to Section 157, held police investigation
.,,hfshyvcltégnizab/e only if FIR prima facie discloses commission of
e cognizab/e offence. Where such an offence is not
26
disclosed, the court is justified in interfering with
investigation and quashing the same in exercise of power
conferred by Article .226 and 136 of the Constitotion:_'of
India.
13) STATE or HARYANA .\('J.'AA»VB"l-'iAJ'.'.'.-\_i\i:LIA\.:I_.:_»'--_(I,:9'9V2Vi«
Supp. (1) scc 335) wherein in ;aiarAa71o2 (}i}t'A't'ize
Court held that where the allegation in' not
constitute a cognizable .oi'fence',V'"ij_Liti:oniy._a nonecognizabie
offence, no investigation is police officer
without the order"'n;f:V1'theizmagisitratetass.contemplated under
Section
c) PE-PSIV F(_)ODS_""_.»s.LIMITED & ANOTHER .v.
o,%spec1i;L J.uoxc:Ai.'iMAGIsTRATE & omens (1993(5)
wheirein the apex court, dealing with the question
as" .to'h'.._whet'i_1e__r "~hi;i'n.der Section 482, Cr.P.C., quashing of
ptoceedingvs pending investigation is permissibie, referred to
High V"C"ourt's power to quash criminai proceedings in
rexéirqciseh of power under Articles 226 and 227 of the
2 '«'..:Co'ré'stitution and Section 482, Cr.P.C. and heid: The High
27
Court can exercise its power of judicial review in criminal
matters. Under Article 227 of the Constitution,
superintendence by the High Court is no--t:.:'.."oiiV!v:'«-- _
administrative nature but is also o_f,judiciai"ha'-tiiref VT/7l'Jv 2"'
article confers vast powers on the"~,Hig'hc..Court'-to" pre'ven7tf
abuse of the process of law by"~i'nferior court: av.éid--~--.tO -see 2 2'
that the stream of admifinistratiogmof justice clean
and pure. The power 2' Court under
Arucle 227 and under no limits;
more the power, ca-ire,' andhhhihcaution is to be
When the exercise
of powers CGU/Cf:l}€':'ill7d§5f«»,fii'ffC/E" 227 or Section 482 of the
Code, it not be necessary to invoke the
_,Vpi"ovision's of ArticleV:226.: .... .. No doubt the magistrate can
ear?-Caccused at any stage of the trial if he
co};.side,rs'V"th_e.charge to be groundless, but that does not
V .inean," ac'cuse"d cannot approach the High Court under
42282, Cr.P.C. or Article 227 of the Constitution to
the proceedings quashed against him when the
28
complaint does not make out any case against him, and still
he must undergo the agony of criminal trial.' if
d) STATE OF ORISSA .v. aEBENp.§ija.n§i_:i'r§§"..'
Moon: (2005 sec 568) wherein at paragtag;§h:.29_t.'0f' the
judgment, the apex court heidz havingi'tortacegigtrial}
despite being in a position _ to 'produce gg.rna'tei"-ia/=--i
unirnpeachable character of stéfling quaiit._yfrti)e of
power of the High Court'~~.undermSection.482, "cr.",i>.c. and
Article 226 of the Constitution fist»unlirnited__hm/hereunder in
the interest of just'f:f<i§; the High Court."ca.n.,rnake such orders
as may he %neces:sary7'}Vto orejyent .abuse of the process of the
court, or othterwise,'to~.secure_the needs of justice within the
,oarame_ters laid down. in'=Bh'ajanlal's case.
i g ":fi_ !i(4:E-KI HORMUSJI GHARDA & omens .v.
M"E.H'ER«yAi<I_~_..V_Rtis'roM IRAN! & ANOTHER (2009 (6)
V V .4275 )""inv'«;§aiagraph 17 of the judgment, dealing with the
"VV'~"questéon "as to what is 'vicarious liability' it hefd:
.'_iCo'inrnission of an offence by raising legal fiction or by
T af:iieating vicarious liability in terms of the provision of the
'E
-"4.
'xi
29
statute must be expressly stated. The managing director or
directors of the company, thus, cannot be said toV:h,av.e
committed the offence only because they are'..holde'rs: .
offices. The magistrate, therefore,gln» the " it
apex court, was not correct in iss'uin_c;=si§im'njons' witjh.oU£io_'
taking i'nto consideration all st'iVch.._Vmatters. V The' A,n7.anVag3ing
director and directors of the company should not hat/e been
summoned only because. Tsoineajjallegations were made
against the company but:n'ot»a:gainst,'individually.
f) MAQSL!D"g§AIY=EDg.x,i2 STE-T--E...9fF GUJARATH 81
0THERS'lV(2O'0«l3iivi,(657fVSCC'»§68)b"wherein the apex court on
the samelxqulerstilon : liability of the directors held
that the charge |Vevelfedb'agVai'hst the company was untenable
,_'j"iir:_,theiabgtence ofn'ao'e'q'uate allegation with regard to the
offence and with regard to correct
statutory provision.
