Bangalore District Court
Karnataka Lokayuktha P.S vs A1 Soumith Ranjan Jena on 7 March, 2025
1 Spl.CC No.488/2016
KABC010270932016
IN THE COURT OF LXXXI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH 82)
Present
Sri Santhosh Gajanan Bhat, B.A.L., LL.B.,
LXXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City (CCH-82)
(Special Court exclusively to deal with criminal cases
related to elected former and sitting MPs/ MLAs in the State of
Karnataka)
Dated this the 7th day of March, 2025
Spl.CC. No. 488 / 2016
COMPLAINANT: State by Special Investigation
Team, Karnataka Lokayukta,
Bengaluru
(By learned Special Public
Prosecutor)
V/s
ACCUSED : 1. Sri Soumith Ranjan Jena
S/o Sandeep Jena
Aged about 41 years
Proprietor, M/s.Pisces Exim,
Mumbai
Evarest Grenade, A/205
2nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road
Shanthinagar, Andheri East
2 Spl.CC No.488/2016
Mumbai-400 093
Present Address: No.1-C-13814,
Kalpataru East, JULR
Andheri (East)
Mumbai-400 093
and G-4, Upasana Apartment
Halli Road, Near K.G.Marg
New Delhi-110 001
(Case against Accused No.1 is split
up as per order of this court dated
2.3.2024 and case in Spl.CC
No.380/2024 is registered against
A1 on 4.3.2024)
2. Sri B.P.Anand Kumar @ Anand
Singh
S/o Pruthviraj Singh
Aged about 48 years
Partner, M/s.S.B.Minerals and
Proprietor of M/s.Vaishnavi
Minerals
R/o 5th Ward, Ranipete
K.R.Road, Hospete
Bellari District
3. Sri B.S.Gopal Singh
S/o Shankar Singh
Aged about 52 years
Partner in M/s.S.B.Minerals
and M/s.Ramagopala Minerals
R/o R/o 5th Ward, Ranipete
K.R.Road, Hospete
Bellari District
4. Sri B.S.Pandurang Singh
S/o Shankar Singh
Aged about 48 years
3 Spl.CC No.488/2016
Partner in M/s.S.B.Minerals
and M/s.Ramagopala Minerals
R/o No.7, 23/1, Hoysala Sai
Center Apartment
Dr.Rajagopal Road
Sanjaynagara
Bengaluru-94
5. Sri B.S.Srinivas Singh S/o
Shankar Singh
(DEAD)
6. M/s.Naivedya Logistics
rep: by Sri Rangarajulu,
Director
R/o No.A/6, Skylark
Apartments
Panaji, Goa.
7. Sri Rajesh Ashok Kounte
S/o Ashok Kounte
Aged about 44 years
Director, M/s. Naivedya
Logistics
R/o No.A/6, Skylark
Apartments
Panaji, Goa.
8. Sri Rohan S. Kounte
S/o Ashok Kounte
Aged about 42 years
Director, M/s. Naivedya
Logistics
R/o No.A/6, Skylark
Apartments
Panaji, Goa.
9. Sri Anand (DEAD)
4 Spl.CC No.488/2016
10. Sri Rakesh Kumar Jain (DEAD)
11. Sri Vijay S/o Bhagavan
Aged about 60 years
Proprietor M/s.Vijay Plast-O-
Print
No.61, Bhagya Apartment,
Bardavadi Road
Andheri West, Mumbai.
12. M/s.Claria Marketing Services
Pvt Ltd.,
T.Nagara, Chennai
Rep: by Sri Shaju K.Nair and
Smt.Ria Nair (A13 and A14)
Directors
R/o Ingalagi village
Kariganoor
Hospete Tq, Ballari Distrcit
13. Sri Shaju K. Nair S/o late
Krishna Nair
Aged about 40 years
Director M/s. Claria Marketing
Services Pvt Ltd., T.Nagara,
Chennai
R/o No.610, 15th Ward,
Bharathinagara
Amaravathi, Hospete
Present address:
F-121, Brigade Apartment,
H.M.T.Layout
Jalahalli, Bengaluru-560 013
5 Spl.CC No.488/2016
14. Smt.Riya Nair w/o Sri Shaju
K.Nair
Aged about 38 years
Director M/s. Claria Marketing
Services Pvt Ltd., T.Nagara,
Chennai
R/o No.610, 15th Ward,
Bharathinagara
Amaravathi, Hospete
Present address:
F-121, Brigade Apartment,
H.M.T.Layout
Jalahalli, Bengaluru-560 013
15. Sri S.Mohammed Muneer
S/o Abdul Karim
Aged about 46 years
Proprietor, Shafia Minerals
R/o By the side of KhanKa
Khwaja nagar, Chitthavadagi
Hosapete Town, Ballary District
16. M/s.S.B.Minerals
Partnership firm
No.251, 5th Ward,
K.R.Road, Hospete
Ballary District
represented by Sri Anand Singh
- Accused No.2
Date of offence Based on the events happened
between 2009 to 2010
Date of report of offence 17.03.2015
Name of the complainant Sri Manjunath Annegeri
6 Spl.CC No.488/2016
Date of commencement of 19.4.2024
recording of evidence
Date of closing of 10.12.2024
evidence
Offences complained of Sec.409, 420 r/w 120-B of IPC
and Sec.21, 23 r/w 4(1), 4(1)(a)
of MMDR Act 1957 and Sec.144
r/w 165 of Karnataka Forest Act,
1969.
Opinion of the Judge Accused No.2 to 4, 6 to 8, 11 to
16 are found not guilty
State represented by Sri S.S.Hiremath, Learned Special
Public Prosecutor
Accused represented by Accused No.2 to 4 and 16
represented by Sri Goutam
Nettar,
Sri.Shivaji H Mane for Accused
No.6 and 7,
Sri Vinod Kumar for accused
No.8,
Sri Venkatramana N Naik for
accused No.11 and 15,
Sri Bharath Kumar.V for accused
No.12 to 14
INDEX
CHAPTER HEADING PAGE Nos.
I ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE 8-15
ACCUSED
II CHARGE FRAMED AGAINST THE 15-21
ACCUSED PERSONS
III EVIDENCE 21-42
7 Spl.CC No.488/2016
IV SUBMISSIONS/ARGUMENTS 42-65
MADE BY BOTH PARTIES
V POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION 65-68
VI REASONS 69 till end
VII INTENTION OF LEGISLATURE 95-140
AND OBJECTIVES FOR IMPOSING
ROYALTY
VIII WHETHER THE DIRECTORS 141-167
BEING MADE LIABLE FOR THE
ACTS OF THE COMPANY
IX SUMMATION 167-169
ORDER 169-170
JUDGMENT
The charge sheet has been filed by the Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Special Investigation Team,
Karnataka Lokayukta, Bengaluru, which was constituted
to investigate illegal mining activities in the State of
Karnataka, against accused persons for the offences
punishable under Sec.409, 420 r/w 120-B of IPC and
Sec.21, 23 r/w 4(1), 4(1)(a) of Mines and Minerals
8 Spl.CC No.488/2016
(Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter
referred as MMDR Act for short) and Sec.144 r/w 165 of
2. In the instant case charge sheet has been filed
against accused No.1 Sri Soumith Ranjan Jena and 15
others who have been arraigned as accused No.1 to 15
for the aforesaid offences. During the pendency of the
case, the presence of accused No.1 could not be secured
since he had jumped bail and as such NBW came to be
ordered. In spite of order for NBW, accused No.1 could
not be secured and it was submitted by the investigating
officer that the accused is residing abroad and they have
initiated necessary steps to secure his presence by
seeking help of Interpol through CBI and as such the
case came to be split up against him and charges were
framed against accused No.2 to 16.
CHAPTER-I ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE ACCUSED
3. The genesis of the above case is that
M/s.Pisces Exim Mumbai was Private company which
were into import and export of iron ore for which the
9 Spl.CC No.488/2016
accused No.1 Sri Soumith Ranjan Jena was the
Proprietor. It is the contention of the prosecution that
M/s.Pisces Exim Mumbai had entered into agreement
with M/s.PEC India Limited to export about 14,000 MT
of iron ore from Karwar Port and about 6000 MT of Iron
ore from Belekeri Port. It has been contended by the
prosecution that M/s.Pisces Exim Mumbai had totally
received 11397.44 MT of iron ore from various dealers
without obtaining necessary permit or paying necessary
royalty, taxes to the Government as contemplated under
law.
4. With respect to the allegations leveled against
accused No.1, it has been narrated in the charge sheet
that accused No.1 Soumith Ranjan Jena who was the
proprietor of M/s.Pisces Exim Mumbai, had purchased
about 11397.44 MT of iron ore from M/s.S.B.Minerals
plot area at Vyasanakere with Mining Lease No.2515
(M.L.No.2515 for short) and towards purchase of the
same he had not obtained any permit for transportation
nor paid any royalty or taxes as contemplated under law
10 Spl.CC No.488/2016
to the Government and had illegally transported the
same with the help of M/s.PEC India Limited to Belekeri
Port which was exported causing loss of
Rs.1,34,55,668/- to the Government exchequer.
5. The prosecution has leveled serious
allegations against accused No.2 Mr.B.P.Anand Kumar @
Anand Singh, who is proprietor of M/s.S.B.Minerals,
M/s.Ramgopal Minerals and also owner of
M/s.Vaishnavi Minerals, Hospet. It has been alleged by
the prosecution that ML No.2515 belonged to accused
No.2 who was the partner of M/s SB Minerals with
Accused No.3 B S Gopal Singh, Accused No.4 B S
Panduranga Singh and Accused No.5 B S Sreenivas
Singh( abated) and also they were owning other
partnership firm in the name and style as M/s.Ramgopal
Minerals and M/s Vyshnavi Minerals. The prosecution
had contended that totally an extent of 20659.13 MT of
iron ore was extracted from ML 2515 and was dumped in
Sri SVK plot by accused No.2 to 5 and the same was
sold in favour of M/s.Eagle Traders and Logistics i.e., an
11 Spl.CC No.488/2016
extent of 16987.69 MT. It is further contended that
M/s.Eagle Traders and Logistics had sold the aforesaid
extent to M/s.SMSK Mineral Trading Company and
amount towards sale transaction was credited into the
account of partnership firm of accused No.2 to 5. It is
alleged by the prosecution that out of the aforesaid
extent of iron ore which was purchased by M/s.SMSK
Mineral Trading Company they had in turn sold an
extent of 5537 MT of iron ore in favour of M/s.Pisces
Exim Mumbai and they had further sold an extent of
8718 MT of iron ore in favour of Kori Nagaraj and also
they had sold about 3080 MT of iron ore in favour of
M/s.Shalini Impex for which accused No.10 Mr.Rajesh
Kumar Jain was proprietor (It is noticed that during the
course of investigation itself the accused No.10 had died
and hence case against him was abated). That apart an
extent of 2733.69 MT of iron ore was sold locally by
M/s.SMSK Mineral Trading Company. The prosecution
further contends that no licence, taxes or Royalty was
12 Spl.CC No.488/2016
paid towards Transportation, storage and sale of
aforesaid extent of iron ore.
6. It is also been contended that M/s.Shalini
Impex had sold 3080 MT of iron ore in favour of
M/s.Naivedya Logistics which is being represented by
accused No.7 Mr.Rajesh Ashok Kounte and accused No.8
Mr.Rohan S.Kounte. It is also been submitted by the
prosecution that the entire extent was transported
without any Department of Mines and Geology (DMG for
short) permit and without obtaining any forest passes
and hence, accused No.2 to 5 had collectively caused a
loss of Rs.1,53,26,395/- to the Government exchequer.
7. The prosecution has further contended that
accused No.6 to 8 had sold aforesaid quantity of 3080.62
MT of iron ore which they had purchased from accused
No.10 Shalini Impex to M/s.Pisces Exim Mumbai and
had caused a loss of Rs.35,27,716/- to the Government
exchequer.
13 Spl.CC No.488/2016
8. The allegation which has been leveled against
accused No.9 Sri Anand who was the proprietor of
M/s.Star Minerals Stock Yard is that he had purchased
590 MT of iron ore from M/s.S.B.Minerals (ML2515)
Vyasanakere Plot and had sold in favour of
M/s.S.B.Enterprises and who in turn had sold the same
to M/s.Pisces Exim Mumbai without obtaining necessary
DMG permit and passes from the Forest Department and
thereby caused loss to an extent of Rs.7,28,945/- to the
Government Exchequer.
9. With respect to accused No.11 Vijay who is
Proprietor of M/s.Vijay Plast-O-Print is that he had sold
about 2181 MT of iron ore without obtaining any DMG
permit or forest passes in favour of M/s.Pisces Exim
Mumbai and thereby had caused loss of Rs.27,04,500/-.
10. The prosecution has contended that accused
No.12 M/s.Claria Marketing Services Pvt Ltd., which is
being represented by accused No.13 Mr.Shaju.K.Nair and
his wife accused No.14 Smt.Riya Nair, had sold about
1086 MT of iron ore from their stock yard in favour of
14 Spl.CC No.488/2016
M/s.Vijay Plast-O-Print without obtaining any permit
and thereby they had caused a loss to an extent of
Rs.13,41,753/-.
11. With respect to the allegations against
accused No.15 Mohammed Muneer, it is submitted by
the prosecution that he being the proprietor of
M/s.Shafia Minerals had illegally stored iron ore at
Saikata stock yard and he had sold about 1103 MT of
iron ore in favour of accused No.11 company Vijay Plast-
O-Print and thereby caused loss of Rs.10,74,727/- to the
Government exchequer.
12. During the pendency of the case, a request
was made to arraign accused No.16 M/s.S.B.Minerals
company as necessary accused person and since
accused No.2 to 5 were already on record, the charge
sheet which was filed was taken on record and accused
No.16 came to be arraigned as necessary accused in the
instant case.
15 Spl.CC No.488/2016
13. Based on the materials available on record,
my predecessor in office had taken cognizance for the
aforesaid offences and necessary summons came to be
ordered for the appearance of the accused persons before
the court. The accused persons had appeared before this
court and in fact at the inception of the case accused
No.1 Soumith Ranjan Jena had also appeared before the
court. However, during COVID-19 period when
exemption were granted by the court for the personal
appearance of accused before the court, the accused had
not appeared before the court and later on NBW came to
be ordered. The accused persons had filed necessary
discharge applications for discharge and since the same
came to be rejected, the court on perusing the materials
on records had come to the conclusion that there are
sufficient materials to proceed against them and
accordingly the charges came to be framed.
CHAPTER-II CHARGES FRAMED AGAINST THE
ACCUSED PERSONS
16 Spl.CC No.488/2016
CHARGE
I, Santhosh Gajanan Bhat, B.A.L., LL.B.,
LXXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru (CCH-82) do hereby charge you:-
Accused No.2 to 4, 6 to 8, 11 to 16
Sri B.P.Anand Kumar @ Anand Singh
and others
(Accused No.5, 9 and 10 Dead)As follows:-
That you accused No.2 to 4, 6 to 8, 11 to
16 along with accused No.1 and deceased
accused No.5, 9 and 10, with dishonest
intention to cheat the Government and to have
wrongful gain to yourselves, entered into
criminal conspiracy with each other and in
furtherance of the said conspiracy, illegally
transported 16,987.69 MT of iron ore from the
lease area of accused No.16 M/s.S.B.Minerals,
M.L.No.2515, Vyasanakere plot and other mines
without any permits from the Department of
Mines and Geology to Belekeri Port and sold the
same to M/s.Eagle Traders and Logistics, who in
turn sold to different purchasers without paying
Royalty, TCS tax and Forest way charges and
caused loss to the Government exchequer to the
extent of Rs.1,53,26,395/- and caused illegal
gain for yourselves and thereby you accused
17 Spl.CC No.488/2016No.2 to 4, 6 to 8, 11 to 16 have committed an
offence punishable under Sec.120-B of Indian
Penal Code, and within the cognizance of this
Court.
Secondly, in the above facts and
circumstances, you accused No.2 to 4, 6 to 8,
11 to 16 along with accused No.1 and deceased
accused No.5, 9 and 10, with dishonest
intention to cheat the Government and to have
wrongful gain to yourselves, entered into
criminal conspiracy with each other and in
furtherance of the said conspiracy, illegally
transported 16,987.69 MT of iron ore from the
lease area of accused No.16 M/s.S.B.Minerals,
M.L.No.2515, Vyasanakere plot and other mines
without any permits from the Department of
Mines and Geology to Belekeri Port and sold the
same to M/s.Eagle Traders and Logistics, who in
turn sold to different purchasers without paying
Royalty, TCS tax and Forest way charges and
caused loss to the Government exchequer to the
extent of Rs.1,53,26,395/- and caused illegal
gain for yourselves and thereby you accused
No.2 to 4, 6 to 8, 11 to 16 have committed an
offence of theft punishable under Sec.379 r/w
120-B of Indian Penal Code, and within the
cognizance of this Court.