(j) W SUDARSHAN MANCHANDA ..v. STATE OF
""V"'~44'if~:,l§i*'~'.l~lil_\TIV-V\"l(A (1979(2) KL] 449), this court referring to
,M,t,ne-fsbneme of Section 155 (2), Cr.P.C. held that any
: '«;3:/
30
investigation by the police officer for a non--cogni.zab/e
offence without requisite permission or order .4
magistrate would be one without jurisdictionfm""ifj----..the____"_
investigation commenced without themrequisi'te'=sa'nctiori_oK_4
order of the magistrate as contemplated under" 'S'eCifioni_r«
155(2), Cr. P.C., it cannot be yaiig when' theithie
Magistrate is obtained suhsequenfit/)}=:..:_' it I it
7. In negation of urged against
registration of cases, ,t'h'e- statement
disciosing the cti»ronAo:logy':cf_A1e\(en.ts as under:
:"*.V..;:'-'The"_'""'G'overnment of
learnatakalj request the Hon'ble
Lokafliulfita into the allegation
iAll'egaHl_ity and irregularities in mining
'A«.well'w_'as unauthorised removal and
of mineral contrary to law
ur:.i;'lérv'i'V' the Government Order No.CI
A. J..6'eiMMM/O6 dated 12.3.2007, replacing one
-Vhman commission headed by former Chief
Justice of High Court -- Hon'ble U.L.E3hat.
3!
(I3) 18.12.2008-- The Hon'bie Lokayukta
submitted its first report to the Government
with certain recommendations and" '
observations.
(c) Dr.U.V.Singh, conservator
submitted a report minoigng ieatses'--..inspect.ed:." °
nearly 66 mining iea'se:V""i.hoiders_V"ha:vea".;
encroached upon *'thVe foArést" i.a'nd"'--in vario'us""
Districts of Karnataka "i'o.:;V'::'tiieg'ai'»..Ln7ining.
Nearly 1_5f:'|a..khs 'Iron ore
extracted" f_roim.';'>~ra'i'i.oLis' forest islands have been
sei':éa~--i5y the':f:'§Foreshoepahrtment and severai
Forest' Offences, have been registered
whichi-arestitii-'_pe'.jdi'n..g". Joint survey has been
flordered thiis"Hovn'bie Court (green Bench) 'in
during 2009, which is stiii
" --._i«iri'c;c~'rIr_i,r;ie:é;;'
<ci'--7)_ Jan 2010 - The Hon'bie Lokayukta
V' * received complaint/s regarding iiiegai mining
"in forest iand as weli as Government land in
Beliary / Chitradurga and other Districts, as
'\
"X./'
32
well as unauthorized transportation without
valid permits for the purpose of exports
through Belekeri and Karwar ports.
(e) Feb 2010 - Special team of
constituted by the Hon'b_le :..Lofi<a";iu.l{ta'----.it
conducted raids and seized, several 'evidences. '
like computer, hard--disE<, d'o_cuments,'~reco-rds
permits, etc, corisis.ting_«"of l'a--rge,"ii.umberVlofx
suspected mining leases'v'purportedl'y.,»'issued
from Cudapa'*-_Disijrictin A,nd'ra_pradesh and
forged 'tra_ns§::ortatiori-A._pe~rm'its'issu-ed from the
State of.,l<jarnatal<a"§'~.:"
(r)"15'.'3,.2'o.1.o section Forester, Arikola
5reg_istered. aforest offences Crime No.17/O9-
'*1'.
-- A Mahazar was drawn stating
hugeqiiantity of unauthorised iron ore was
fovuirid in the port area at Belekeri without any
Vl"~_.valid permits or documents with port
Authorities or licenced stevedores.
:'_\V\
'4
'wi
i
X;'/
33
(h) 15.3.2010 -- FIR was submitted to the
jtzrisdictionai JMFC, Ankoia. {No seizure of Iron
ore)
(i) 15.3.2010 -- Request was made seeking".
permission to investigate the offences
required under $55 (2) of Cr.P.C';"' -
(j) 13.3.2010 -- Jurisdictionaiiflb/i'F£T grant'ed'A." "
permission to investigate "'the'i»offences_ 'um'-er7;
Section 155 Cr.P.C'"a.s pra*v"ed"Fo'i'c.
(K) 20.3.2010 -- Seizure. was rnade estin1'ating
the quantitvfiof Iron ipré s_t'ored"'i'n----~the ports
a;rea._ Eeiiekeirei ' 'vi.a"pp_roxi'mateEy quantifying
nioretiiian S ia'i<hs,. rifietéric tons. (Mahazar was
' 'dra.wn)a. _ V0 "
(-i)v V?_0..§.2_010 - Seized Iron ore was handed
it*5oVverT'_ft.o";thVe custody of Port Conservator of
Beiekere on "as is bare basis", under an
it * acknowiedgment obtained form port
Conservator -- Sri Mahesh Biiagi (accused
No.1) who has filed a Cr|.Petition to quash the
34
FOC before Principal Bench at Bangalore which
is still pending. 12
(m) 22.3.2010 -- Jurisdictional Magistrate.'V:V"':%'i
granted permission to retain the seized Iron
ore until further orders, as the -:;'a'n'i--e. cannotétie I. '4
moved out of Port Area.
(n) 25.3.2010 --- Theikicommissioiiér.7of]
Customs, Mangalore,_ ori:ieredi--.t'or»"the closure"
of export activities foiia viree'k:'Vtirr;:é'--e_iia'b'l~ing to
complete '§..i;a 'Belel<ere /
§<arw;ar
(Q) l:io.n'bie High Court of
Karnatgaka at ESanga~i'ore granted an Interim
ofaeyr in'Wvr.it____PHetiti0n N0s.10239-240 / 2010
fi_ied'«bpy'*vM/s Bachavat Enterprises, now the
' i}iir'it"_'p.et*igtio.n is learnt to be withdrawn.
" 31.3.2010 -- The Hon'b|e High Court of
Karnataka passed an Interim Order in Writ
Petition Nos. 10347/2010 clubbed with
18708/2010. (copy produced).
/I 3/
€ 5
..\__,
35
(q) 12.4.2010 -- Jurisdictionai JMFC rejects
the appiication fiied by:
(a) Doddannavannar Brothers
(in) §.L.C industries Ltd.,
(c) Greentek Mining Industries fiied
under Sections 451 and 457.:of»Crr.P.TC,
seeking interim custody for the _of_"V
Exports out of India.
(r) 19.4.2010 -- The Hqn.*iié:é'i.H'i'g_ri coiiiagff
Karnataka at Bangaiore. ..>i'o--!.!owing
order in Wriyt Petition? as
"The 'r'«esoonde'n't._»NosV§"3.to 6 shall verify such
documents in'V-det--ai|"'~and if need arises, it is
to th'em....to seize such rnateriais by
the petitioner and their stevedors
nWaboutfdiscrepancies noticed ....... .. and if any
discrehpancy is noticed subsequently, the
V 'A petitioner and the mining tease hoiders who
"has suppiied the iron ore fines to the
petitioner will remain iiabie for such amount
they may held to be due and for such other
36
legal action. In this reczard, the petitioner
shall also furnish indemnity bond in favour of
the respondents 3 to 6 which shall have
concurrence of the minind lease hOlder...3li$i3.V
endorsed on it."
(Copy sought to produfied)
(5) 2.0.4.2010 ~ Dismissal__oi'*-app.licatior:s.filed V}
by Ashapura Mi'n_e:chenn under
Sectms 451 and 45?V:¢.f._Q'.;_iPA_
(t) 'vii'-he3_ ':l;li'g.h.BCourt of
Karnazita passed' V an Interirn
odr'<fii"er"_'i* l\'luosV§ViV;i551/2010 and
fS$2/ 2C1 ' Ind ustries Ltd . k, a nd
V_l_§\shapura" .i\{ii'vnecheVrn"»lV Ltd., respectively, as
.....
sought by the petitioner is in the earlier order passed in ..wV.p."N'e.10347/2010 dated 31.3.2010. Hence, " respondents are directed to release 33,000/~ it metric tons iron ore seized by respondent No.2 and kept in the custody of respondent No.3 as per seizure report Annexure-N subject to the 37 petitioner executing indemnity Bond after satisfying / verifying of documents."
(U) 6.5.2019 -- Letter from Port Conservator officer, Belekeri indicating stock of Iron ore on the date of the seizure _.on.._20.3I}2'Oi"di'.';v.it indicating partywise stock statementrFiirnishe'd:--"
by following Stevedores;
(a) M/s Adani Enterprises Ltd.,41m'4,3V57.:63 '2
(b) Sri Maiiikarjun S'i1A.l4p'f,/ing g,As9.5;u?,§;a2o MT 22 V {(2) Salgaoncar Mining Indiistrv {d) Rajarrgaiialw Silks ifiospéie -.Q';2°4,.0V2O.80o MT Tot_a_l " *i--"8}i3_i5,9gi:i1.083 MT
(v)A 'May 2610" .Tih'eci'24following Writ Petitions _;j haive been.__fi'l'ed seeking release of seized Iron o_i.§a«ntity;
V"(§:')}...W:Pr~..i\l.o.3.5742/2010 PJS Overseas Ltd., 16,003 I522?
(2) w['r>.r~io.15743/2010 Soddannavar Brother "$3000 MT 4';(Mining lease holder whose lease period ' expired on 28.2.2010, Deemed renewal not given by i'~"orest Department, W.P.No.14762/2010 pending before Green Bench.
38 (3) W.P.No.157-44/2010 Sri Mahai Ltd., 21,000 MT (4) W.P.N0.1S745-746/2010 Swastick Steels Ltd...~~-.0' » 0' 30,840 MT (5) W.P.i\lo.1S756/2010 Sri La_>_<m.i__Venl;'ateshdjv.0"0 48,000 MT % V 1,4:6,._1séi--0_zMT -. ~. "
(w) 2.6.2010 -- Local Ne0wsoa;3ers"car_ry'ing 0 the information t't;a:t':V«--!argi_e gtian.tit.3r"*of seized H iron ore is missing allegedl"§V__e>§po-'rtehd--0t_hro~ugh B.elel<ere_'/4 )1 Mar'::;:aiore"
(x_)....g2.'6._2oi.Q_ __ "At Vireportgwais filed to the j't_;tis;::--i:tVie'iiai~v..ji~i.i=C,.,'_éeei;.in.g directions to the local. police 'to reg:«;te{ti ie case.
2.6r2"G'1«0......:»Attention of Hori'bie Chief 'tiivgi.!a'ncév Commissioner, New Delhi was drawn reqti'est'i'h.g'V to initiate immediate action to p"re.ser"it loss to the State / National Exchequer. V (2) 3.6.2010 -- A status report was submitted to the jurisdictional JMFC stating that huge quantity of seized iron ore is missing.