18 Spl.CC No.488/2016
Thirdly, in the above facts and
circumstances, you accused No.2 to 4, 6 to 8, 11
to 16 along with accused No.1 and deceased
accused No.5, 9 and 10, with dishonest
intention to cheat the Government and to have
wrongful gain to yourselves, entered into
criminal conspiracy with each other and in
furtherance of the said conspiracy, illegally
transported 16,987.69 MT of iron ore from the
lease area of accused No.16 M/s.S.B.Minerals,
M.L.No.2515, Vyasanakere plot and other mines
without any permits from the Department of
Mines and Geology to Belekeri Port and sold the
same to M/s.Eagle Traders and Logistics, who
inturn sold to different purchasers without
paying Royalty, TCS tax and Forest way charges
and caused loss to the Government exchequer to
the extent of Rs.1,53,26,395/- and caused illegal
gain for yourselves and thereby you accused
No.2 to 4, 6 to 8, 11 to 16 have committed an
offence of cheating punishable under Sec.420
r/w 120-B of Indian Penal Code, and within the
cognizance of this Court.
Fourthly, in the above facts and
circumstances, you accused No.2 to 4, 6 to 8,
11 to 16 along with accused No.1 and deceased
accused No.5, 9 and 10, with dishonest
19 Spl.CC No.488/2016intention to cheat the Government and to have
wrongful gain to yourselves, entered into
criminal conspiracy with each other and in
furtherance of the said conspiracy, illegally
transported 16,987.69 MT of iron ore from the
lease area of accused No.16 M/s.S.B.Minerals,
M.L.No.2515, Vyasanakere plot and other mines
without any permits from the Department of
Mines and Geology to Belekeri Port and sold the
same to M/s.Eagle Traders and Logistics, who in
turn sold to different purchasers without paying
Royalty, TCS tax and Forest way charges and
caused loss to the Government exchequer to the
extent of Rs.1,53,26,395/- and caused illegal
gain for yourselves and thereby you accused
No.2 to 4, 6 to 8, 11 to 16 have committed an
offence punishable U/s.4(1) and 4(1)(A) R/w
Sec.21 and 23 of MMDR Act and within the
cognizance of this Court.
Fifthly, in the above facts and
circumstances, you accused No.2 to 4, 6 to 8, 11
to 16 along with accused No.1 and deceased
accused No.5, 9 and 10, with dishonest
intention to cheat the Government and to have
wrongful gain to yourselves, entered into
criminal conspiracy with each other and in
furtherance of the said conspiracy, illegally
20 Spl.CC No.488/2016transported 16,987.69 MT of iron ore, which is a
forest produce, from the lease area of accused
No.16 M/s.S.B.Minerals, M.L.No.2515,
Vyasanakere plot and other mines without any
permits from the Department of Mines and
Geology to Belekeri Port and sold the same to
M/s.Eagle Traders and Logistics, who in turn
sold to different purchasers without paying
Royalty, TCS tax and Forest way charges and
caused loss to the Government exchequer to the
extent of Rs.1,53,26,395/- and caused illegal
gain for yourselves and thereby you accused
No.2 to 4, 6 to 8, 11 to 16 have committed an
offence under Rules 144 punishable under Rule
165 of the Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969 and
within the cognizance of this Court.
And I hereby direct that you accused No.2
to 4, 6 to 8, 11 to 16 be tried by this Court on
the charges framed as stated above.
Sd/-
14. The accused No.2 to 4, 6 to 8, 11 to 16 who
had faced the charges and had pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried. As such the trial was fixed. The
prosecution in order to prove their case had examined in
21 Spl.CC No.488/2016
all 28 witnesses as PW1 to PW28 and got marked 70
documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.70. During the course of
cross-examination, Ex.D1 to Ex.D.5 were got marked by
way of confrontation. On completion of evidence of the
prosecution, the statement of accused persons came to
be recorded as contemplated under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C.
and they had denied all the incriminating materials
appearing against them and accused No.2 and 16 had
filed separate written statements at the time of recording
their statement under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. The learned
counsels for accused have not preferred to lead any
defence evidence.
CHAPTER-III EVIDENCE
15. The prosecution has examined the following
witnesses in order to prove their case. PW1 Manjunath
was the Superintendent of Police who had registered FIR
in Cr.No.14/2015 on the basis of the source information
they had received against M/s.Pisces Exim Mumbai that
they had purchased about 6083.56 MT of iron ore
22 Spl.CC No.488/2016
without valid permits and had transported the same. In
the said source information it was narrated that the
M/s.Pisces Exim Mumbai had purchased through
M/s.Vaishnavi Minerals, Hospet and M/s. Eagle Traders
and Logistics. As per the same, the FIR came to be
registered as Ex.P.1. During the course of cross-
examination apart from denial nothing much was elicited
from him.
16. PW2 Ramesh Ganvathkar was the member of
the team which was deputed for conducting search at
the office of M/s.Pisces Exim, Mumbai. In his evidence
he has deposed of visiting Lokayukta office on 13.5.2015
wherein he was requested to be a part of search team
and travel to Mumbai, as such he has deposed of visiting
the office of M/s.Pisces Exim, Andheri, Mumbai, and
there they had conducted a search and a report was
prepared as per Ex.P.2. During the course of cross-
examination apart from denial nothing much was
suggested to him.
23 Spl.CC No.488/2016
17. PW3 P.Somashekar who had worked as
District Register, has furnished documents pertaining to
M/s.S.B.Minerals as per Ex.P.4 and P.5.
18. PW4 S.Prakash was the Geologist at the
relevant period of time between 30.09.2009 to
16.10.2019 at Hospete and he has deposed that on
24.4.2015 the Investigating Agency had requested from
his office to furnish information with respect to ML 2515
pertaining to S.B.Minerals and ML 1806 pertaining to R.
Mallamma, M/s Eagle Traders and Logistics with respect
to owning a mining lease and stockyard and also with
respect to M/s Vyshnavi Minerals, Hospete. After
verification of the documents he has deposed of
furnishing necessary documents as per Ex.P.6 and P.7.
He has further deposed that later on I.O. had sought for
necessary information with respect to issuing of permit
towards supplying of Iron Ore by M/s Eagle Traders on
01.02.2016. For which they had furnished letter as per
Ex.P.9. It is his evidence that again on 6.7.2016 the I.O.
has sought information with respect to supplying
24 Spl.CC No.488/2016
11397.44 MT of iron ore and through letter
correspondence at Ex.P.11 he had furnished
information. He was not subject to any cross-
examination.
19. PW5 C.Siddaraju was the Police Inspector,
Karnataka Lokayukta during the period 2014 to July
2015 and has deposed that on 11.5.2015 he was
directed by the I.O. to execute search warrant and as
such he has proceeded from Bangalore along with
Basavaraju to Belagaum and there they had secured
assistance of 2 Government official witnesses and visited
M/s Piescies Exim Ltd., situated at Andheri East,
Mumbai. He has deposed of conducting search in the
premises of the aforesaid office of M/s.Pisces Exim
Mumbai as per Ex.P.2 and also furnishing search list as
per ExP.12. During the course of cross-examination
nothing much was elicited from him.
20. PW6 C.N.Manjappa was the Assistant
Environmental officer has deposed that the Karnataka
Lokayukta authorities had requested him to furnish
25 Spl.CC No.488/2016
information pertaining to M/s.S.B.Minerals and
R.Mallamma with respect to the document available for
the period 2008-09 to 2009-10. After verification of the
same he had furnished documents as per Ex.P.13 and
14. He has also deposed that R.Mallamma Minerals was
closed as per the orders passed by the Central
Government in the year 2011. Again during the course of
cross-examination nothing much was elicited from him.
21. PW7 Manoj Kumar, who had worked as
Assistant Controller of Legal Metrology Department, he
has deposed that in the year 2015 they had received
letter from the office of Karnataka Lokayukta to furnish
documents pertaining to M/s.Vaishnavi Minerals and
M/s. Star Minerals. Accordingly, he has furnished
documents as per Ex.P.15 and 16. during the course of
cross-examination he has admitted that apart from
producing the documents he does not know anything
about the veracity of the documents.
22. PW8 Prakash Patil who had worked as
Supervisor at M/s.Pisces Exim Company from 2006 to
26 Spl.CC No.488/2016
2020 had deposed that accused No.1 Soumith Ranjan
Jena was the owner of the said company, which was
involved into mining activity and even they had their own
plot and they used to export the minerals. It is his
evidence that in the year 2015 Sri Soumith Ranjan Jena
owner of their company requested him to hand over
certain documents pertaining to mining activities and
accordingly, he had furnished documents as per Ex.P.17
to 27. Nothing was elicited from him during the course of
cross-examination.
23. PW9 Arun Pawar was the Deputy Port
Conservator at Belekeri Port, and has deposed that in
the year 2014, he was requested by the SIT Police to
furnish details with respect to export of Iron Ore from
Belekeri Port during the period 2010. He has deposed
that the SIT had enquired with respect to details
pertaining to M/s PEC Ltd., and he has verified the
records available in his office and had furnished as per
Ex.P.28 and 29. He was not subjected to any cross-
examination.
27 Spl.CC No.488/2016
24. PW10 Rajeev Chaturvedi worked as Chief
General Manager of M/s PEC, New Delhi and has
deposed that their company was involved in promotion of
exports and imports of bulk commodities, industrial
projects, and exports of engineering items and was also
engaged in export of Iron ore along with associated
private suppliers. Further he has deposed of furnishing
documents with respect to exporting 6000 MT of iron ore
from Belekeri Port as per Ex.P.30 and 31. He was not
subjected to any cross-examination.
25. PW11 A.G.Basavarajappa was the Assistant
Conservator of Forest at Ballari has deposed of
furnishing necessary details with respect to illegal
mining activities being carried out during the relevant
period of time pertaining to M/s.S.B.Mineral which
consisted of Forest passes pertaining to them, forest
passes pertaining to M/s.R. Mallamma as per Ex.P.32.
Further, he had deposed that as per the statement of I.O.
an extent of 11397/44 MT of iron ore was illegally
exported which had caused loss to the Government
28 Spl.CC No.488/2016
Exchequer and on the basis of the same he had
intimated that around Rs.17000/- was the loss caused
to the Government Exchequer towards issuing of transit
passes. Further, it is his evidence that about 12% royalty
was to be paid to the total value of the goods
transported. He was subjected to cross-examination by
the learned counsel for accused No.6 and 7. In his cross-
examination he has admitted that Forest Authorities
were empowered to seize the vehicle if they did not
possess necessary forest passes. During the course of
cross-examination by the learned counsel for accused
No.2 and 16, it was suggested that M/s.S.B.Minerals
had transported iron ore by paying necessary Royalty,
forest Passes and also they had obtained DMG permits
and the witness has deposed that the investigation
agency had only requested him to furnish the details of
the loss caused to the government exchequer.
26. PW12 Prashanth Hadagali was running a
transport business in the name and style as M/s.Mitra
Logistics. He has deposed that during the period 2009 to
29 Spl.CC No.488/2016
2010 they had transported Iron ore for about 2 months
and he does not remember the exact date now and in
fact they had transported Iron Ore from M/s SVK,
Vyasanakere Plot to Belekeri Port to an extent of 18,059
M.T. of Iron Ore in about 94 truck loads. It is his
evidence that Mr. Javeed Beig who was the agent of M/s
SMSK Traders, had requested him to transport the
same. Further, he has deposed of transporting minerals
to M/s.Pisces Exim Mumbai Company and he had
received the payment to his account to an extent of
Rs.1,50,00,000/-. He has identified the documents in
this regard as per Ex.P.33 which was account extracts.
Initially the witness was not subject to cross-
examination, later on he was recalled by accused No.2
and 6 and during the course of cross-examination he
was questioned with respect to procedures being adopted
for transporting the minerals by using G.C. Slips at the
weigh bridge and also it was suggested to him that he
was appointed by Mr. Zahid of M/s SMSK Trading
Company on behalf of M/s Pisces Exim and also that
30 Spl.CC No.488/2016
there were no documents to indicate their appointment
made in this regard since it was made orally. He has also
admitted of receiving transportation cost to their account
itself. Apart from that nothing much was elicited from
him.
27. PW13 Ravi who was working as accountant at
M/s.Adarsha Enterprises has deposed of running
Partnership firm and it is his evidence that they were
requested to provide with details pertaining to
M/s.Claria Marketing Services and after verifying records
he had produced the same as per Ex.P.35 and Ex.P.37.
He has deposed of supplying iron ore from Ramghad
Mining Plot to the stockyard of M/s Claria Marketing Pvt.
Ltd., and they had provided information with respect to 3
transactions made by their company with M/s.Claria
Marketing Pvt. Ltd.
28. PW14 Sharanappa B.Patil is proprietor of M/s
S.B. Enterprises. He has deposed of transporting
minerals from M/s Star Minerals on behalf of M/s.
M/s.Pisces Exim Mumbai. It is his evidence that they
31 Spl.CC No.488/2016
had transported from Hospete to Belekri Port and used
to obtain trucks from Mr. Sujala who was broker and an
order was placed for supply of 1,000 M.T. of out of which
he had transported 590 M.T. of Iron Ore and they had
received Rs.18,00,000/- in this regard. He was also not
subjected to cross-examination.
29. PW15 Shyam Shantharam Vete is the
accountant in Shiv Samarth Group of Companies and
deposed that they were having about 6 to 7 companies
under the banner of Shiv Samarth Group, which
included accused No.6 M/s Naivedya Logistics Company.
It is his evidence that during the relevant period of time,
Mr. Shafiulla Syed, Mr. Rajesh Kounte and Mr. Neelam
Kounte were the Directors of the company and he was
summoned by the SIT, Lokayukta to produce documents
pertaining to the export carried out by M/s.Pisces Exim
Industrial Revolution Company with respect to supply of
Iron Ore to an extent of 3101 M.T. which they had
procured from M/s Shalini Impex, Hospet. He has also
deposed of procuring iron ore from M/s Shalini Impex,
32 Spl.CC No.488/2016
Hospet and had supplied to M/s Pisces Exim Industrial
Revolution Company. He has deposed of furnishing
documents as per Ex.P.39. During the course of cross-
examination by accused No.8 he has admitted that of
submitting documents pertaining to M/s Pisces Exim
Industrial Revolution Company. He has admitted that
the suggestion that M/s Naivedya Logistics were not the
mine owners and they were only traders. He has also
admitted that Mr. Rohan Kounte was not the Director of
the company during the period 2008-09. He has also
admitted that M/s.Naivedya Logistics was a private Ltd.,
Company and they had obtained necessary permission
from the competent authorities. The witness was
subjected to cross-examination by accused No.6 and 7
also wherein he had admitted that the Head Office of
M/s.Pisces Exim Industrial Revolution Company is
situated at Natwar Nagar, Mumbai and that they had
dealt with M/s Pisces Exim Industrial Revolution
Company having its Head office at Natwar Nagar,
Mumbai and not with M/s Pisces Exim having its office
33 Spl.CC No.488/2016
at Andheri, Mumbai. He has also admitted that normally
the DMG permits would be handed over to Port
Authorities at the time of transportation.
30. PW16 Jaheeruddin H.Mulla was the
proprietor of M/s.Hosamani Roadlines and he has
deposed that in the year 2009 during the month of
November and December, he was requested by M/s.Vijay
Plast-o-Print to transport Iron Ore from Sai Weighbridge,
Kalahalli Village to the stockyard of M/s.Claria
Marketing Services Pvt. Ltd., Belekeri which was to be
supplied to M/s.Pisces Exim and he had transported
about 1811.92 M.T. of Iron Ore for which he had received
commission of Rs.20/- per ton. He has also deposed of
submitting necessary documents as per Ex.P.40. He was
not subjected to cross-examination initially. But
subsequently the witness was recalled on behalf of
accused No.12 to 14 wherein he has admitted document
at Ex.P.40 pertains to transportation of materials as per
the instructions of Vijay Plast-O-Print. He has also
admitted that M/s.Claria Marketing Services pvt Ltd.,
34 Spl.CC No.488/2016
has not given any instructions for transporting the
materials and in fact it was suggested by M/s.Vijay
Plast-O-Print. Apart from that nothing much was elicited
from him.
31. PW17 Narayanaswamy is the Assistant
Commissioner of Commercial Tax LVO 490, Ballari, he
has deposed of furnishing documents with respect to
M/s Eagle Traders and Logistics Ltd., as per Ex.P.41.
32. PW18 Violet G.Gomes was the Commercial
Tax Officer at Madgao, Goa and she has deposed with
respect to furnishing documents with respect to M/s
Pisces Exim as Ex.P.42.