39 (aa) 7.6.2010 -- Written Complaint was filed to the S.H.O Ankota for the offences Dtznishabie under Sections 405, 406 and of IPC against the Port Conserv_at.or__--- M_a'hes*t{'_':V. Bilava and 8 Exporters who have fijeti ' writ petitions claiming o\»vVne.rushiph'oveI" ;ertavi'nV':
quantity of seized iron ovt4e'~«.xar:dV Bhhhiicetncved stevedores.
(ab) s.a_.2_o;'1.o_ -- :"flFiF{::vvas 1.54 to the t 5 % (:a=':)' H Fort Conservator _Betet<ere fileo~v__an,indebendent complaint to the go§';ce_ Inshgiiectof,» Ankola against M/s Adani E.nterpfi'sve_s and ors. for the atteged offences.
Z 8. The tfontentions of the Learned counset for the ' "".5i.*'f.__VV;j»etitionezis'And the learned Govt. advocate for the state Has _%c:Ce.E.ved my serious consideration. The fottowing questions need to be answered:
}%<Q2'1~' (1) (II) (III) 40 Whether the forest officer named under Section 62--A of the Forest Act could_._ be equated to a poiice officer for the purposge"»of investigation of offences punishable-f"u-.nfdeifl_ the provisions of the Forest Act?
Whether the forest officer _riiarjr'ied'--.jun4der'~« _ Section 62--A could appilvgfor.' per"rhlssion_'ito't-._V if the magistrate under 1'Sect_iAo'ri; ii551{2)._,_ i to investigate non--cog'niza._bl'e offe_ncesgun_"dert'~i_:
the provisions ofthe Act;.or'--wheth-er. he coiuldi only be a comp|ain_a'nt to the police o._ffi'cer;' or whether the poiiceofficer alo'n.e'is"competent to apply to thel.---~m'agIs--trate "for grant of |I)el'r'I'iiSS|Oi"I__?"'a, _ In the instant w-h.e't'hfeir__'permission of the_:m.agist'rate -was -.otb_taine.:d Vbefo re carrying out 'pi-nves--tigation"V _i'n--7*~ FT.C.17/O9«1O and A t'r'ie."'sei2'u'r'e"effected by the police ._ -- offi":l:er_» is '~vitia_ted for not obtaining prior . perrn'iss.io'n_.to.d4iii.vestigate, as required under ' Sectl-on".15.5'€?J} Cr.P.C.?
__1{}. __§The. cont'e..ri_ti'o'n of designated senior advocate, Sri aTnd._Vlearned counsei, Sri Thiruvengadam is that alnv"foVrlest7'of_f'ic'er" not below the rank of a Range Forest A _Office"r na_'niedi'under Section 62--A of the Act is not a police and cannot be deemed to be so for the purpose of '_'_c~_in'v.esti'gatihg a non--coghi2:able offence and he will not be A --i'.4:"c'oi-hpetent to even apply to the magistrate under Section 4E 155(2), Cr.P.C. for grant of permission. Referring to the investigation in FTC.17/09-10 and FCR.189/O9, they contend FIR reveals it is registered for investigati'~o.sn'«._if_o~fVV Offences punishable under Sections 2 (7)(b)(iv)_,ji?:2;A:'érg---- the Forest Act, 1963, and theref_ore,..__theHc'orn'_plai'ea'nt~..cu Assistant Conservator of Forest was c0.m'peteVrif..'/j;E)?.11 register the FIR itself or to -'for grant of permission under It is urged he could at the most,ifia~pp-fly tlhefijurisdictional police who in turn would and apply to the view expressed by this i'C.OU--¥'t SUDARSHAN MANCHANDA (Supra) is r'e!4_iued_ to _h'igfi»ii:ght4Vthe bar imposed by Section ...s.155(2.}.§gCr.~P.C. Vonsthe 'police officer to investigate a non»-
A"~.cog}ji«i7at3l.e 'ca-sVe"~~a_nd the decision in the case of S.MURARI eifffavfiii./r'hHe'Ri_ STATE OF KARNATAKA BY RANGE
-'Poet.-'."'sT. EvJiV!.=i*=2ii'V(:ER, KUDREMUKH (ILR 2004 KAR 1706) rieliread to support the first proposition wherein the learned Qsingile Eudge of this court held that 'a Range Forest Officer is 52 police officer within the meaning of Section 2( 16) of 42 the Forest Act' and thus a forest officer named under Section 62--A of the Forest Act cannot be equatedttoyr deemed to be a poiice officer for the purpose 155(2), Cr.P.C. The proposition iaiyd dow_n~~~E»n.:ft)he.::said»x' decisions is extracted hereunder:
SUDARSHAN MANCHANDA .v".i,_StATs""'tis;i§_Vt '' KARNAAKA(1979(2)KLJt.44y9) ' "
'12. Section 15 (oi: theii""C'oVtd'e"of Criminai: Procedure, 1973, re'a.dT3_th.us:;_'.V " ' "1SE3. Information Vast-v.to'i ri-oArii:cognfzabfe"
cases' « .._and Lin vestfgationj .. of' such Cas--es:;5' _. _ 3 _t "
(1) When_'<-.)infutmati_on Vis "7gi'v_er1_ to an oi'f.ice.r in ch'a'rg.e'i*o"f' a "poiiceg station of **** "the"com1iniissi'oh-.with'in--..the limits of s_uc'hf_..sta'tior1..of a nomcognizable
-, "offence,fh.eishai--!._enter'or cause to be * V entered " .jth_e"~~._)sub~stance of the "'in_forma'ti_or.i.iri )a"}i:>ooi< to be kept by su'ch_' officer"; in""such form as the State Government may prescribe in * this beha'if;*i'and refer the informant , tothe magistrate.
"~'(_2) ."'No i.ooi'i'ce officer shall investigate a 'M "n'on'~cognizable case without the ' .or'der of a magistrate having power 2 to try such case or commit the case " for triai."
(Sub ciauses (3) and (4) are omitted as unnecessary) Therefore, when an information is given to an officer of the poiice station with regard to the commission of a non--cognizabie offence, it is his duty to enter the substance of 'N '-- 5 \.x .'1:.i.«...
by the i'earned counsel, but in the light of the decision of the , figufix 44 contemplated under S.155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
panchanama, he has a'is.o"'V-given Vr'.'u,r_r'i,be'r as Crime l\io.409/79. All th*ese,have' happened before the requisite sanctioriis "obtained"'by"the police from the ju«risd_ic't_ior;:_ai ma*gi'strate.' S.MURAR! &_.~- Amen; --. _ VST'.t\"TE OF KARNATAKA. B'! RZANG-E ":=o.REs:y*r OFFICER, KUDR_E:--_¥,,~iIU,i_r_(l-._E_ (.1LR'2_oo__4 i(AR:'i706) Karnata.k:aV1'V.;_,"Fol:est?':fTA-=ct:%Section 62--A--Range Forest" »C;'ffice1'if" 'shgailfbe deemed to be a police o.fficei' f.o'r»th,e'purpo's.e'of Sec.156, Cr.P.C.--but for the ptirpose 'of"S-ection 155, Range Forest Officerii is "not. =a.";~police officer within the ,.meanirg_Vl eff-Section 62--A of the Karnataka Forest Act! _ _ S_ee.rn.i:ng,|y the decision of the learned single Judge in athgeh--case"o'f«S;*ll?i'tiRARI is in support of the contentions urged ifVfl's.,[}ivi..sAion"Bench of this court in V.S.LAD 8: SONS, BELLARY at ";'i.:r.'l'§TATE OF KARNATAKA (2oo9(3) KCCR 2067), a "firm decision has to be taken.
The fact that the Sub~=.,_ Inspector of Police did proceed to the spot .Qn»._*._V 27.4.1979 itself with the intention of co||ect'i--n'g---f_ necessary information with regard nature of the accident, etc. and drawing_'up~o.f°' "
a panchanama thereafter clearly indi'ca--t.e'~..that the police started investigation "on the basi'3._of*--T:
the report sent to him by: the,,Su'b..'Offi-cer,:'~-,t,_,_ North Fire Station, Bangalore, It is signif'icant' ' to note that after.' d__rawing_ " up :'o'fl_=t_he Mm 47
13. Sub--section (2) of Section 62--A postulates t__hat for the purpose of Section 156, Cr.P.C., an area whic'h._a-«4..p'o.lvice officer is empowered under subsection (1) shail to be a police station and such office.r,_shalE'be"=-lqe'* the officer in charge of the said poliAce1'_stai'tioir;., "Tiieré:ica.nii.Qt be two opinions that sub~se_cti.on (2) refers area.' which, for the purpose of se<;nafrA'.r.:p5s5kL of .the.Cod,e, shall be deemed to be a police"-sitationff[Iti"'dd_esl--n_ot restrict power conferred by suta'~s_ecti0'n V
14. The§!~l'5tj'h§_..l{aVr_na--tailk;_a has issued a notification dated . 7.i20G?3§_Vto _fo'l«!.o»~Jing effect:
V t}0"i/'ii31§Ni\.»i_f;':>i:t.--0I«* KARNATAKA N0.FE-E LIU4 F"DP'2.F[") 1 Ketriiataka Government Seci'etari21t M.S.Bui1ding .Bzmgz1E01'e._ dated 0 I /07/2() E 0 NOTIFICATION ii =_3The'Cio--\rerh1iieni' of K21l'E1£1i'dkfl hereby notifies the areas under the "=._i.E1I']'i_[-'JI"'ii'l]v j~i1:'isdic1i<_):1 of the Range Forest Officers of Kzirm-itakzi F01'est';_Depu1'tinent iiicluding wildiife to he the specified areas under
" I ;.Sectiion 62~A of the K21I'I]21Itll\'£1 F()rest Act i963 for the purpose of V' o.é"§"ez2ces under this Act to exercise powers conferred on an ofl'ic<:r in~ cliarge. of an poiice staition by the provision of the Code of Criminal Procedare 1973.48
This order is deemed to have come into effect from the date of issue of amendment to this Section in the Act 20 of 20()() o4/in/zooo. T' T By Order and in the name of 2"
Governor of Kmnaltelka lGC?-P/'M... ' c Under Secretary toIGovc1'nm'3.1]t" _ Forest Ecoiogv & Envitoiirnent Dep';Lr'ftme':lt '
15. In the notification, specified in respect of which the poliice the of Range Forest Officer, may investigatel..Vo'ffencié§.I/Llvvnider the Act. The notification not restriction or modificalt*ion:"'l§n "rn,attei'r""'re!ating to investigation of offences un_derV:tliej
16. There_fore,'th4es.con:ciusion of the Division Bench of this coo.-i:;,'VVFIFQI'-eg,,i_s_tered even on the basis of Lokayukta 'AF,E!V'£'J:>.F? "i,3,lf~t:h.Ae"'forest officer was valid and FIR was not liable iiitoffee aiso based on the interpretation as above, it has to be held that by virtue of Section of the Forest Act, an officer not beiow the rank of Forest Officer is deemed to be a police officer for the hfviourpose of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, 49 under Section 155(2) or 156, Cr.P.C., he is deemed to be a police officer. The arguments to the contrary are, vtfiiefefore, discounted.