33. PW19 Venkatesh H.R. is the Advisor to M/s
Adhani Group of Companies. He has deposed that they
were the Port Service provider for export bound cargo at
Belekeri Port. M/s.Pisces Exim Company had availed
Port services from their company and had brought in
cargo to an extent of 14000 M.T. of Iron Ore to Belekeri
Port. It is his evidence that they had cleared their cargo
35 Spl.CC No.488/2016
through 3 consignments and the first cargo was around
3850 M.T. of Iron Ore which was given to M/s MSPL and
they had shipped around 4000 M.T. and 6000 M.T. of
Iron Ore in their companies name itself. He has also
deposed that no minerals were left in their service
providing area at Belekeri Port. He has also explained the
procedure being adopted by them for exporting materials
from service providing area. He has deposed that they
had entered into an agreement towards providing Port
services from their company. He has deposed of
providing all necessary documents with respect to our
stevedore license, land lease Port area and also the cargo
handling details pertaining to M/s Pisces Exim and other
relevant documents as per Ex.P.43.
34. PW19 was subjected to cross-examination by
accused No.8 wherein he had admitted that the Custom
House Agent would normally file the shipping bills and
he was the only authorized person to file the shipping
bills on behalf of exporters and in the above case, M/s
Cargo Links were the Customs House Agents in the
36 Spl.CC No.488/2016
instant case. Further, to the specific question, he has
deposed that the port authorities and custom authorities
were the only competent authorities to check and verify
the cargo at custom notified area.
35. PW20 Prakash Gopal Krishna Bhat was the
Assistant General Manger at Commercial Branch, SBI,
Goa. It is his evidence that he had furnished necessary
documents the account extract and account opening
form pertain to M/s.Naivedya Logistics as per Ex.P.44
and 45.
36. PW21 Pavan Kumar being the Branch
Manager of Karnataka Bank Ltd., Hospete Branch and
has deposed of furnishing necessary statement of
account and other documents pertaining to M/s. Trishla
Minerals as Ex.P.46 and other relevant documents
pertaining to the said Company as per Ex.P.47.
37. PW22 Mohammed Sidiq Shaik was the official
from DMG, Hospet and he has deposed that on
01.02.2015, the investigating officer had requested him
37 Spl.CC No.488/2016
to come to Inspection Bungalow at Hospet for the
purpose of visiting M/s S.V.K. Plot of S.B. Minerals with
ML No.2515 and to ascertain the GPS location. He has
deposed of visiting the aforesaid place along with Mr.
Nazir Ahmed, Senior Health Inspector, Sri.
Krishnamurthy, FDA and Traders by name Nagaraj @
Kuruba Nagaraj and Abdul Hajid and transporters Mr.
Prashanth M Hadagali and Mr. Shivashankar from D.B.
Roadlines and other persons to M/s SVK Plot area. He
has deposed of reaching the plot at about 10-45 A.M.
which was about 2 Kms from Hospet-Bengaluru Highway
and at about a distance of 1 Km from M/s SMPL Mine
Area. He has also deposed of finding out the latitude and
longitude of the aforesaid place and also noticed about 2
old weighbridges in that place and had also noticed a
name board depicting the name as “Sri
Venugopalakrishna Iron Ore Mines, S.B. Minerals,
Vyasanakere”. Further, he has identified the mahazar
Ex.P.34 and also his signature on the same as per
Ex.P.34(b). During the course of cross-examination
38 Spl.CC No.488/2016
several questions were posed to him in order to question
his veracity of visiting the above said place and he has
also admitted that the I.O. has not obtained any samples
from the place of mahazar and also he has denied the
suggestion of preparing the mahazar at the Travellers
Bungalow itself. Apart from that nothing much was
elicited from him.
38. PW23 P.Krishnaraj Mayya is the sole
proprietor of M/s.Trishla Minerals and has deposed that
he had purchased about 746 M.T. of Iron Ore from M/s.
Shafia Minerals and had supplied the same to M/s.
Vijaya Plast-o-Print and the amount was credited to our
account maintained at Karnataka Bank, Hospet Branch.
He has also deposed of that after purchasing of the Iron
Ore they had supplied it to Vijaya Plast-O-Print, who in
turn had supplied it from Sai Kaata Stockyard of M/s
Shafia Minerals to Belekeri Port in favour of M/s Pisces
Exim through Haji Logistics, which was stored at Adani
Plot area at Belekeri Port. During the course of cross-
examination he has feigned his ignorance with respect to
39 Spl.CC No.488/2016
purchasing the materials with valid permit and has
admitted that the iron ore which was purchased by him
was legally saleable material. He was also cross-
examined by accused No.11 and 15 and he has admitted
that he had sold the iron ore in accordance with law. At
this juncture a question was posed by the court Whether
they had furnished necessary permit by M/s Shafia
Minerals?. He has deposed that they had not furnished
with any permit by them. Later on the witness was
recalled at the behest of accused No.11 and 15 and he
has feigned his ignorance with respect to the amount
collected by him towards the alleged purchase of
minerals. Apart from that nothing much was elicited
from him.
39. PW24 Syed Asif Pasha is another mahazar
witness and has deposed that in the year 2015 the
Lokayukta officials had called him to Inspection
Bungalow of Hospet and had disclosed about the
transportation of iron ore being made during the year
2009 and he was explained that the iron ore was
40 Spl.CC No.488/2016
transported from Vyasanakere Mining Area to Belekeri
Port. At the request of the Lokayukta Officials he had
taken them to Vyasanakere plot and reached the same at
about 10.45 a.m. and he had shown the place from
where the transportation of iron ore was being made. As
such the mahazar at Ex.P.34 was executed. During the
course of cross-examination by accused No.2 and 16 it
was suggested that the transportation was carried out
from the place which is mentioned on the basis of the
valid permits, the witness had feigned his ignorance with
respect to the same. Further, he had admitted that at the
time of loading the minerals to the truck, necessary
documents like Forest Pass, Permits and other requisite
documents were being provided by them to the
concerned lorry drivers and also the mahazar was stated
and drafted by the police officers themselves. Apart from
that nothing much has been elicited.
40. PW25 Siraj Ahmed is the proprietor of
M/s.Flora Logistics and has deposed that he was
inquired by the Lokayukta officers with respect to
41 Spl.CC No.488/2016
transportation of iron ore being made by their company
from Saikata area to Belekeri port on behalf of M/s.Vijay
Plast-O-print. He has deposed of transporting about 278
MT of iron ore and had received transportation charges
through their account.
41. PW27 Shivashankar is the Proprietor of
M/s.D.B.Road Lines and has deposed of transporting
iron ore and he was requested by lokayukta authorities
to show the place from where they had transported and
accordingly, he had reached the Guest House at about
10.30 a.m. and at that time there were around 20
persons and after that they went to SVK Plot and after
reaching the plot necessary mahazars were drawn as per
Ex.P.34 and later on he had furnished the transportation
bill, bank statement, truck wise details to the I.O. as per
Ex.P.53. During the course of cross-examination he has
admitted of transporting materials with valid permit and
apart from that nothing much was elicited from.
42. PW26 B.R.Venugopal is the main I.O. who had
conducted majority of the investigation and later on
42 Spl.CC No.488/2016
PW28 Ramachandraiah is the I.O. who had completed
the investigation and had filed the charge sheet.
CHAPTER-IV SUBMISSIONS/ARGUMENTS MADE BY
BOTH PARTIES
43. Heard the arguments of both the parties on
merits of the case. It is the submission of the learned
Special Public Prosecutor Sri S.S.Hiremath that the
prosecution has proved their case beyond reasonable
doubt. The learned Spl.PP had divided the case into
various facets wherein it is his submission that there
cannot be any dispute with respect to the extraction of
minerals by M/s.S.B.Minerals in ML2515 and also by
M/s.Adarsh Enterprises. It is his submission that
though the extraction of mineral iron ore was valid, since
they were the lease holders of the land which was
granted by the Government, its transportation was illegal
since they had not paid necessary Royalty, taxes to the
Department of Mines and Geology (DMG for short) and
also not obtained necessary Forest taxes to the
43 Spl.CC No.488/2016
Government. It is his submission that whenever a
mineral is extracted from the lease hold area with due
permission from the Government, the person intending
to sell the same shall at the first instance pay necessary
royalty, taxes and other requisites to the Government as
per law. At the inception itself, though M/s.S.B.Minerals,
M/s.Ramagopal Minerals and M/s.Vaishnavi Minerals
were legally entitled to extract iron ore mine from
ML2515, they had sold the same in favour of M/s.Eagle
Traders and Logistics without obtaining necessary
licence/paying royalty to the Government. It is his
contention that M/s.Eagle Traders and logistics have not
been arraigned as accused person in the case, since they
had purchased the same on ex-plot basis and in turn
they had sold it in favour of M/s.SMSK Mineral Trading
Company. The learned Spl.PP has also taken this court
through the evidence which has been placed before the
court and it is his submission that there cannot be any
doubt with respect to extraction of iron ore and also its
transportation as proved by producing various
44 Spl.CC No.488/2016
documents such as transport invoices etc., and also
bank account extracts wherein necessary amount was
credited in to the bank account of the accused persons.
It is his submission that the alleged incident had taken
place in the year 2009 and 2010 and investigation had
commenced in the year 2016 on the basis of the source
information which the SIT, Karnataka Lokayukta had
received and the materials on which they are intending
to prove are all based on circumstantial evidence and
also on the basis of economic transactions and account
trail that had taken place. By pointing out to the above
said aspects he has submitted that the evidence of PW27
B.R.Venugopal would clarify entire case wherein he has
collected materials from all the mining companies and
also from the person to whom it was transported. The
learned Spl. PP has also pointed out to the account
extract which were produced before that court and has
vehemently argued that without any transactions being
taken place there was no necessary for transferring such
huge amount and based on the same the Royalty/taxes
45 Spl.CC No.488/2016
for transportation was required to be fixed and since the
accused persons had failed to pay the aforesaid amount,
the prosecution case was registered against them and
even during the course of trial, the material extracted,
transportation was duly proved and accordingly, he has
sought for convicting the accused persons.
44. The learned counsel for accused No.2 Sri
Goutham Nettar has vehemently argued that the entire
charge sheet does not indicate any overt act on behalf of
accused No.2 to 4 and 16. It is specifically argued by the
learned counsel that in the entire charge sheet nowhere
the prosecution was able to point out the period of
transportation that was made. It is his submission that
the document at Ex.P.10 indicates of the transportation
which in any manner would justify that the accused No.2
or his partners and their company – accused No.16 had
transported iron ore without paying necessary taxes or
royalty to the Government. The learned counsel has also
referred to the document at Ex.P.12 which would reflect
trip sheets and the same indicate of transportation of
46 Spl.CC No.488/2016
around 280 to 400 MT of iron ore to the destination i.e.,
Belekeri Port. It is his submission that even for the sake
of argument, the documents which are produced by the
prosecution were to be accepted; the same would not
indicate transportation of any materials illegally to an
extent of 11000 MT of ore. The learned counsel has also
taken this court with respect to the various settled
principles of law and has vehemently argued that there
are absolutely no materials to indicate that the accused
No.2 Company or its partners i.e., accused No.3 and
accused No.4 who were also partners of M/s.Vaishnavi
Minerals and M/s.Ramgopal Minerals and accused
No.16 M/s.S.B.Minerals had sold in favour of M/s.Eagle
Traders. The learned counsel has also argued that just
because there were some financial transaction with
M/s.Eagle Traders, it cannot be presumed that they had
indeed transported and sold about 20 Lakh MT of iron
ore illegally to M/s.Eagle Traders. It is his submission
that a sum of Rs.2.5 Crores was transferred and credited
to the account of accused No.2 Company for the purpose
47 Spl.CC No.488/2016
of paying the VAT charges during the relevant period of
time. In order to buttress his submission he has pointed
out to the evidence of PW26 B.R.Venugopal wherein he
has specifically admitted during the course of cross-
examination that the amount which came to be credited
to the account of accused No.2 Company
M/s.S.B.Logistics, was utilised for the purpose of paying
VAT Charges to the Government. Learned Counsel has
also produced account extracts pertaining to the month
of August 2012 which would indicate that the aforesaid
amount was transferred back to M/s.Eagle Traders. By
pointing out to the same, he has argued that it was only
a financial adjustment which was made between the
parties and solely because some amount was transferred
it cannot be held proved that accused No.2 to 4 and
Accused No.16 had transported illegally to M/s.Eagle
Traders. He has also pointed that there are no materials
to indicate that about 16987.69 MT of loaded from the
Mining Area ML 2515. The learned counsel has also
pointed out to the evidence of witnesses which indicates
48 Spl.CC No.488/2016
that they had deposed of transporting from M/s.SVK
Vyasanakere plot area. However, in the absence of
specific concrete materials to indicate about its
transportation the contention of the prosecution cannot
be accepted.
45. The learned counsel for accused No.2 has
relied upon the following authorities:
1. (2024) 3 SCC 164 (Darshan Singh Vs.
State of Punjab)
2. (2021) 5 SCC 626 (Shivaji Chintappa
Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra)
3. (2010) 9 SCC 189 (Babu Vs. State of
Kerala.
4. (2022) 6 SCC 438 (Satye Singh and
another Vs. State of Uttarkhand
5. (2019) 4 SCC 522 (Digamber Vaishnav
and another Vs. State of Chattisgarh)
6. (2009) 15 SCC 200 (State of
Maharashtra Vs.Dnyaneshwar Laxman Rao
Wankhede)
49 Spl.CC No.488/2016
7. 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3383 (Randeep
Singh alias Rana and another Vs. State of
Haryana and others)
8. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1107 (Rajesh
Gupta Vs. State through Central Bureau of
Investigation)
9. 2024 SCC OnLine SC 474 (Pankaj
Singh Vs. State of Haryana)
10. (2024) 9 SCC 787 (Prem Prakash Vs.
Union of India through the Directorate of
Enforcement)
11. (2019) 8 SCC 50 (Anand
Ramachandra Chougule Vs. Sidarai Laxman
Chougala and others)
12. 2023 Livelaw (SC) 358 (Maghavendra
Pratap Singh @ Pankaj Singh Vs. State of
Chattisgarh)
13. (2019 2 SCC 303 (State of Uttar
Pradesh Vs. Wasif Haider and others)
14. (2013) 5 SCC 722 (Raj Kumar Singh
alias Raju alias Batya Vs. State of Rajasthan)
46. The learned counsel for accused No.2 has
further relied upon the following decisions:
50 Spl.CC No.488/2016
1. ILR 2018 KAR 1497 (Sri Vivek and
another Vs. The State of Karnataka, by
Kunigal Police Station and another.
2. Unreported judgment of Hon’ble High
Court of Karnataka in Crl.P.No.201296/2017
decided on 25.7.2018 in the case of
Smt.Santhshamma w/o Narasanna and 3
others Vs. State of Karnataka and another.
3. Unreported judgment of Hon’ble High
Court of Karnataka in Crl.P.No.4050/2018
decided on 21.6.2018 in the case of Ganesh
Shetty and another Vs. The State of Karnataka
and another)
4. 2019 SCC OnLine Kar 3898 (Dinesh
and another Vs. State of Karnataka)
5. 2018 SCC OnLine Kar 4259
(Varadaraju and another Vs. State of
Karnataka and another)
6. Unreported judgment of Hon’ble High
Court of Karnataka in Crl.P.No.5289 of 2022
decided on 15.6.2022 in the case of Sri
Srinivas Vs. State of Karnataka and another)
7. Unreported judgment of Hon’ble High
Court of Karnataka in Crl.P.No.101524 of 2021
51 Spl.CC No.488/2016decided on 16.2.2022 in the case of Sri Deepak
and 7 others Vs. the State of Karnataka)
8. Another unreported judgment of
Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in
Crl.P.No.102135 of 2023 decided on 7.9.2023
in the case of Manjunath Vs. The State of
Karnataka)
9. Unreported judgment of Hon’ble High
Court of Karnataka in Crl.P.No.569/2018
decided on 13.8.2024 between Mr.Bharat
K.Parikh and another Vs. State of Karnataka.
10. Unreported judgment of Hon’ble High
Court of Karnataka in Crl. Appeal No.83 of
2018 decided on 6.12.2023 in the case of
Kumara and another Vs. State by Hunsur
Town Police Station.
47. Learned counsel for accused No.2 also relied
upon the following decisions:
1. (1998) 3 SCC 410 (CBI Vs. V.C.Shukla
and others)
2. (2020) 8 SCC 811 (Parminder Kaur
alias P.P.Kaur alias Soni Vs. State of Punjab)
3. (2022) 6 SCC 576 (Gadadhar Chandra
Vs. State of West Bengal)
52 Spl.CC No.488/2016
4. 2023 SCC OnLine SC 777 (Pradeep Vs.
State of Haryana)
48. By pointing out to the aforesaid aspects the
learned counsel requested the court to acquit them.