17. Now, we shall come to the questiorilas.tohviinéhetiweryi investigation in the instant case Deputy Conservator of Forest _without:"the pe,rrnis'sion'oF*the», magistrate, vitiates the proce'edi'ngs. In: rlegalrd, it is material to note that £131?/o9'--s«ijo was registered on 15.3.2010 on which dayllthe'ics'VrestTotfi<fe_i- visited the port and noticed s'ta&:l§i'i-ig iamh o<re';"C."--Susfpecting it to be an attempt it vsiithvout the requisite permits, he registered tl:eV.caf;s»ei."-~._,°-.
18...«§gaSri Rav--ie_B.N.aik and Sri Thiruvengadam, with .\;;e'shenie'nce,:l"asserted that after registering the FIR on "1*5x.".3--.l201't'V,"é.','_{:..title forest officer had seized the ore and S regihstered acase under Sections 2(7)(b)(iv) 62, 80 of the ':g,F'oi'est Act and for violation of Rules 143 and 162 of the
-- Forest Rules. Since it was done without the permission of "the magistrate as required under Section 155(2), Cr.P.C., 50 the entire proceedings are vitiated. If what is urged is factually so, then the ground is acceptable. Howev.er--,,yon a perusal of the records made available, it is notAi.ce'd.V,t:h'atthe complainant/forest officer had applied to thésjjurisdvictioiaulal'V' magistrate at Ankola, in FCR;i1l7/09e_1'D for permission to investigate the case for the offences i~nd':.'cate'd-.,c above, as required under Sectiron 1"5'5.(_2'},, The magistrate passed t.heV_ oryder*onif-1,._8.3.20lI0',"V granting permission to investigate the caste; nce to the said order, seizure_.,has b.eeri:A_ effected,lonj_'~2,0',_3Vf.'2010. The seizure report at A:n'lhé,xvu}eéi:: "ta €rl.P.764S/10 indicates that seizure' waVs'vrep'orted:_:to the magistrate on 20.3.2010. Seizure, un_dloubVt'e_d'ly,_" after obtaining permission to inveshgate theV'"Cawse_____an.d hence, the requirement of Section been met by the forest officer.
19.0 On it is seen investigation has commenced oniy 0'-.-«.___"after permission was granted by the magistrate and hence, yV"rlegi_st:'rfi.ation of FCR.17/09-10 is not in contravention of the
-~--.,:_prcivIsions of the Cr.P.C. and hence, not vitiated. :_ / f,_§\/\>.}, {iv 'V' 5.1.
20. Regarding seizure, petitioners contend that it is illegal as the ore stacked was covered with forest permit inrespect of a particular quantity; Customs ciearance_"'-was"VV..also obtained. These are questions of fact to Petitioners have referred to the'Worders'«, pas.sed_ :i_n'e7'th.eir» favou r in W. P. 1 0347/1 0 dated 3 O " su'bseci'u.<é\n't.Vg orders in the connected writ~~..?:é.t,itionsutgj'~s.h'oviiFthey were permitted to iift the seized iron s'ubjectito"'e)tecuting an indemnity bond. I have JperLiseid:"theii"in'teri_m orders passed by this courtiin-fire wr_it to above. They are not relied by the petitioners dated 731.s;3;2o1iioji:~:-ifvvi;P..:gino34n7/10 is of relevance and to understandits .efxlV"e.c't;i_it' isfiextracted hereunder:
'Though theisvcourt on an earlier instance had 'issued an interim order staying the order
--» _ whi.ch_i's similar to the one which is produced Va_Vs»..y_A'nin.e><_jure-3 to this petition, the period pres_crib;e'd in the said notice has expired' ........ ..
In the present case, the impugned "Annexure--M dated 29.3.2010 the document itself indicates that the exporters are permitted to ioad iron ore other than what ' has been seized by the forest authorities. Hence, an interim order in the instant case is issued directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to export iron ore regarding 52 which clearance has been obtained from the forest authorities and in respect of which customs duty has bee collected by authorities. It is made clear that in res.pe.ct.__'_t' of iron ore which may be stocked in the"yard"~t.""* "
and in respect of the same, if there _i's_nof 4 endorsement of forest __..au_thor.ities" V required under Rule 162 of the ;K'a_rnata_ka,.__t Forest Rules, such stock of 'i.ror:fo~rve shali not ~ be permitted under, _this '-interim _o?rder.' ' Hence, export may._V'~b.e permitted "~.__o"n~ verification of documenfsyyand subjec'trto the petitioner filing i_ndemnyity_A'bon'd,. The --expo{rt permitted shall 'remain' suVbje._cti'to. the result of the petition "and. furthverV(jr.de'rs to be Dassed.' - i i Based on e>'<_tr'a'cted.."afbvoyeywsimilar orders have been p,a.$s,eAd*..yiVn :su_bseduie'nt" w.rit.5petitions, but it is clear from the n-.atu.re"V'o'i'--the_'iriter'i~--m order granted that petitioners were permitted' to _load' ore other than what was seized byv..ti§j.e'_i1'orVestV"'a.uth_ori:'ties. The direction issued to the to permit the petitioners to export iron ore clearance has been obtained from forest
--V authuorities and in respect of which customs duty has been Besides, other conditions enumerated in the
--' oprtderpplclarify that the iron ore seized was not permitted to "be lifted/exported and in fact permission granted in respect .r\ .' I i "~\. 'AL .55
- In the meantime, the Green Bench of the Karnataka High Court ordered a joint survey in 16 ca_sesf",:«i.n"-.the year 2009 which was not completed. if if if it o In January 2010, LokayLik»ta»._,rece.iyledT.-'I,'cor.1lplé.ai'i1_tsVV' regarding illegal mining Government land in 'iEie,l'iaVry, otheru districts and unazuthorizedutran"s..p.ortation_.without valid Dermits from '4l:<'a'rwVai*.,p0rts. On that complaint,'further":ac:tio_nx':w.asV7 and a special team. ._¢_Qri'si1§,};~u'ted"'ViVn February 2010 by conducted raids and seized material like hard disks, records, _ permitsEconsisting of large number of ,.«}gsu'spected' leases purportedly issued from Andhra Pradesh and also found forged permits of Karnataka State.
permits seized from the possession of various of ...__mvi"ners, transporters were found to be forged and 0 "therefore, Range Forest Officer, Ankola, took further action. In this fact situation, the Section Forester, 58 seeking direction to the local police to register a case. Meanwhile, attention of the Central Vigilance Corri'n':.i,ssion was drawn seeking permission to initiate action...a's.iti-woiuld result in huge loss to the national exchequ,er.WQn status report was submitted to huge quantities of seized ironore 'missing. ':7'.6.2'0li'0, Wag written complaint was filed"V"i"9:ehfore SHO,"~!3{nl{o:la,for the offences punishable under 040,5, V0379, I.P.C. against the Port Conservaltolr§'vM;t,ipVeslh1l__'.8ile and eight exporters who 'w;e:,re petitioners petition before this court, iseei<in.g'V.owne'resjhi.p'---of the 'seized iron ore and also against.._th=reevlicénced.istevedores. On 8.6.2010, FIR was registeredfigon in charge Port Conservator, _ Belek§{erei'~Port,V"'fi.le,d_____an independent complaint before the .,T.nspect_or,.,Arilzola against M/s Adani Enterprises for the eiiew Thus, it is seen Crime Nos.17/09~10 and V ., 189'/10 v«..ér1d".V'P.C.54/10 are for offences punishable under 405, 406, 379, I.P.C. against Mahesh Bile----Port .'Co:nsé'rvator and others which includes the petitioners in 0 scrip. f\los.7645/10, 7646/10 and three licenced stevedores.
,3,\,,'-iéi/"
K ,1' 59 Similarly, separate case was registered in P.C.54/10__a__gainst M/s Adani Enterprises on the basis of complaint-fsub'mi"tted by Port Conservator Belekere Port. Thus, commission of non--cognizab|e offencesgand tithe-riefoire',j;.SHVOu' received the complaints and registerendi under investigation.
27. Referring to Sve,-Cation 52s;¢4irr¢hesi.Forest 'Act,-ioetitioners averred that Mahesh l'§$iie__'w'asgStiaitegfiovernment officer and the case.' under Sections 405, 406,; nothiave been registered as required under Sectionv'A'1fl37,VC'r..E5'.'é;A'--ii§"'he"'contention has to be discounted as the..pgrovisio,n 'offsectioin 197 bars cognizance being taken . bubiic servant without prior sanction/consent of uS3tat'efGoVvreVr.hment. It does not bar investigation into an ofAfe.ncev;.-i~t_is= only the offence cognizable by the court which but an investigation into an offence by the V.«'-combetent investigating officer. On this ground, FIR ..._registered for investigating the offences indicated above it against Mahesh Bile are not liable to be quashed and more § E 3 i 61 not sustainable as it is a juristic person, is also unacceptable because under the General Clauses Act, the word. Tlpeerson' includes a juristic person also. Keeping this i_r;i'"'rn'!.'n~d'._._i read Section 378, I.P.C., a juristic person..wo.uldf.::al.soff_'be.,g'"V._ liable but the natural person who,I,at the tin'ae{of'--comnn'iVss,ion of the offence had indulged in such 'act,"'would"'Vbe who has to be sentenced.