49. The learned Senior Counsel Sri Kiran S.Javali
appearing on behalf of accused No.6 to 8 has vehemently
argued that there are no materials to justify the charges
which have been framed in the instant case. The first
and foremost submission made by the learned Senior
Counsel is that absolutely there are no materials to
indicate that the provision of Sec.379 of IPC would be
attracted. It is vehemently argued that at the inception
itself the prosecution is required to prove how and where
the theft had taken place and in what manner the
minerals were severed from the earth and transported
illegally. The learned Senior Counsel has also taken this
court to the evidence of PW4 S.Prakash who had given
report with respect to the loss caused to the Government
Exchequer. It is the submission of the learned Senior
Counsel that there are no materials to indicate the exact
53 Spl.CC No.488/2016
period of transportation and even the charge sheet which
has been filed is very bald and it does not indicate the
period of the time in which the incident had allegedly
taken place. The learned Senior Counsel has also argued
that on a notional cut off period as furnished by the
Investigating Agency the prosecution has calculated the
loss i.e., during the period of September 2009 to
December 2012. By pointing out the same he has
vehemently argued that in the absence of any materials
to indicate who had extracted the minerals and who had
transported the same, what was the extent of
transportation and to which place it was transported and
on what date it was transported, the prosecution cannot
seek for conviction of the accused persons. Further, he
has also relied upon the evidence of PW22 Mohammed
Sidiq Shaik who worked as Deputy Director of DMG in
his evidence he has categorically admitted that several
DMG permits were issued. Though the witness was
mahazar witness, learned Senior Counsel had taken this
court to the cross-examination portion of the aforesaid
54 Spl.CC No.488/2016
witness. The drawing of mahazar itself was seriously
contested since the witness had admitted that he has not
prepared any notes for observing latitude and longitude.
It is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel that
no samples were also being collected at the time of
drawing of the mahazar which would once again cast a
serious shadow of doubt over the case of the
prosecution. The prosecution has also not called upon
any independent witness to be present at the time of
mahazar and all the aforesaid acts would serious hamper
the case of the prosecution and in the absence of any
materials to indicate the act of theft or act of cheating or
dishonest intention, the case of the prosecution cannot
be accepted. By pointing out the same, it is his
submission that the prosecution had utterly failed to
prove their case beyond reasonable doubt.
50. Lastly the learned Senior Counsel has also
argued that there are no materials to indicate that
accused No.8 Mr.Rohan S. Kounte was discharging his
duty as Director of the Company at relevant point of
55 Spl.CC No.488/2016
time. When the I.O. merely by collecting the names of the
Directors of the company cannot file a charge sheet
without indicating of any specific overt act against them.
Under the circumstances, the learned Senior Counsel
has requested the court to acquit accused No.6
M/s.Naivedya Logistics and accused No.7 Mr.Rajesh
Ashok Kounte and accused No.8 Mr.Rohan S. Kounte.
51. In support of his arguments, the learned
Senior Counsel for accused No.8 has relied upon the
following decisions:
1. Judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in
Crl.Appeal No.630 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP
(Crl.) No.10460/2019 between Mohan Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh (Published in
Livelaw.in)
2. (2022) 16 SCC 166 (Ram Sharan
Chaturvedi Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh)
3. 2023 SCC OnLIne SC 486
(Maghavendra Pratap Singh @ Pankaj Singh
Vs. State of Chattisgarh)
56 Spl.CC No.488/2016
4. 1995 Supp (4) SCC 704
(B.H.Narasimha Rao Vs. Government of A.P.
represented by CBI)
5. (1995) 1 SCC 142 (P.K.Narayanan Vs.
State of Kerala)
6. 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1184 (Parveen @
Sonu Vs. State of Haryana)
7. Judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in
Crl.Appeal No. Nil of 2024 (Arising out of SLP
(Crl) No.12390-12391 of 2022) decided on
15.3.2024 in the case of Susela Padmavathy
Amma Vs. M/s.Bharti Airtel Limited
8. (2022) 15 SCC 430 (Ravindranatha
Bajpe Vs. Mangalore Special Economic Zone
Limited and others)
9. (2015) 4 SCC 609 (Sunil Bharti Mittal
Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation)
10. (1990) 3 SCC 190 (Vijayee Singh and
others Vs. State of U.P.)
11. (2013) 12 SCC 406 (Sujit Biswas Vs.
State of Assam)
12. (2002) 7 SCC 543 (Balu Sonba
Shinde Vs. State of Maharashtra)
57 Spl.CC No.488/2016
52. In the instant case the accused No.9
Mr.Anand who was the proprietor of M/s.Star Minerals
Stockyard was reported to be dead during the course of
investigation. Likewise, accused No.10 Mr/Rakesh
Kumar Jain who was the Proprietor of M/s.Shalini Impex
is also reported to be dead.
53. Accused No.11 Sri Vijay who was the
proprietor of Vijay Plasto-o-print has specifically
contended that no illegality has been committed by him
during the course of transportation. Learned Counsel for
accused Sri Venkataramana Naik has vehemently argued
that there are no materials to indicate the overt act of
accused No.11. The learned counsel has specifically
contended that accused No.11 in fact had purchased
2189 MT of iron ore from M/s.Claria Marketing Services
Pvt Ltd., to an extent of 1086.7 MT.However the records
indicate that M/s.Vijay Plast-o-Print had sold an extent
of 2189 MT of iron ore in favour of M/s.Pisces Exim
Mumbai. It has been submitted by learned counsel that
M/s.Vijay Plast-O-Print had purchased in fact from
58 Spl.CC No.488/2016
Mr.Rakesh Kumar Jain who was the proprietor of
M/s.Shalini Impex. The learned counsel has also taken
this court to the material which is available on record
which would indicate that accused No.12 to 14 had sold
an extent of 1086.7 MT of iron ore. It is his submission
that the document indicates that accused No.12
M/s.Claria Marketing Services Pvt Ltd., had purchased
with valid permit and document which was in turn sold
to accused No.11. In order to buttress his submission
the learned counsel has relied upon the evidence of
PW23 Krishna Raj Mayya who was the proprietor of
M/s.Trishala minerals. The learned counsel has pointed
out to the evidence which indicates that during the
period 2009-10 the witness had purchased 746 MT of
iron ore from M/s.Shafiya Minerals which he had
supplied to firm of accused No.11. He has further
deposed that M/s.Vijay Plast-O-Print had in turn sold
the same from their Sai Kata stockyard at Kallahalli in
favour of M/s.Pisces Exim Mumbai through Haji
Logistics which was delivered at Adani Port Area as per
59 Spl.CC No.488/2016
Ex.P.49. During the course of cross-examination nothing
much was elicited from him. However, court question
was posed to him that whether M/s.Shafiya Minerals
had furnished any permit which was answered in the
Negative. The learned counsel has pointed out to the
subsequent part of the cross-examination where in the
witness has deposed that the document which he had
identified was not pertaining to the aforesaid transaction.
The counsel has also taken this court to the evidence of
PW26 B.R.Venugopal with respect to the cross-
examination. The learned counsel has also pointed out to
the cross-examination of the witness wherein the witness
has categorically admitted that as per Ex.P.47 two
cheques bearing No.743930 and 743900 were presented
to the account of Shafiya Minerals and amount was
credited to their account. The cross-examination
indicates that the cheque was drawn in favour of
Mr.Babu and Mr.Salim. By pointing out to the same, the
learned counsel has vehemently argued that Mr.Babu or
Mr.Salim was not the proprietors of M/s.Shafiya
60 Spl.CC No.488/2016
Minerals nor they had any nexus with mining activities.
In that event the presentation of the cheque and its
encashment cannot be considered as transaction that
had taken place for the purpose of the above case.
Further, the witness has admitted that normally the
cheques issued in favour of the company will be
presented by them in the name of company and not in
the name of some other person.
54. The learned counsel has also argued at length
that no materials were forthcoming with respect to the
acts committed allegedly by accused No.15 Mr.
Mohammed Muneer. The first and foremost submission
which were addressed by the learned counsel is that the
accused No.15 cannot be arraigned as accused since the
company has not been as party to the proceedings. As
noticed from the records the allegation which are leveled
against accused No.15 is not in his individual capacity,
but of supplying iron ore in the name of his Company
without obtaining any permits so as to cheat and
defraud the Government towards Royalty. The learned
61 Spl.CC No.488/2016
counsel has argued that if for the sake of arguments the
submissions are to be accepted, then it would be
invariably indicate that the accused No.15 is made liable
in his individual capacity rather than arraigning his firm
as accused. He has also taken this court to the cross-
examination of PW26 B.R.Venugopal wherein he has
categorically admitted that he had not made any enquiry
with respect to the person who had affixed his signature
in the tax invoice as Proprietor or Manager. The witness
has also admitted that they had not collected any
specimen signatures in order to point out the overt act of
the accused persons. By pointing out the aforesaid
aspects the learned counsel has vehemently argued that
absolutely no materials are produced against the
accused persons and in the absence of the same, the
contention of the prosecution of proving the case beyond
reasonable doubt cannot be accepted. Accordingly, he
has sought for acquittal of the accused persons.
55. Sri B.K.V., Advocate for accused No.12 to 14
i.e., M/s.Claria Marketing Services Pvt Ltd., represented
62 Spl.CC No.488/2016
by accused No.13 Mr.Shaju K.Nair and his wife accused
No.14 Mrs. Riya Nair, has argued that the entire
transactions which were made by them were all legal and
they had paid necessary royalty and taxes to the
Government. The first submission which has been made
by the learned counsel is that the accused No.12
Company was having a stockyard at Ingaligi village,
Ballari. It is their submission that they had purchased
iron ore by paying necessary royalty, TCS Taxes and
Forest Way charges. The learned counsel through his
written synopsis has argued that it was the bounden
duty of the prosecution to prove their case beyond
reasonable doubt and to point out the manner in which
the accused had caused loss to the government
exchequer. In order to justify his contention he has
pointed out to the evidence of PW13 Ravi was the
accountant of M/s.Adarsh Enterprises. It is argued by
the learned counsel that as per the deposition the
witness has stated producing document at Ex.P.35 and
Ex.P.36. He has pointed out to the materials which are
63 Spl.CC No.488/2016
collected by the I.O. and submits that it would indicate
that the transactions were all valid and necessary permit
were obtained by M/s.Adarsh Enterprises prior to the
selling of iron ore. The learned counsel has argued that
the taxes can be imposed only once and when the same
was paid at the inception the State Government cannot
again contend of loss being caused to the government
exchequer due to non-payment of royalty or taxes. Even
otherwise it is his submission that if the prosecution
contends that the subsequent purchasers had not
produced any permits, it was the duty of the prosecution
to ascertain that whether any such royalty or taxes were
paid at the inception. Further the learned counsel has
also taken this court to the evidence of PW4 who was
officer of DMG and has pointed out that he was only
asked to calculate loss on the basis of certain extent
allegedly being transported during the specific period of
time. Further, the evidence of PW11 A.G.Basavarajappa,
who was the Asst. Conservator of Forest would indicate
that they had furnished necessary forest passes
64 Spl.CC No.488/2016
pertaining to M/s.S.B.Minerals ML2515 and also
pertaining to R.Mallamma. It is the submission of the
learned counsel that when the forest permit and passes
were furnished, the question of contending loss being
caused to the Government exchequer does not arise at
all.
56. The learned counsel has also pointed out that
as per the evidence of PW13 who was accountant of
M/s.Adarsha Enterprises, who has specifically deposed
of selling about 5000 MT of iron ore by accused No.12
from M/s.Ramgad Mining Plot. It is pointed out by him
that when the Royalty and taxes were paid at the
inception i.e., sale at Ramghad Mining plot, the question
of imposing subsequent taxes does not arises. In order to
buttress his contention he has pointed out to the
admissions of PW26 B.R.Venugopal wherein he has
admitted that out of 5000 MT of iron ore which was by
the aforesaid company in favour of accused No.12 had
consisted of 1086 MT of iron ore which were all legal.
The learned counsel has also pointed out to the evidence
65 Spl.CC No.488/2016
of PW16 Jaheruddin who is transporter in the above case
and has deposed of transporting 1811.92 MT of iron ore
from Sai Kata Weigh Bridge Kallahalli to Belekeri Port.
By pointing out to the same the learned counsel has
argued that the prosecution intends to prove the
transportation allegedly done by accused No.12.
However, when the entire materials are carefully
considered it would indicate that the transportation was
made by accused No.11 in favour of M/s.Pisces Exim
Mumbai and even the document at Ex.P.40 would
indicate of booking the materials by accused No.11
Company. As such, the contention of the prosecution
cannot be accepted and hence, he has sought for
acquitting the accused persons.
CHAPTER -V POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
57. Heard the arguments of both the parties and
perused materials. The points that would arise for my
consideration are as follows:-
1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond
reasonable doubt that the M/s.Pisces
66 Spl.CC No.488/2016Exim Mumbai (accused No.1) had
procured iron ore with a dishonest
intention to cheat and defraud the
Government from accused No.2 to 16
by entering into criminal conspiracy
and had illegally transported 16,987.69
MT of iron ore from the lease area of
accused No.16 M/s.S.B.Minerals,
M.L.No.2515, Vyasanakere plot and
other mines heads and thereby caused
loss to the Government exchequer to
the extent of Rs.1,53,26,395/- by non-
payment of Royalty, TCS taxes and
forest way charges and thereby
committed offence punishable under
Sec.120-B of Indian Penal Code?
2) Whether the prosecution proves beyond
reasonable doubt that the accused
persons by entering into criminal
conspiracy to cheat and defraud the
Government had extracted iron ore
without valid permits and the same
was sold amongst themselves so as to
reach the hands of M/s.Pisces Exim
Mumbai who had exported the same
and thereby the accused persons had
67 Spl.CC No.488/2016
committed offence punishable under
Sec.379 r/w 120B of IPC?
3) Whether the prosecution proves
beyond reasonable doubt that the
accused No.2 to 16 in furtherance of
their dishonest intention to cheat and
defraud the Government, had
transported 16,987.69 MT of iron ore
from the lease area of accused No.16
M/s.S.B.Minerals, M.L.No.2515,
Vyasanakere plot and other mine
heads without paying royalty, TCS
taxes and forest way charges and had
caused loss of Rs.1,53,26,395/- to the
Government exchequer and thereby
committed offence punishable under
Sec.420 r/w 120-B of IPC?
4) Whether the prosecution proves beyond
reasonable doubt that the accused
No.2 to 16 in furtherance of criminal
conspiracy and dishonest intention to
cheat and defraud the Government,
had illegally transported 16,987.69 MT
of iron ore without paying royalty, TCS
taxes and forest way charges and
thereby committed offence punishable
68 Spl.CC No.488/2016
under Sec.4(1) and 4(1)(a) r/w Sec.21
and 23 of MMDR Act?
5) Whether the prosecution proves beyond
reasonable doubt that the accused
No.2 to 16 in furtherance of their
criminal conspiracy and dishonest
intention to cheat and defraud the
government, had extracted iron ore
from the lease area of accused No.16
M/s.S.B.Minerals, M.L.No.2515,
Vyasanakere plot and other mines
heads without paying royalty, TCS
taxes and forest way charges and
thereby committed offence punishable
under Rule 144 and 165 of Karnataka
Forest Rules 1969?
6) What order?
58. My answer to the above points are as follows:-
Point No.1: In the Negative
Point No.2: In the Negative
Point No.3: In the Negative
Point No.4: In the Negative
Point No.5: In the Negative
Point No.6: As per final order for the
following:-
69 Spl.CC No.488/2016
CHAPTER -VI REASONS
59. Point No.1 to 5:- Shorn of unnecessary
details, the main case of the prosecution is that the
Accused No.1 Mr Soumith Ranjan Jena who was the
proprietor of M/s Pisces Exim Limited had entered into a
criminal conspiracy with Accused No.2 to 5 who were the
partners of Accused No.16 M/s SB Minerals( ML 2515)
and had obtained the iron ore which was extracted
legally by them and further the accused no.2 to 5 had
sold the same in favour of M/s Eagle Traders and they in
turn had sold the same in favour of M/s SMSK and the
iron had reached the hands of Accused No.6 to accused
No.10. It is also contended that M/s Adarash Enterprises
who were the mine owners had sold iron ore in favour of
Accused No.12 M/s Claria Marketing services Private
Limited being represented by Accused No.13 and
Accused No.14 who had sold in favour of Accused No.11
Mr Vijay who was the owner of M/s Vijay Plasto’O’ Print
and all of them had sold the Iron ore in favour of
Accused No.1 who had exported the same. The crux of
70 Spl.CC No.488/2016the matter is that the transportation was made without
paying of any royalty or taxes to the Government and
thereby had caused the loss to the Government
exchequer.