30. Sri Thiruveng"a.dar.nV, counsel for the petitioners, has raised l,eg*'al.v."i'ss;u.e' with regard to repugnancy proiris.i'ons':~Vo'fv~the Customs Act and the Ka,_rnatak'afVj',Fores,t A:c't~!_:n_this regard, he would contend that iron' gore is under the Union List and therefore, ituuispniy"byr"Pa'rliamentary legislation its import or f mining cofuld be determined. He submits, as iron List, it is only the Union of India which hats--to issuejthe notification regarding restraint on its export .u""-Wags,en\}i's.a"ged under Section 11-I of the Customs Act. He ,.."sVub.m:its, provisions of Section 62 of the Forest Act ...c.onferring power on forest officers to seize such iron ore if considering it as 'forest produce' does not empower the 62 forest officer to enter upon the area coming within the Customs Act. In other words, it is urged, as iron ore_.-was on the precincts of the port liable for customs du't§I;..f"i<n:"'t4he absence of any notification by the Central 4_ under Section 11-1 of the Customsnact ¢x.po:t,li the forest officer cannot invoke S2 of to seize such iron ore. This' is.,:on%theV"i3asiscVAth_at"~-when':there' is a Parliamentary |egi,.slation.i-anrl_:*St'ate lec_iisiva.tion, it is the Parliamentary legislation_whic.hi:'rVpreilailra:.and not the State legislation. reference to case laws.:i' f I A
31. 'As *«r'eg.ards:'j'the.,'I4eg:a'i'position, it is well settled that in the case°._o"f_(§{)lllE_R¥§:_i?1iENT or ANDHRA PRADESH AN,.!'i{l|l5VNi'€.)THEV.Rw--.t(V.' J.i?s.eoucAT1oN socrerv (AIR 2005 apex court held that the question of "'r4e:p--ugriaVri'£:y{between a parliamentary legislation and state legis.'ati-on"can arise in two ways. First, where legislations if eniacteti" with respect to matters in their allotted sphere Zoivferlap and Conflict. Second, where the two legislations are "with respect to matters in the concurrent list and there is a V'; "
-(:1) 5/ 63 conflict. In both the situations, the parliamentary legislation will predominate, in the first, by virtueofg non- obstante clause in Article 246(1) of the Constiti,iti_ohV,"'jufnhbbthte second, by reason of Section 245(1) of Clause (2) of Article 245 deals witha «sitfuation the S State legislation having been reservedand having President's assent prevails in tihat=i,state,'-thi's.again iswsbubjectb to the proviso that Pariia__menvi"'carrilbagajn bring"as"Vlegislati'on to override even such' state»iulegislatfonsg. Keeping this principie in mi.n«<i«,_vv.e have exarn'.i_ne_'thje case at hand.
32. in 'the "FIR registered against the petitionersr..,i_S for "offences punishabie under Sections 2(7_)'(;'«.*.3),UA'v),v% 62',"8€}.._o.f«the Forest Act and Rules 143, 162 of 'the" Eoi~.,3S;# Section 2(7)(b)iv) is the defining section w'hi.ch dvefiihvrje,-sfttforest produce'. Section 62 is a part of '.VChapt~er"'r9land deals with penaities and procedures. It it "i.jifpost'a.lates when there is reason to beiieve that a forest ofifence has been committed in respect of any forest '"gHproduce, such produce together with aii toois, boats, 64 vehicles or cattle or any other property used in committing such offence, may be seized by any forest officer V:or.fl'pgol.i4ce officer. Sub--section (2) envisages any police officer. If he has reason tobelieve' v_cj:i.hi'clAeVV' has been used for transportation respect of which there is reaso:n~~.to believe--.thatu"~off'e'nce has been committed or is being 'co':~.V§..ririit'ted., he'm'a.yV.require the driver or other persontin"_.Q;r1ar.g§';§:i.of::Athetvehicle to stop the vehicle and causeit long as it may reasonably; contents of the vehiclewd_uliris.pe:ct3 Vall'*re'cords'"re-lating to the goods carried which are such driver or other person in charge ofuthe vehicle.._ '"Tb~erefore, this provision confers the p0V_'J'é~'.' of s_eizu'r"e»0.n_.sthe forest officer when he suspects 'cornmissioinv'~o'f'any forest offence relating to forest produce d'e.fin~ed urrdjer.'a'$Vection 2(7) referred to above. ..Sri:'Thiruvengadam would contend that this provision _fco'u.!d:"not be invoked as the property involved is iron ore to exported which is covered by the provision of Section V 11-3-1 and 11--I of the Customs Act and therefore, the E § 65 provisions of Customs Act being a Parliamentary legislation would prevail, and not the Forest Act which is a"--,State legislation. This proposition would have been there been any conflict in the provisioVns"~._:offithelitwo legislations. Section 11-H envisag;eAs'""'iiiegia/ -exp_o'rtff',,Vh?ean;s the export of any goods in contraven_tior._? of provisions of, this Act or any other law for"~th'e timelinllfolrce. This means, if there is export of_."g'oo'd-is in"-contravenition of the Forest Act, then it comes~l.'wi't'iiilnVV referred to in clause H. The at :har,;d.....rel'ates]"tO..tfansportation of iron ore extra--cte:d~gf.rori%;,fore'st..area"a~nd being exported without forest permglits, provision of Section 11-H of the Custorns_gAct Vi's-att.raCtuéd.
. g.;yC:ctijoAn,_.11--IVHhas also been referred to by the learned contend that unless the Central Govt, by notifi__cat,_i_von,,uspecifies iron ore to be one of the goods which |il<ely*.to illegally exported, iron ore is excluded from the A a reading of Section 11-1 shows, 'if, having regard Vi ..to§the magnitude of illegal export of goods of any class or description, the Central Govt. is satisfied that it is expedient A M' 7 VJ \.' 69 are ciissoived and there shali be no impediment to the investigating officer to proceed with the investigatioffii. sci/ii vgh*