60. The first and foremost aspect which is
required to be proved by the prosecution is with respect
to entering into a criminal conspiracy by the accused
persons. Once again at the cost of repetition the
allegations which are leveled are appreciated in detail
wherein it has been contended that the accused No.1
M/s.Pisces Exim Mumbai had exported 16987.69 MT of
iron ore from Belekeri Port. It is the case of the
prosecution that accused No.2 B.P.Anand Kumar was
the partner of M/s.S.B.Minerals which had obtained
mining lease with number ML2515, and accused No.3
B.S.Gopal Singh, accused No.4 B.S.Pandurang Singh
and accused No.5 Late B.S.Srinivas Singh were the also
the partners of the said Firm. It is contended that totally
20000 MT of iron ore was extracted and in fact it was
sold to M/s.Eagle Traders who in turn had sold to
71 Spl.CC No.488/2016M/s.SMSK Mineral Trading Company and from them it
is contended that an illegal transportation had taken
place wherein 5537 MT was purchased by M/s.Pisces
Exim Mumbai, 8718 MT was purchased by Mr.Kori
Magaraj, 3080 MT of iron ore was purchased by the firm
of accused No.10 i.e., M/s.Shalini Impex Ltd and it is
also been submitted that about 2732.65 MT of iron ore
were sold locally. It is the contention of the prosecution
that out of the said materials M/s.Naivedya Logistics had
purchased about 3080 MT from M/s.Shalini Impex Ltd
and they in turn sold to M/s.Pisces Exim Mumbai. In
other words the prosecution is required to establish that
at the same time a conspiracy was hatched between the
Partnership firm which was legally entitled to extract
iron ore with that of the suppliers to cheat and defraud
the Government exchequer by evading the payment of
necessary royalty, forest taxes and others entities and
thereby caused loss to the Government exchequer.
61. That apart the prosecution is also required to
establish that accused No.11 Vijay Plast-O-Print which is
72 Spl.CC No.488/2016being represented by its proprietor Mr.Vijay had sold
2189 MT of iron ore to M/s.Pisces Exim Mumbai and in
fact accused No.12 M/s.Claria Marketing Services Pvt
Ltd., represented by accused No.13 Shaju K.Nair and
accused No.14 Riya Nair had sold 1086 MT of iron ore to
accused No.11 Vijay out of his extent of 2189 MT. It is
also the contention of the prosecution that accused
No.15 Mohammed Muneer who was the proprietor of
M/s.Shafiya Minerals had sold 1103 MT of iron ore
which had ultimately reached the hands of M/s.Pisces
Exim Mumbai. In other words the prosecution are
required to establish the fact that accused No.2 Anand
Singh, accused No.3 B.S.Gopal Singh, accused No.4
B.S.Pandurang Singh and accused No.5 late B.S.Srinivas
Singh who were Partners of accused No.16 S.B.Minerals
had entered into criminal conspiracy with accused No.6
Naivedya Logistics represented by accused No.7 Rajesh
Ashok Kounte and accused No.8 Rohan S.Kounte,
accused No.9 Mr.Anand( case against him is abated) of
Star Minerals who is alleged to have purchased 590 MT
73 Spl.CC No.488/2016of iron ore from S.B.Minerals and had sold to
M/s.S.B.Enterprises.
62. That apart the prosecution is also required to
establish that the other portion of Iron ore was
purchased by M/s.Pisces Exim from accused No.11 to 15
was also in furtherance of Criminal conspiracy to cheat
and defraud the Government exchequer by way of
evading the payment of royalty and taxes. Admittedly, in
the above case the iron ore was collected from two
different mine heads i.e., one from M/s.S.B.Minerals
with mine head number ML 2515. Though in the charge
sheet it is noticed that certain enquires were being made
by the Investigating Agency with respect to Rani
Samyukta Mine Head nothing concrete has been
produced to indicate that they had supplied minerals.
But at the same time, charge sheet materials also
indicate that M/s.Adarsh Enterprises were the suppliers
who had supplied iron ore to M/s.Claria Marketing
Services Pvt Ltd. If the said aspect is to be accepted then
the prosecution will not to be able to prove their case for
74 Spl.CC No.488/2016
the simple reason that the said transaction of sale was
being made by M/s. Adarsh Enterprises through valid
permits and by paying necessary taxes to the
Government. For better understanding of the case, it is
once again required to look in to the basic aspects by
referring to the relevant provisions of law. Admittedly the
mining activities were carried out by M/s.S.B.Minerals or
by M/s. Adarsh Enterprises cannot be faulted, since they
had extracted iron ore legally after obtaining necessary
permissions and after paying necessary requisites to the
Government and they were the legal lease holders. I have
also bestowed my anxious reading to the Mining Lease
Agreement which is furnished by accused No.2 and
accused No.16. The mining lease deed indicates that the
ML 2515 in favour of M/s.S.B.Minerals was granted on
5.5.2006 for a period of 20 years which was to be effect
from 13.1.1997. Further, the document indicates that
they were permitted to carry out mining activities in the
land situated at Vyasanakere, Ballari District bearing
Sy.No.01 to the extent of 80.92 hectares and even the
75 Spl.CC No.488/2016
schedule and the description of the land is also being
explained. If the same is considered with Ex.P.34
Mahazar which is allegedly drawn by the Investigating
officer at the mine head it indicates that it was the same
place where the mining activities were carried out.
However, the investigating officer has not carried out any
mahazar where M/s Adarsh Enterprises had extracted
the Iron ore, since the charge sheet materials indicate
that they had extracted the iron ore and had sold the
same in favour of Accused No.12 M/s Claria Marketing
Services Private Limited. If for a moment the entire
contention of the prosecution is to be accepted, then also
the prosecution will be at a loss to explain that why they
had not conducted any mahazar in the mining area of
M/s.Adarsh Enterprises. If for the sake of arguments, it
is to be accepted that the same was not required as the
entire materials of 20,000 MT of iron ore was extracted
from mine area of ML2515 M/s.S.B.Minerals then the
prosecution is required to explain that when the same
was extracted and to whom it was sold. As per the
76 Spl.CC No.488/2016
relevant provisions of law and also as per the mining
lease agreements, the extraction of iron ore cannot be
faulted with since it was extracted with the permission of
the Government for which necessary taxes were being
paid. The act of extraction of mineral will only attain the
character of illegality when an attempt is being made to
sell the same without paying necessary Royalty or if the
same is extracted from a forest area. In the instant case
no such allegations are forthcoming to indicate that the
extraction activities had taken place from a forest area. It
is admitted fact that the M/s S B Minerals had extracted
nearly 20,000 M.T of iron ore from their lease hold area
of ML2515.
63. With this factual aspect, now the extent of
iron ore being sold by M/s.S.B.Minerals is required to be
considered. As per the prosecution case, the entire
extent of 20000 MT of iron ore was sold on ex-plot basis
by accused No.2 to 5 in favour of M/s.Eagle Traders. It is
rather curious to note that M/s.Eagle Traders though
have been arraigned as accused person in the FIR, but
77 Spl.CC No.488/2016
have not been arraigned as accused person in the charge
sheet for the reason best known to the final investigating
officer Mr. Ramachandraiah. No explanations are
forthcoming for dropping M/s. Eagle Traders being
represented by Mr.B.Nagendra and Mr.K.Nagaraj.
Interestingly, they were arraigned as witnesses in the
above case but strangely they were not examined before
the court. Further, it is noticed from the records that the
entire extent of 20,000 MT of iron ore was once again
sold by M/s.Eagle Traders on ex-plot basis in favour of
M/s.SMSK Mineral Trading Company.
64. In order to ascertain whether any liability can
be fastened upon the mine head owner or whether there
is any liability only on the person who transports, stores
the mineral, it would be fit and appropriate to consider
the relevant provision of law. In this regard, I have
bestowed my anxious reading to the provision of Sec.4(1)
and 4(1A) of MMDR Act which reads as follows:-
78 Spl.CC No.488/2016
“4. Prospecting or mining
operations to be under license or
lease.
(1) No person shall undertake
any reconnaissance, prospecting or
mining operations in any area,
except under and in accordance
with the terms and conditions of a
mineral concession or of a or of a
exploration licence or, as the case
may be, of a mining lease, granted
under this Act and the rules made
thereunder:
Provided that nothing in this
sub-section shall affect any
prospecting or mining operations
undertaken in any area in
accordance with the terms and
conditions of a prospecting license
or mining lease granted before the
commencement of this Act which is
in force at such commencement:
[Provided further that nothing
in this sub-section shall apply to
any prospecting operations
undertaken by the Geological
Survey of India, the Indian Bureau
of Mines, ] [ Inserted by Act 37 of
1986, Section 2 (w.e.f. 10.2.1987).]
[the Atomic Minerals Directorate for
Exploration and Research]
[ Substituted by Act 38 of 1999,
Section 5, for ” the Atomic Minerals
Division” (w.e.f. 18.12.1999).][of the
Department of Atomic Energy of the
Central Government, the
Directorates of Mining and Geology
of any State Government (by
whatever name called), and the
79 Spl.CC No.488/2016Mineral Exploration Corporation
Limited, a Government company
within the meaning of [clause (45) of
section 2 of the Companies Act,
2013, and any other entities
including private entities that may
be notified for this purpose, subject
to such conditions as may be
specified by the Central
Government”] [ Inserted by Act 37 of
1986, Section 2 (w.e.f. 10.2.1987).]:][Provided also that nothing in
this sub-section shall apply to any
mining lease (whether called mining
lease, mining concession or by any
other name) in force immediately
before the commencement of this
Act in the Union territory of Goa,
Daman and Diu.] [ Inserted by Act 16
of 1987, Section 14 (w.r.e.f.
1.10.1963).](1A) No person shall transport
or store or cause to be transported
or stored any mineral otherwise
than in accordance with the
provisions of this Act and the rules
made thereunder.] [ Inserted by Act
38 of 1999, Section 5 (w.e.f.
18.12.1999).]”
65. In the instant case, the provision of Sec.4(1A)
of the Act would be aptly applicable since it describes
that no person shall transport or store or cause to be
transported or stored any mineral otherwise than in
accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules
80 Spl.CC No.488/2016made there under. With respect to payment of necessary
taxes and royalty, as per Sec.9 of MMDR Act which
specifies as follows:-
“9. Royalties in respect of mining
leases.
(1)The holder of a mining lease
granted before the commencement of
this Act shall, notwithstanding
anything contained in the instrument
of lease or in any law in force at such
commencement, pay royalty in respect
of any [mineral removed or consumed
by him or by his agent, manager,
employee, contractor or sub-lessee]
from the leased area after such
commencement, at the rate for the time
being specified in the Second Schedule
in respect of that mineral.
(2)The holder of a mining lease
granted on or after the commencement
of this Act shall pay royalty in respect
of any [mineral removed or consumed
by him or by his agent, manager,
employee, contractor or sub-lessee]
[ Inserted by Act 56 of 1972, Section 4
(w.e.f. 12.9.1972).] from the leased area
at the rate for the time being specified
in the Second Schedule in respect of
that mineral.
[(2-A) The holder of a mining
lease, whether granted before or after
the commencement of the Mines and
Minerals (Regulation and Development)
Amendment Act, 1972, shall not be
liable to pay any royalty in respect of
any coal consumed by a workman
engaged in a colliery provided that
81 Spl.CC No.488/2016
such consumption by the workman
does not exceed one-third of a tonne
per month.] [Inserted by Act 56 of 1972,
Section 4 (w.e.f. 12.9.1972). ]
(3)The Central Government may,
by notification in the Official Gazette,
amend the Second Schedule so as to
enhance or reduce the rate at which
royalty shall be payable in respect of
any mineral with effect from such date
as may be specified in the notification:
[Provided that the Central
Government shall not enhance the rate
of royalty in respect of any mineral
more than once during any period of ]
[ Substituted by Act 56 of 1972, Section
4, for the proviso (w.e.f. 12.9.1972).]
[three years] [ Substituted by Act 37 of
1986, Section 8, for ” four years” (w.e.f.
10.2.1987).].]”
66. Sec.9(2) of the Act provides that the holder of
a mining lease shall pay royalty in respect of any mineral
removed or consumed from the lease area. If the basic
principles of the above provision of law are to be
accepted, then the question of cheating and defrauding
the Government with respect to the purchase of the
minerals cannot be sustained against the traders and
transporters since it is the bounden duty of the lease
holder to pay necessary Royalty on the minerals
82 Spl.CC No.488/2016extracted by him. The learned counsel for Accused No.2
to 4 Sri Goutam Nettar has also pointed out to the clause
in the lease deed executed by the Government wherein
the lessee is required to pay the dead rent to the
Government in the event no materials are extracted.
However, the learned Special Public Prosecutor has
vehemently argued that the liability is not only limited to
the lease holder who had extracted the same, but the
same requires to be levied upon the person who either
transports the same without permits or sell the same or
even on the person who has stored without obtaining
necessary permits and payment of royalty. If the for the
sake of arguments the said submission is to be accepted
then the prosecution has to explain that why M/s.Eagle
Traders who had allegedly purchased 20000 MT of iron
ore from M/s.S.B.Logistics were not arraigned as
necessary accused. Even otherwise, the investigation
paper indicates that M/s.SMSK Mineral Trading
Company had purchased the entire extent from
M/s.Eagle Traders. The only justification which has been
83 Spl.CC No.488/2016given by the prosecution is that the sale was made on ex-
plot basis. In my humble opinion the prosecution cannot
sub classify the sale as the one ex-plot basis and as the
one wherein the materials are handed over. In order to
better appreciate the same the definition of sale as
defined under Sale of Goods Act, 1930 is required to be
considered, wherein section 4 defines the Sale as
hereunder:
4. Sale and agreement to sell.–
(1)A contract of sale of goods is a
contract whereby the seller transfers or
agrees to transfer the property in
goods to the buyer for a price. There
may be a contract of sale between one
part-owner and another.
(2)A contract of sale may be
absolute or conditional.
(3)Where under a contract of sale
the property in the goods is transferred
from the seller to the buyer, the
contract is called a sale, but where the
transfer of the property in the goods is
to take place at a future time or
subject to some condition thereafter to
be fulfilled, the contract is called an
agreement to sell.
(4)An agreement to sell becomes a
sale when the time elapses or the
conditions are fulfilled subject to
84 Spl.CC No.488/2016
which the property in the goods is to be
transferred.
67. When the aforesaid definition is considered
the concept of ex-plot sale also in a way transfers the
right from one person to another person, though it is
argued that the possession over the materials will only
be symbolic in nature and there would not be any
movement of materials in reality. However, the aforesaid
contention cannot be justified for the reason that the
original lease holder who had extracted the minerals will
be giving up his entire right over the property in the form
of minerals to the purchaser who purchases the same.
iIn order to better appreciate the aforesaid aspects, it
would be appropriate to rely upon the principle of law
particularly Sec.9 of MMDR Act which is extracted
supra. As per the aforesaid provision of law the holder of
the mining lease granted on or after the commencement
of the Act shall pay necessary royalty in respect of any
mineral removed or consumed by him or by his agent,
manager, employee, contractor or sub-lessee. The very
85 Spl.CC No.488/2016
definition of the aforesaid section clearly casts a specific
overt role on the person who has extracted mineral from
the earth. In the instant case accused No.2 to 5 are the
partners of accused No.16 M/s.S.B.Minerals and in fact
they are the partners of M/s.Ramgopal Minerals and also
M/s.Vaishnavi Minerals. If the contention of the
prosecution is to be accepted that the act of removal of
minerals by the lease holder would attract the rigors of
the provision of the Act, then necessarily it requires the
prosecution to prove the manner in which the role played
by the other accused persons. When the entire materials
are carefully appreciated it would indicate that M/s.
S.B.Minerals with ML 2515 had extracted an extent of
20,000 MT of iron ore and had sold entire extent on ex-
plot basis to M/s.Eagle Traders. If the provision of law is
applied to the case on hand, then no liability is required
to be fastened upon M/s Eagle Traders or M/s.SMSK
Mineral Trading Company to whom the minerals were
dispatched subsequently. In order to better appreciate
the same, I have relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble
86 Spl.CC No.488/2016
Apex Court reported in (2014) 6 SCC 590 (Goa
Foundation Vs. Union of India) wherein it is held as
follows:
32. Sections 4(1) and 9(2) of the
MMDR Act, Rule 64-C of the MC
Rules and Rule 16 of the MCD Rules
are extracted below:
“4. Prospecting or mining
operations to be under licence or
lease.–(1) No person shall
undertake any reconnaissance,
prospecting or mining operations in
any area, except under and in
accordance with the terms and
conditions of a reconnaissance
permit or of a prospecting licence
or, as the case may be, a mining
lease, granted under this Act and
the rules made thereunder:
Provided that nothing in this sub-
section shall affect any prospecting
or mining operations undertaken in
any area in accordance with the
terms and conditions of a
prospecting licence or mining lease
granted before the commencement
of this Act which is in force at such
commencement:
Provided further that nothing in
this sub-section shall apply to any
prospecting operations undertaken
by the Geological Survey of India,
the Indian Bureau of Mines, the
Atomic Minerals Directorate for
Exploration and Research of the
Department of Atomic Energy of the
Central Government, the
87 Spl.CC No.488/2016Directorates of Mining and Geology
of any State Government (by
whatever name called), and the
Mineral Exploration Corporation
Limited, a Government company
within the meaning of Section 617
of the Companies Act, 1956:
Provided also that nothing in
this sub-section shall apply to any
mining lease (whether called
mining lease, mining concession or
by any other name) in force
immediately before the
commencement of this Act in the
Union Territory of Goa, Daman and
Diu.
***
9.Royalties in respect of mining
leases.–(1)***(2) The holder of a mining lease
granted on or after the
commencement of this Act shall
pay royalty in respect of any
(mineral removed or consumed by
his agent, manager, employee,
contractor of sub-lessee) from the
leased area at the rate for the time
being specified in the Second
Schedule in respect of that
mineral.”
“64-C. Royalty on tailings or
rejects.–On removal of tailings or
rejects from the leased area for
dumping and not for sale or
consumption, outside leased area
such tailings or rejects shall not be
liable for payment of royalty:
Provided that in case so dumped
tailings or rejects are used for sale
or consumption on any later date
88 Spl.CC No.488/2016after the date of such dumping,
then, such tailings or rejects shall
be liable for payment of royalty.”
“16. Separate stacking of non-
saleable minerals.–(1) The
overburden and waste material
obtained during mining operations
shall not be allowed to be mixed
with non-saleable or sub-grade
minerals/ores. They shall be
dumped and stacked separately on
the ground earmarked for the
purpose.
(2) The ground selected for
dumping of overburden, waste
material, the sub-grade or non-
saleable ores/minerals shall be
away from working pit. It shall be
proved for absence or presence of
underlying mineral deposits before
it is brought into use for dumping.
(3) Before starting mining
operations, the ultimate size of the
pit shall be determined and the
dumping ground shall be so
selected that the dumping is not
carried out within the limits of the
ultimate size of the pit except in
cases where concurrent backfilling
is proposed.”
33. Under Section 4 of the MMDR
Act, a person who holds a mining
lease granted under the MMDR Act
and the Rules made thereunder is
entitled to carry on mining
operations in accordance with the
terms of the lease in the leased
area and may carry on all other
activities connected with mining
within the leased area. Rule 31 of
the MC Rules prescribes that the
89 Spl.CC No.488/2016
lease deed will be in Form K or in a
form near thereto. Part I of Form K
delineates the area of the lease and
Part II of Form K authorises the
activities that can be done by the
lessee in the leased area. Thus, a
holder of a mining lease does not
have any right to dump any reject,
tailings or waste in any area
outside the leased area of the
mining lease on the strength of a
mining lease granted under the
MMDR Act and the Rules made
thereunder. Such area outside the
leased area of the mining lease
may belong to the State or may
belong to any private person, but if
the mining lease does not confer
any right whatsoever on the holder
of a mining lease to dump any
mining waste outside the leased
area, he will have no legal right
whatsoever to remove his dump,
overburden, tailings or rejects and
keep the same in such area outside
the leased area. In other words,
dumping of any waste materials,
tailings and rejects outside the
leased area would be without a
valid authorisation under the lease
deed.
34. Moreover, Section 9(2) of the
MMDR Act makes the holder of a
mining lease granted on or after
the commencement of the Act liable
to pay royalty in respect of any
mineral removed or consumed by
him or by his agent, manager,
employee, contractor or sub-lessee
from the leased area. Thus, the
moment the mineral is removed or
consumed from the leased area, the
holder of a mining lease has to pay
royalty. By virtue of Section 9 of
90 Spl.CC No.488/2016
the MMDR Act, tailings and rejects
excavated during mining
operations being minerals will also
be exigible to royalty the moment
they are removed from the leased
area.
68. The aforesaid authority would clearly indicate
that only the person who had obtained leasehold and
had extracted minerals is liable to be imposed with
necessary taxes or royalty. The main intention of the
legislature with respect to imposing of royalty is to be
considered and appreciated in order to arrive at a just
conclusion. The concept of Royalty is not a new
phenomenon to our country and it is age old transaction
which was imposed by the Government much prior to
independence and after independence i.e., pre-
independence and post-independence Royalty were being
imposed when the mineral was being extracted. The
royalties in respect of mining leases is specified in
Section 9 of the MMDR Act, 1957. Royalty is a variable
return and it varies with the quantity of minerals
extracted or removed. Royalty in strict sense and in
91 Spl.CC No.488/2016
common parlance may not be a tax. In case of ad-
valorem rates, the royalty is payable as per the mandate
of Rule 64 D of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 and
guidelines prescribed there under.
69. In other words in legal parlance, royalty under
the eyes of law means payment made to the owner of
certain types of rights by those who are permitted by the
owners to exercise such rights. The rights concerned for
example are literary, copyright, patent. etc. and include
rights in mineral deposits. The term royalty originated
from the fact that for centuries gold and silver mines in
Great Britain were the property of the Crown. Such
“royal” metals could be mined only if a payment
(“royalty”) were made to the Crown. Mineral deposits
have nothing in common with the fruits of intellectual
and artistic endeavors except that they are often
exploited by persons other than the owners upon
payment of royalties.
92 Spl.CC No.488/2016
70. As per Venkataramaiya’s Law Lexicon and
Legal Maxims (Vol. 3, P. 2128) the same is defined as
‘Royalty’ on mines and minerals cannot be a fee but a
levy of the nature of a tax. Royalty on minerals should be
taken as an imposition of a tax or impost and would
come under the definition given in Art. 366, Cl.(28) of the
Constitution. The word royalty has been explained as
‘payment to a patentee by agreement on every article
made according to his patent or to an author by a
publisher on every copy of his book sold or to the owner
of minerals for the right of working the same on every
ton or other weight raised. “Royalty” has been defined as
“a pro rata payment” to a grantor or lessor, on the
working of the property leased, or otherwise on the
profits of the grant or lease. The word is especially used
in Government parlance as a demand for appropriation
of minerals, timber or other property belonging to the
Government. The important features of royalty have to
be noticed; they are, that the payment made for the
privilege of removing the articles is in proportion to the
93 Spl.CC No.488/2016
quantity removed, and the basis of the payment is an
agreement. In this regard it would be appropriate to refer
to Wharton’s Law Lexicon (14 Ed, P. 833) wherein it is
defined as:
“Royalty, payment to a patentee
by agreement on every article
made according to his patent; or
to an author by publisher on
every copy of his book sold; or to
the owner of minerals for the
right of working the same on
every ton or other weight
raised.”
71. With this the Historical Background of
mineral development in India is to be appreciated
wherein it is as old as its civilization itself. Mineral and
Mining has played an important role in Indian history.
The mining operations were so significant that definite
laws existed to regulate the mining operations and the
accrual of revenue to the state there from. According to
the ancient law, even though the King represented the
State, the mineral wealth did not vest in the King, but
the King was entitled to receive desired taxes or revenue
for producing/extraction of minerals. This concept,
94 Spl.CC No.488/2016
however, underwent a drastic change after Kautilya
wrote his Arthashastra which is claimed to be pertaining
to the period BC 321-296 when India was ruled by
Chandra Gupta Maurya. According to Kautilya, mining
and commerce in minerals were the monopoly of the
State. Mines requiring large outlay were leased out for a
fixed number of shares of the output or for a fixed rent
and stones not requiring much outlay for working were
worked directly by agencies or officials of the
Government. Mining operations could not be carried out
by others without acquiring licence from the States. The
under laying principle continues even today with minor
variations. Royalty is the payment of tax to the
Government for the (owner) mineral right for the privilege
granted by him for mining and producing/dispatching of
minerals. The practice of levying royalty in some form or
the other had been prevalent in India right from the
ancient times and had been continuing till the modern
time. In 1957, the Mines and Minerals (Regulation &
Development) Act (in short MMRD Act) was enacted and
95 Spl.CC No.488/2016
the system of collection or royalty by the State was
redefined and regularized under this Act. Hence the
main intention of the legislature is to levy taxes for
towards extraction of minerals and the same principles
are required to be applied to the case on hand, since at
the time of extraction itself under the provisions of
section 9 of MMDR Act royalty or taxes are levied and
further if the same is contravened by transporting
without paying royalty the transporter or the person who
causes to store the same is also made liable. In other
words, the contention of the prosecution that the
transporter or the purchaser who has purchased on ex-
plot basis cannot be made liable is not correct.
CHAPTER -VII INTENTION OF LEGISLATURE AND
OBJECTIVES FOR IMPOSING ROYALTY.
72. When the aforesaid aspect is carefully
considered with the facts of the case it indicates that the
intention of the legislature was to impose suitable taxes
on the person who had extracted the minerals. I have
also bestowed my anxious reading to the judgment
96 Spl.CC No.488/2016
rendered by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka with
respect to imposing of Royalty and Taxes wherein it was
rendered in the judgment reported in (2021)3 KarL.J 57
(B S Nanda Kumar Singh V State) wherein it is held as:
Reg : Applicability of S. 4(1-A) of
the MMDR Act:
29. Regarding the contention
urged by learned counsel for
petitioners that the petitioners
being the traders were not required
to obtain prior permit or to pay
royalty to the concerned
Department is concerned, suffice it
to note that the allegations made
against the petitioners squarely
attract S. 4(1-A) of the MMDR Act.
The section reads as under:
“4(1A) No person shall transport
or store or cause to be transported
or stored any mineral otherwise
than in accordance with the
provisions of this Act and the Rules
made thereunder.”
30. As there are clear allegations
that the petitioners were
instrumental in purchase/storage/
transportation of the iron ore, in
my view, even the said contention
does not merit acceptance.
73. The aforesaid judgment the Hon’ble High
Court of Karnataka would clearly indicate that it was of
97 Spl.CC No.488/2016
the view that the provision of Sec.4(1A) would be
applicable since the person who stores or the person who
transports minerals would be made liable for
contravening the provisions if necessary materials are to
be found. In the instant case when the facts are
juxtaposed with the aforesaid authorities it would
indicate that the prosecution has to prove the meeting of
minds and reasonable materials to link the accused
persons of sharing common intention to cheat and
defraud the Government exchequer by evading taxes.
74. At the cost of repetition once again the
allegation which is leveled against the firm of accused
No.1 i.e., M/s.Pisces Exim Mumbai is to be considered. It
is the definite case of the prosecution that M/s.Pisces
Exim Mumbai had exported about 11397.44 MT of iron
ore from Belekeri Port illegally. It is the contention of the
prosecution that though the minerals were extracted
legally by the lease holder and stored in their mine head
area, they had evaded payment of necessary taxes,
royalty and requisite fees to be paid to the Government.
98 Spl.CC No.488/2016
In other words the extraction of minerals in the instant
case is not termed as illegal, but only the transportation
is termed to be illegal. Now the main aspect which
requires to be answered at this juncture is whether all
the accused persons can be held to have had a meeting
of minds cheat and defraud the Government exchequer
by evading royalty and taxes. As noticed from the records
total 20659.13 MT of iron ore was extracted by
M/s.S.B.Minerals from their mine head area ML2515. It
is not the case of the prosecution that the entire extent
of 20659 came to be sold to M/s.Pisces Exim Mumbai
who had exported the same. Further, the materials
indicate:-
Total Extent of mineral extracted 20659.13 MT
by M/s.S.B.Minerals
Mineral sold to Eagle Traders 20659.13 MT
Mineral sold by Eagle Traders to 16989.69 MT
SMSK Mineral sold by SMSK
5537 MT sold 8718 MT sold 3080 MT sold to 2732.69 MT
99 Spl.CC No.488/2016to M/s.Pisces to Kori Nagaraj Shalini Impex sold locally
Exim Mumbai ( Not a accused of Accused
(company of in this case) No.10
A1)Shalini Impex
sold to
M/sNaivedya
Logistics
(A6 to 8)M/s.Naivedya
Logistcs in turn
sold to
M/s.Pisces
Exim Mumbai
75. When the aforesaid diagram is considered
which indicates that though 20659.13 MT of iron ore
was extracted by M/s.S.B.Minerals, who had sold it to
M/s.Eagle Traders and from them it had changed hands
of M/s.SMSK Mineral Trading Company and thereafter
to M/s.Pisces Exim Mumbai. In reality the extent which
was exported by M/s.Pisces Exim Mumbai out of the
aforesaid quantity was only an extent of 8617 MT. It is
relevant to note that accused No.10 Rakesh Jain of
M/s.Shalini Impex had purchased about 3080.62 MT of
iron ore separately from M/s.S.B.Minerals and which he
100 Spl.CC No.488/2016
had sold to M/s.Pisces Exim Mumbai. That apart the
charge sheet materials also alleges that M/s.Star
Minerals pertaining to accused No.9 Anand had
purchased about 590 MT from M/s.S.B.Minerals with
ML2515 and he had sold to M/s.S.B.Enterprises who
have not been arraigned as necessary party to the above
case. If the aforesaid facts are carefully appreciated it
does not indicate that at a particular point of time all the
accused persons had shared a common intention to
cheat and defraud the Government exchequer. The
aforesaid aspect assumes importance for the reason that
the allegation of meeting of mind and hatching of
conspiracy is leveled by the prosecution. It is also
relevant to note that as per the contentions urged by the
prosecution, accused No.11 Vijay Plast-O-Print had
purchased 1086 MT of iron ore from M/s.Claria
Marketing Services Pvt Ltd., (A12) which is being
represented by accused No.13 and accused No.14,
wherein the materials were alleged to have been stored at
their stockyard at Ingalagi. When once again the genesis
101 Spl.CC No.488/2016
of the minerals which were available that M/s.Claria
Marketing Services Pvt Ltd., is probed, the charge sheet
materials indicate that they had purchased from the
mine head of M/s.Adarsh Enterprises with ML No. 251.
It is thereafter narrated that M/s.Vijay Plast-O-Print had
purchased the same and had transported it through
various roadlines i.e., Hosmane Roadlines who had
transported 1811.92 MT, P.K.Road Lines who had
transported 16.54 MT, AGI Logistics who had
transported 81.94 MT, Flora Logistics who had
transported 278.6 MT. In all 3275 MT was transported to
M/s.Pisces Exim Mumbai. If for a moment, the above
aspect is carefully appreciated the point which pop up to
be answered is as to why M/s.Adarsh Enterprises has
not been arraigned as necessary accused in this case. If
for the moment, if it is accepted that transactions that
had taken place at ML 251 belonging to M/s.Adarsh
Enterprises is in accordance with law, then the act of the
investigating agency in directing accused No.11 Vijay
Plast-o-Print and accused No.12 M/s.Claria Marketing
102 Spl.CC No.488/2016
Services Pvt Ltd., to face the rigors of trial would be a
fallacy. The charge sheet materials also indicates that
M/s.Shafiya Minerals belong to accused No.15
Mohammad Muneer had transported and sold about
938.53 MT to M/s.Yassar Trading Company to an extent
of 274.86 MT and about 663.67 MT of iron ore in favour
of M/s.Trishala Minerals. Now the prosecution contends
that the aforesaid quantity of 663.67 MT was sold by
M/s.Trishala Minerals in favour of M/s.Pisces Exim
Mumbai.
76. If for a moment, the entire tabulation is
carefully is considered, once again the prosecution is
required to answer the manner in which the conspiracy
is being established by them. How the concept of
conspiracy is required to be considered has been laid
down by Hon’ble Apex Court in its judgment rendered in
Crl.A.630/2020 (Mohan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh)
5. The question would be
whether the appellant (Mohan) was
party a to the agreement to do or
caused to do the illegal act of
103 Spl.CC No.488/2016
kidnapping to be a member of the
criminal conspiracy. We are aware
of the Explanation to Section 120A
but in the facts of the present case,
the legal effect of the Explanation in
the light of the evidence has to be
examined. Conspiracy cannot be
assumed from a set of unconnected
facts or from a set of conduct at
different places and times without a
reasonable link. Learned counsel for
the appellant, in this regard has
highlighted that there is no
substantial evidence to indicate that
the appellant was aware that the
sim card would be later on or was
likely to be used in the commission
of the offence of kidnapping which
the appellant has been tried.
77. Further in another judgment Hon’ble Apex
Court reported in (2022) 16 SCC 166 (Ramsharan
Chaturvedi Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh) it is held as
follows:
7. The principal ingredient of the
offence of criminal conspiracy
under Section 120-BIPC is an
agreement to commit an offence.
Such an agreement must be proved
through direct or circumstantial
evidence. The court has to
necessarily ascertain whether there
was an agreement between the
appellant and A-1 and A-2.
104 Spl.CC No.488/2016
28. In the decision of State of
Kerala v. P. Sugathan [State of
Kerala v. P. Sugathan, (2000) 8 SCC
203 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 1474] , this
Court noted that an agreement
forms the core of the offence of
conspiracy, and it must surface in
evidence through some physical
manifestation : (SCC pp. 211-12,
paras 12-13)
“12. … As in all other criminal
offences, the prosecution has to
discharge its onus of proving the
case against the accused beyond
reasonable doubt. … A few bits here
and a few bits there on which the
prosecution relies cannot be held to
be adequate for connecting the
accused with the commission of the
crime of criminal conspiracy. …
13. … The most important
ingredient of the offence being the
agreement between two or more
persons to do an illegal act. In a
case where criminal conspiracy is
alleged, the court must inquire
whether the two persons are
independently pursuing the same
end or they have come together to
pursue the unlawful object. The
former does not render them
conspirators but the latter
does. For the offence of conspiracy
some kind of physical
manifestation of agreement is
required to be established. The
express agreement need not be
proved. The evidence as to the
transmission of thoughts sharing
the unlawful act is not sufficient.”
(emphasis supplied)
105 Spl.CC No.488/2016
29. The charge of conspiracy
alleged by the prosecution against
the appellant must evidence
explicit acts or conduct on his part,
manifesting conscious and
apparent concurrence of a common
design with A-1 and A-2. In State
(NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot
Sandhu [State (NCT of
Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu, (2005) 11
SCC 600 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1715] ,
this Court held : (SCC p. 691, para
101)
“101. One more principle which
deserves notice is that the
cumulative effect of the proved
circumstances should be taken into
account in determining the guilt of
the accused rather than adopting
an isolated approach to each of the
circumstances. Of course, each one
of the circumstances should be
proved beyond reasonable
doubt. Lastly, in regard to the
appreciation of evidence relating to
the conspiracy, the Court must take
care to see that the acts or conduct
of the parties must be conscious
and clear enough to infer their
concurrence as to the common
design and its execution.”
(emphasis supplied)
31. It is not necessary that there
must be a clear, categorical and
express agreement between the
accused. However, an implied
agreement must manifest upon
relying on principles established in
the cases of circumstantial
evidence. Accordingly, in the
majority opinion of Ram Narayan
Popli v. CBI [Ram Narayan
106 Spl.CC No.488/2016
Popli v. CBI, (2003) 3 SCC 641 :
2003 SCC (Cri) 869] , this Court had
held : (SCC p. 783, para 354)“354. … For the offence of
conspiracy some kind of physical
manifestation of agreement is
required to be established. The
express agreement need not be
proved. The evidence as to the
transmission of thoughts sharing
the unlawful act is not sufficient.”
78. Learned counsel for accused has relied upon
another authority reported in (1995) 1 SCC 142
(P.K.Narayanan Vs. State of Kerala) it is held as:
10. The ingredients of this
offence are that there should be an
agreement between the persons who
are alleged to conspire and the
said agreement should be for doing
of an illegal act or for doing by
illegal means an act which by itself
may not be illegal. Therefore the
essence of criminal conspiracy is
an agreement to do an illegal act
and such an agreement can be
proved either by direct evidence or
by circumstantial evidence or by
both and it is a matter of common
experience that direct evidence to
prove conspiracy is rarely
available. Therefore the
circumstances proved before,
during and after the occurrence
have to be considered to decide
about the complicity of the
accused. But if those circumstances
107 Spl.CC No.488/2016are compatible also with the
innocence of the accused persons
then it cannot be held that the
prosecution has successfully
established its case. Even if some
acts are proved to have been
committed it must be clear that
they were so committed in
pursuance of an agreement made
between the accused who were
parties to the alleged conspiracy.
Inferences from such proved
circumstances regarding the guilt
may be drawn only when such
circumstances are incapable of any
other reasonable explanation. From
the above discussion it can be seen
that some of the circumstances
relied upon by the prosecution are
not established by cogent and
reliable evidence. Even otherwise it
cannot be said that those
circumstances are incapable of any
other reasonable interpretation.
79. In all the aforesaid authorities the Hon’ble
Apex Court in unequivocal terms has held that if the
circumstances are compatible with the innocence of the
accused persons, then it cannot be held that the
prosecution has established its case with respect to
entering into conspiracy. Further, Hon’ble Apex Court
was pleased to hold that even if some acts are proved to
have been committed, it must be clear that they were so
committed in pursuance of an agreement made between
108 Spl.CC No.488/2016accused who were parties to the alleged conspiracy. If for
a moment the aforesaid judgment is juxtaposed with the
facts of the case, the primary aspect which would
glaringly indicate is leaving out some of the persons who
had purchased materials only for the reason that they
had purchased under ex-plot basis and including the
subsequent buyer and it is also astonishing to note that
as per the provision of MMDR Act, even transporting the
minerals would amount to an illegal act and in the
instant case the transporters are only arraigned as
witness. That apart there is no whisper in the entire
charge sheet about the reason for dropping M/s.Eagle
Traders and also M/s.SMSK Mineral Trading Company
who were initially arraigned as accused persons and in
particularly till the period of investigation conducted by
PW26 B.R.Venugopal, materials were being collected
from them. However, strangely at the conclusion of the
investigation the final investigating officer PW28
Ramachandraiah arrived at a conclusion that they need
not be arraigned as accused persons since they had
109 Spl.CC No.488/2016purchased materials on ex-plot basis. In my humble
opinion the approach of the investigating officer is not
correct for the reason that if a material is being
purchased which is illegal perse for the reason of non-
payment of royalty or other taxes to the Government,
either on ex-plot basis or on a comprehensive basis
wherein the material is removed from the plot area and
distributed and sold to other persons would also be an
illegal act and they stand on the same footing as that of
the other accused persons. The other side of the
contention is that of exonerating the persons who
purchased the same on ex-plot basis but attaching
aspersions against the persons who had purchased the
very same minerals from the suppliers on ex-plot basis
in my humble opinion is not proper. If persons who had
purchased on ex-plot basis is to be exonerated for
various reasons, then obviously the other purchaser is
also to be exonerated.
80. Though the learned Spl. Public Prosecutor
has vehemently argued that the prosecution has
110 Spl.CC No.488/2016
produced all the necessary materials by collecting the
bank account extracts which would indicate of the
transferring of the amount to other accused persons.
Once again at the cost of repetition and also by referring
to the aforesaid judgments, which is relied upon by the
learned counsel for accused Sri Goutham Netter, it
would indicate that the conspiracy cannot be assumed
from set of unconnected facts or from the set of conduct
at different places and times without a reasonable link.
Though the court is now appreciating the materials with
respect to Sec.120-B of IPC, incidentally, the court is
also required to touch upon the materials which would
indicate the existence of or non-existence of the
materials with respect to commission of offences under
Sec.379 and 420 of IPC and offences under Sec.4(1) and
4(1A) of MMDR Act and also under the provisions and
rules of Karnataka Forest Rules.
81. In the aforesaid case several witnesses have
been examined by the prosecution in order to prove their
case. When the same is carefully appreciated, it indicates
111 Spl.CC No.488/2016
that the main thrust of the Investigating Agency had
given was with respect to collecting account extracts of
the transporting agencies or the suppliers and also from
the mine owners. Though the collection of account
extracts would indicate of certain transfer of money, at
the same time, the prosecution should have produced
materials to indicate the actual transactions with respect
to transporting iron ore without paying royalty or taxes.
In order to counter the same, the Learned Spl. Public
Prosecutor Sri S.S.Hiremath has argued that the alleged
incident had taken place in the year 2009 and the export
had taken place from Belekeri Port in the year 2010 and
whereas the investigation had commenced by the
Investigating Agency in the year 2015 which had
culminated in the filing of the charge sheet in the year
2016 and hence, there would not be any materials
available in order to indicate the actual transportation of
the materials. No doubt at the first instance, the
submission seems to be attractive. It is relevant to note
at this juncture, that with respect to the manner in
112 Spl.CC No.488/2016
which the investigation is being carried out. For
instance, PW4 S.Prakash is the Geologist who has
worked in the office of Deputy Director of Mines and
Geology, Hospet during the relevant point of time. He has
deposed before this court with respect to the information
which was sought by the Investigating Agency i.e., the
letter at Ex.P.6. I have bestowed my anxious reading to
the letter at Ex.P.6 which is addressed by Deputy
Director of DMG, Hospet to the Investigating Agency
wherein it has been narrated that with respect to
M/s.Eagle Traders they were not having any mining
lease in their favour nor they had obtained any
permission for storing or processing the iron ore or for
opening a stock yard and the same allegation has been
leveled against M/s.SMSK Mineral Trading Company.
With respect to M/s.Vaishnavi Minerals, Hospet it has
been narrated that on perusing of the materials it
indicates that they had not obtained any mining lease,
but they had obtained necessary permission for storing
iron ore and its processing. Further, the document which
113 Spl.CC No.488/2016
has been furnished is not a conclusive since in the index
it has been stated that the mine head of
Smt.R.Mallamma ML 1806 had furnished necessary
monthly returns to the office of the Deputy Director of
DMG and also the mine head of M/s.S.B.Minerals ML
2515 had also furnished necessary monthly returns to
their office. However, the aforesaid report is not made
available with the documents which have been furnished
before this court. Interestingly, PW26 B.R.Venugopal had
rightly sought for information from the Deputy Director
of Mines and Geology as per Ex.P.8 on 1.2.2016
requesting to furnish necessary details with respect to
selling 16987.69 MT to M/s.Eagle Traders and Logistics
from SVK Vyasanakere plot area. As per Ex.P.9 on
2.2.2016 it was specified by the Deputy Director of DMG
that no permits were issued with respect to selling of the
aforesaid quantity. If for a moment the aforesaid aspect
is appreciated, then a question required to be posed is
that from where the Investigating Agency got the figure of
16987 MT. As per their contention about 20000 MT was
114 Spl.CC No.488/2016
extracted by M/s.S.B.Minerals. If for a moment, the
aforesaid quantity is accepted to be true and correct then
the prosecution has to explain that when the
S.B.Minerals had paid necessary Royalty and taxes to
the extent 3000 MT of iron ore, if they contend that
16,987 was illegally transported without paying royalty
and taxes. In the absence of the same, the court will not
be in a position to accept the case of the prosecution that
the accused persons had illegally transported and sold
the aforesaid quantity. Another interesting aspect which
is noticed from the records is that PW26 B.R.Venugopal
had sought information with respect to transportation of
iron ore and minerals during the period 02.11.2009 to
31.01.2010. However, the final investigating officer Mr.
Ramachandraiah requested the Deputy Director of Mines
and Geology, Hospet as per Ex.P.10 letter dated 6.7.2016
to determine the loss caused to the Government
exchequer due to transporting of 11397.44 MT which
was allegedly transported from SVK Plot Vyasanakere
and other places during the period 19.11.2009 to
115 Spl.CC No.488/2016
31.12.2009. In other words the Final investigating officer
has reduced the check period from 2.11.2009 to
31.12.2009. Absolutely no materials are forthcoming to
indicate why there was reduction of the check period by
the subsequent Investigating Officer Ramachandraiah,
when the mandate of the Hon’ble Apex court was to
probe illegal mining activity in the State of Karnataka
during the period 2009-10 and in particularly till the
closure of port on 31.05.2010 at Belekeri. Based on his
request the Department of Mines and Geology
determines the loss for the check period 19.11.2009 to
31.12.2009 by holding that about 11397.44 MT was
valued at Rs.1164/- at that point of time and based on
the same they had determined a loss of Rs.1,32,66,620
plus Rs.13,26,662 plus Rs.35,289 in all loss of
Rs.1,46,28,571/-. However, the document which has
been produced by the DMG is contrary to their assertion.
For instance as per Ex.P.9 it was narrated that no
permits were issued in favour of M/s.Eagle Traders and
Logistics for the minerals extracted from the mine area of
116 Spl.CC No.488/2016
M/s S B Minerals with ML No.2515 during the period
2.11.2009 to 31.01.2010. As per Ex.P.12 the very same
Department certifies that they had issued permit for
transporting 30000 MT of iron ore to Belekeri Port with
permit No.139814 to 141688 i.e., totally 1875 permits
were issued on 31.10.2009. Admittedly, the permits
would be valid for a period of 30 days and if the
prosecution contends that the permits which are
produced were not even utilized by M/s.S.B.Minerals,
then they will have to point out that whether another
extent of 20000 MT was extracted and transported by
them apart from the aforesaid 30000 MT of iron ore
mentioned in the Ex.P.12 dated 02.11.2009. Unless the
same is justified and shown the prosecution cannot
point out the aforesaid aspects against them.
82. For a moment if the provision of Sec.4 of
MMDR Act is to be appreciated wherein it would describe
that any person who transports or store or caused to be
transported or sold any material otherwise in accordance
with the provision, has to be construed as accused
117 Spl.CC No.488/2016
person. In the instant case, it is contended by the
prosecution that several transporters were involved in
the transporting the minerals for which necessary royalty
was not paid. One such document which is placed before
the court is with respect to transportation being made by
M/s.Mitra Logistics Company and the documents were
marked as Ex.P.33. In this regard, PW12 Prashanth
Hadagali has appeared before the court and has
tendered his evidence, wherein he has deposed of
transporting materials on behalf of M/s.SMSK Mineral
Trading Company to the place of M/s.Pisces Exim Ltd. It
is his specific evidence that on various dates they had
transported iron ore to an extent of 18059 MT in about
94 truck loads. Once again the above said aspects
require to be considered with the contentions which have
been placed in the charge sheet. At the cost of repetition
if the extent is to be recalled the prosecution contends
that M/s.S.B.Minerals had extracted totally an extent of
20000 MT of iron ore wherein they had sold 16987.69
MT in favour of M/s.Eagle Traders, who had in turn sold
118 Spl.CC No.488/2016
completely the aforesaid extent in favour of M/s.SMSK
Mineral Trading Company. The allegation is that
M/s.Mitra Transports had transported 18059 MT of iron
ore. It is surprising to note that the aforesaid aspect was
not disputed by the prosecution and the witness even
deposes of receiving about Rs.1.50 Crore towards the
transportation. If it is to be presumed that the aforesaid
evidence is true and correct the prosecution has to
explain regarding the average price which could be fixed
for selling the iron ore at that point of time. When
Rs.1.50 crore is divided by 18059 MT of iron ore would
mean that iron was to be sold at the rate of Rs.8300/-
per MT which is highly improbable. As per the statistics
which has been provided by the DMG and in particularly
as per Ex.P.11 the rate was at Rs.1164/- and in fact the
entire extent of 11397.44 MT was valued at
Rs.1,32,66,620/-. During the course of his cross-
examination the learned counsel for accused No.2 has
elucidated various aspects and in fact it was suggested
to him that the price of transportation cost was
119 Spl.CC No.488/2016
Rs.1000/- to 1200/- per ton at that point of time and
they had raised the bill for Rs.22 lakhs. The entire
materials are not in consonance with each other. I have
also bestowed my anxious reading to the other materials
which is placed before the court i.e., with respect to
transportation Ex.P.43 which is the material obtained
from the stevedore i.e., M/s.Adani Enterprises. It is not
in dispute that M/s.Adani Enterprises had provided
Stevedore facilities to M/s.Pisces Exim Mumbai who was
the exporter for M/s.PEC Limited, New Delhi. It is
relevant to note that M/s.Adani enterprises had
furnished the details of the truck loads which were
brought into their area by M/s.Pisces Exim Mumbai.
This exercise is being carried out for the simple reason
that in order to consider the entire extent which had
entered into Belekeri Port is required to be appreciated.
The prosecution has utterly failed to give any link with
respect to the exports being carried out and with respect
to the materials that were transported. Admittedly, as
per the final Investigation Officer PW28-Mr.
120 Spl.CC No.488/2016
Ramachandraiah, the check period was between
19.11.2009 to 31.12.2009. It means that the entire
materials which were allegedly sold by M/s.S.B.Minerals
and M/s.Adarsh Enterprises to various traders, who in
turn had transported the same, had entered Belekeri
Port during the aforesaid period. The entire extent for the
sake of convenience is extracted as follows:
Sl. Date Trucks Truck Trucks Day Previous Cumulati
No. Tdy Prev cuml arrival ve
12 19.11.09 26 186 212 562.07 3508.92 4070.99
13 20.11.09 20 212 232 413.12 4070.99 4484.11
14 21.11.09 11 232 243 240.87 4484.11 4724.98
15 22.11.09 3 243 246 58.89 4724.98 4783.87
16 23.11.09 6 246 252 127.04 4783.87 4910.91
17 24.11.09 9 252 261 194.12 4910.91 5105.03
18 25.11.09 7 261 268 140.28 5105.03 5245.31
19 26.11.09 18 268 286 433.38 5245.31 5678.99
20 27.11.09 7 286 293 154.06 5678.69 5832.75
21 28.11.09 6 293 299 122.56 5832.75 5955.31
22 29.11.09 4 299 303 83.75 5955.31 6039.06
23 30.11.09 4 303 307 80.51 6039.06 6119.57
24 01.12.09 6 307 313 120.84 6119.57 6240.41
25 02.12.09 313 313 6240.41 6240.41
26 03.12.09 313 313 6240.41 6240.41
27 04.12.09 1 313 314 21.05 6240.41 6261.46
28 05.12.09 13 314 327 271.96 6261.46 6533.42
29 06.12.09 11 327 338 237.90 6533.42 6771.32
30 07.12.09 8 338 346 174.48 6771.32 6945.80
31 08.12.09 8 346 354 177.51 6945.80 7123.31
32 09.12.09 5 354 359 103.94 7123.31 7227.25
121 Spl.CC No.488/201633 10.12.09 1 359 360 13.11 7227.25 7240.36
34 11.12.09 360 360 7240.36 7240.36
35 12.12.09 3 360 363 47.91 7240.36 7288.27
36 13.12.09 363 363 47.91 7288.27 7288.27
37 14.12.09 3 363 366 58.37 7288.27 7346.64
38 15.12.09 21 366 387 407.99 7346.64 7754.63
39 16.12.09 9 387 396 188.21 7754.63 7942.84
40 17.12.09 4 396 400 78.62 7942.84 8021.46
41 18.12.09 22 400 422 438.98 8021.46 8460.44
42 19.12.09 25 422 447 531.08 8460.44 8991.52
43 20.12.09 21 447 468 409.43 8991.52 9400.95
44 21.12.09 17 468 485 371.99 9400.95 9772.94
45 22.12.09 4 485 489 71.96 9772.94 9844.90
46 23.12.09 7 489 496 147.03 9844.90 9991.93
47 24.12.09 3 496 499 66.35 9991.93 10058.28
48 25.12.09 1 499 500 23.38 10058.28 10081.66
49 26.12.09 10 500 510 184.80 10081.66 10266.46
50 27.12.09 510 510 10266.46 10266.46
51 28.12.09 510 510 10266.46 10266.46
52 29.12.09 510 510 10266.46 10266.46
53 30.12.09 6 510 516 128.89 10266.46 10395.35
54 31.12.09 8 516 524 165.48 10395.35 10560.83
83. The table would indicate that as on
19.11.2009 the cumulative storage of iron ore was
around 4070.99 MT of M/s.Pisces Exim Mumbai and as
on 31.12.2009 it was 10560.83. The aforesaid extent
once again falsifies the case of the prosecution that
M/s.Pisces Exim Mumbai had exported 11,697.44 MT of
iron ore during the relevant period of time. In fact, the
table indicates of bringing several extent of iron ore till
122 Spl.CC No.488/2016the closure of Port Area i.e., on 31.5.2010 through
various trucks. The aforesaid table would clearly indicate
the number of trucks, date of arrival and also the details
of the amount of iron ore carried by them. It is the duty
of the prosecution to establish the fact that the entire
materials which are placed before the court does tally
with each other. The export of iron ore is required to be
tallied with the materials which are being transported by
various traders. It is not a straight jacket case of the
prosecution that the entire materials were purchased
from a single mine head owner who in turn had
transported and placed the same in stevedore area and
later on it was exported. At the cost of repetition, it is to
be noticed that the materials purchased either from the
Mine head area of M/s.S.B.Minerals or from M/s.Adarsh
Enterprises which was later on sold to accused No.12
M/s.Claria Marketing Services Pvt Ltd., who in turn sold
part of it to accused No.11 Vijay Plast-o-Print and later
on it was sold to M/s.Pisces Exim Mumbai. In other
words there are two different mine head owners who had
123 Spl.CC No.488/2016allegedly extracted iron ore and it is the contention of the
prosecution that they had not paid any royalty, forest
taxes or any other taxes due to the Government with
respect to the transportation of iron ore. If for the sake of
argument, same is required to be accepted the materials
which had entered the Belekeri Port should tally with the
materials which are allegedly exported by M/s.Pisces
Exim Mumbai. It is not the case of prosecution that
M/s.Pisces Exim Mumbai had purchased materials from
some other traders or dealers wherein there was evasion
of payment of Royalty or taxes. But it is the definite case
of the prosecution that the aforesaid extent of iron ore
which was transported was legal for the reason for non-
payment of royalty and forest taxes. As such the
prosecution is required to prove their case beyond
reasonable doubt.
84. For the purpose of recapitulating the entire
thing, it would be appropriate to note that M/s.Adarsh
Enterprises had sold 1086 MT of iron ore to M/s.Claria
Marketing who in turn sold it to M/s.Vijay Plast-o-Print
124 Spl.CC No.488/2016
and the same was transported through M/s.Hosmane
Roadlines and it was purchased by M/s.Pisces Exim
Mumbai.
85. As already discussed above the other part of
the transaction pertains to transportation of materials by
M/s.Claria Marketing Services Pvt Ltd., it is the specific
contention of the prosecution that accused No.11 Vijay
Plast-O-Print had purchased an extent of 1086.7 MT of
iron ore from M/s.Claria Marketing Services Pvt Ltd.,
which is being represented by accused No.13 Shaju
K.Nair and accused No.14 Smt.Riya Nair. The
prosecution has also contended that the aforesaid
materials were purchased by M/s.Claria Marketing from
M/s.Adarsh Enterprises who were having mine head
with ML 2369. I have carefully appreciated the document
at Ex.P.37 which is the Partnership deed pertaining to
M/s.Adarsh Enterprises wherein mining lease is also
enclosed. The mining lease clearly indicates that the
deed of grant was fresh mining lease which was from
26.7.2002. The mining period which was mentioned was
125 Spl.CC No.488/2016
for a period of 20 years and as per Ex.P.37(a) M/s.Claria
Marketing Services Pvt Ltd., had raised invoice on
10.11.2009 for purchasing 5000 MT of iron ore lumps
which was to be supplied at Rs.450/- per MT. Thereafter,
the prosecution has produced the permit i.e., as per
Ex.P.37(b) dated 24.9.09. As per the said permit it was
valid till 23.10.2009 was for supplying 5000 MT of iron
ore. If for the purpose of proof the prosecution relies
upon Ex.P.37(a) then there are no materials to indicate
that M/s.Adarsh Enterprises had acted upon the offer as
per Ex.P.37(a) wherein M/s.Claria Marketing Services Pvt
Ltd., had requested for supplying of low grade iron ore
lumps to an extent of 5000 MT since permit at Ex.P.37(b)
indicates of its expiry prior to the offer made by
M/s.Claria Marketing i.e., permit had expired on
23.10.2009. Even otherwise the trip sheets which have
been marked indicate of transactions that had taken
place in the month of 2nd August 2009 wherein total
extent of 5043 MT of iron ore was allegedly supplied. I
have also appreciated the tax invoice dated 01.09.09
126 Spl.CC No.488/2016
wherein it is noticed that M/s.Adarsh Enterprises had
supplied about 7000 MT of iron ore to Ingalagi stockyard
belonging to Accused No.12 M/s.Claria Marketing
Services Private Limited during the period 10.8.2009 to
29.08.2009. The prosecution mainly relies upon the tax
invoice at Ex.P.37(c) which was once again raised by
M/s.Adarsh Enterprises for supply of 5010 MT of iron
ore during the period 30.09.2009 to 14.10.2009. At this
moment, if at all the cut off period which has been
sought by the Investigating Agency as per Ex.P.10 is
appreciated it indicates that the investigating officer had
fixed cut off period from 19.11.2009 to 31.12.2009 and
on the basis of supplies made therein a loss which has
been caused due to non-payment of taxes to the
Government was requested to be determined by the
DMG. Under the circumstances, the document at
Ex.P.37(c) would not be of any help to the prosecution.
Even otherwise, at this juncture it would once again
appropriate to refer to the provision of Sec.4(1A) of
MMDR Act which indicates that the person who had
127 Spl.CC No.488/2016
extracted minerals stored the same and transported in
contravention of the provisions of Act, is liable for
prosecution. Interestingly, in this case, M/s.Adarsh
Enterprises who were the lease owners were not at all
made liable for payment of taxes and royalty. It is basic
ingredient that the person who had extracted minerals is
required to be imposed with suitable royalty and taxes
and Sec.9 of MMDR Act would clearly specify the same
as per the aforesaid judgment rendered by the Hon’ble
Apex Court in Goa Foundation Vs. Union of India case
mentioned supra. In the instant case there is no clarity
with respect to supply of materials from the mine head.
86. The learned counsel for accused No.12 to 14
has taken this court to the various facets of the above
case and he has also filed written arguments to justify
their contention. The learned counsel has vehemently
contended that the evidence of PW16 Jaheeruddin
H.Mulla, PW25 Siraj Ahmed and PW26 B.R.Venugopal
are relevant to his case. I have bestowed my anxious
reading to the evidence of PW16 Jaheeruddin H.Mulla
128 Spl.CC No.488/2016
who is proprietor of M/s.Hosamane Road lines has
deposed of transporting iron ore at the request of
M/s.Vijay Plast-O-Print from the stock yard of
M/s.Claria Marketing Services Pvt Ltd. He has
specifically deposed of transporting iron ore to an extent
of 1811.92 MT and has deposed of producing documents
i.e., invoice as per Ex.P.40. The witness was
subsequently recalled and he has admitted that the iron
ore were transported as per the instructions of Vijay
Plast-O-Print and he has also admitted that no
instruction were given by M/s.Claria Marketing for its
transportation and he has also deposed that at the time
of transportation no persons of M/s.Claria Marketing
were present. The aforesaid witness is of not much
relevance to the case of the prosecution, since he has
only deposed about the materials which he had
transported from mine head of accused No.12 M/s.Claria
Marketing Services. If at all the transportation of the
materials without any permit amounts to offence under
MMDR Act, then the prosecution should explain why
129 Spl.CC No.488/2016
PW16 Jaheeruddin H.Mulla who had transported
materials has been left out. That apart I have also
bestowed my anxious reading to the evidence of PW25
Siraj Ahmed who was proprietor of M/s.Flora Logistics
who has deposed of supplying lorries for the purpose of
transportation and has deposed that he had transported
iron ore from Sai Kata area to Belekeri Port at the
instance of M/s.Vijay Plast-O-Print to an extent of 2768
MT of iron ore. He has not taken the name of either
accused No.12 M/s.Claria Marketing Services Pvt Ltd., or
accused No.13 and 14 in this regard. Basically the
prosecution is required to establish that there was
meeting of minds between accused No.1 is representing
M/s.Pisces Exim Mumbai with other accused persons
and even for that matter the prosecution are required to
establish that accused No.11, accused No.12 to 14 had
conspired together to cheat and defraud the State
Exchequer and in furtherance of the same the iron ore
which was not having valid permits were transported
and handed over to accused No.1 Firm, who had finally
130 Spl.CC No.488/2016
exported the same. Unless the aforesaid chain of link is
established by the prosecution either through direct
materials or even through indirect materials, they cannot
invoke Sec.120-B of IPC. No doubt the court is fully
aware of the basic postulates of law wherein it is to be
held that the conspiracy is always hatched in darkness
and secrecy and there will not be any direct materials,
even then the circumstances leading to the meeting of
minds of entering in to conspiracy is required to be
established by the prosecution. In the instant case no
such materials are forthcoming.
87. Lastly the court has also considered the
evidence of PW26 B.R.Venugopal who had conducted
major portion of investigation. During the course of his
cross-examination he has deposed that he was aware
that iron ore purchased by accused No.12 Company was
stored in the stock yard at Ingalagi village and he has
also deposed that he was aware that the materials were
purchased under permit No.1797 dated 24.01.2009.
131 Spl.CC No.488/2016
Further, it is noticed from the cross-examination wherein
the admission is given as follows:
“It is true to suggest that out of
the extent of 5000 M.T. of Iron Ore
purchased and stored by A-12
company at Ingalagi had sold an
extent of 1086 M.T. of Iron Ore in
favour of M/s Vijay Plast ‘O’ Prints
vide invoice dated 30.10.2009.”
88. The aforesaid admission by the Investigating
officer himself is very much contrary to the documents
which is produced at Ex.P.37(a) to Ex P.37(c). Further,
the witness also admitted that the stock yard of accused
No.12 Company was at Ingalagi village which was at a
distance of 12 to 15 km from Saikata stock yard,
wherein as per the case of the prosecution loading of iron
ore to an extent of 1086 MT had taken place. In order to
recapitulate the same, once again if the evidence of
PW16 and PW25 are considered, it is noticed that they
were the transporters and had deposed that transporting
materials from Saikata Village to Belekeri Port at the
instance M/s.Vijay Plast-O-Print. Under the
circumstances, the prosecution has to establish that how
132 Spl.CC No.488/2016
the materials at Ingalagi village wherein stockyard of
accused No.12 company was situated was shifted to
Saikata and in what manner. Unless the link is provided,
the prosecution cannot contend to prove the case beyond
reasonable doubt. Further, it is quite interesting to note
that the witness himself has admitted that there are
around 10 – 15 check posts between Saikata village and
Belekeri Port. If the aforesaid admission is considered
then once again the prosecution will be at a loss to
explain that how the materials had passed through the
check posts and even for that matter when there were
about 10 to 15 check posts. All the aforesaid aspect once
again creates a serious shadow of doubt over the case of
the prosecution rather than fortifying their contention.
89. I have also bestowed my anxious reading to
the evidence of PW13 Ravi who was the accountant of
M/s.Adarsh Enterprises. Curiously the mine head owner
M/s.Adarsh Enterprises have not been arraigned as
accused person and if for the sake of arguments it is to
be contended that the iron ore were extracted legally, but
133 Spl.CC No.488/2016
transported illegally, the provision of MMDR Act clearly
specifies and casts a duty of the person i.e., the lease
holder to pay necessary taxes and royalty. No doubt even
the transporter or the person who stores the same is also
made liable under Sec.4(1A) of the Act, the liability of the
leasehold owner who had extracted the mineral is not
absolved. When the evidence of PW13 Ravi the
accountant of M/s.Adarsh Enterprises is appreciated he
has deposed of furnishing necessary documents with
respect to their transactions between M/s.Claria
Marketing and through him the bank account details
were marked at Ex.p.37 and in particular the transaction
was got marked at Ex.P.37(a). The aforesaid account
extract indicates of transferring about Rs.10 lakh each
on 14.7.2009, 15.7.2009 and 28.7.2009. Further, the
document also indicates that a sum of Rs.10 lakh was
transferred on 14.9.2009. If for a moment the aforesaid
documents are appreciated, it would indicate that the
invoice was issued by M/s.Claria Marketing
subsequently after the sale. The prosecution also relies
134 Spl.CC No.488/2016
upon another entry in the statement of account at
Ex.P.37(d) which was made on 14.10.2009 for a sum of
Rs.12 lakhs and another transaction which was made on
27.10.2009 for a sum of Rs.10 lakhs. Lastly the
transaction of Rs.10 lakh which was made on
17.11.2009. However, the ledger account extract though
indicates of receiving of aforesaid amount, it also
indicates of payment of Royalty for 5000 MT of iron ore
being made through the account of M/s.Adarsh
Enterprises. Once again it would seriously cast a shadow
of doubt on the case of prosecution since Royalty is to be
levied only once and further sale would not entitle the
State Government to claim Royalty on the materials for
which already it is paid. Even otherwise, the evidence of
PW25 Siraj Ahamed who was proprietor of Flora Logistics
indicates that the entire consignment of iron ore was
loaded at the behest of accused No.1 Vijay Plast-O-Print.
As such the entire materials on record does not indicate
of meeting of minds between accused No.1 and accused
No.11, accused No.12 to 14.
135 Spl.CC No.488/2016
90. I have also appreciated the submissions made
on behalf of accused No.15 Mohammed Muneer. With
respect to the allegations leveled against accused No.15,
who is proprietor of M/s.Shafia Minerals who had
transported about 938.53 MT iron ore. It has been
contended by the prosecution that accused No.15 had
sold an extent 674.86 MT iron ore to M/s.Yessar Trading
Company and about 663.67 MT to M/s.Trishala
Minerals. In order to better appreciate the same the
evidence of PW23 Krishnaraj Mayya, proprietor of
Trishala Minerals is required to be considered. He has
deposed before the court that he had purchased 746 MT
of iron ore from M/s.Shafia Minerals and had supplied
the same to M/s.Vijay Plast-O-Print for which the
amount was credited to their account. It is also his
evidence that the materials were supplied from Saikata
stock yard which belongs to M/s.Shafia Minerals. This
particular evidence is very much contrary to the evidence
of other witnesses wherein it is stated M/s.Claria
Marketing had also supplied minerals to M/s.Vijay Plast-
136 Spl.CC No.488/2016
O-Print from Saikata stockyard. However, at that point of
time, it was contended by the prosecution that the stock
yard at Saikata belonged to accused No.12 Company.
Here in the instant scenario he has deposed of supplying
minerals through Haji Logistics in favour of M/s.Pisces
Exim company through M/s.Vijay Plast-O-Print. During
the course of cross-examination he had categorically
admitted of not possessing any permits. Later on he had
deposed that he had not identified any documents with
respect to transactions that had taken place between
M/s Trishala Minerals and M/s Shafia Minerals. In order
to better appreciate the same, the document at Ex.P.49
requires to be considered. The document at Ex.P.49
comprises of various tax invoices which were raised by
M/s Trishala Minerals. One such invoice is dated
31.12.2009 with respect to transporting iron ore in
favour of M/s.Vijay Plast-O-Print to an extent of 633.670
MT and another invoice dt.12.10.2009 indicates of
delivering from T.M.Plot to Saikata to an extent of 16000
MT and the remaining invoices also indicates of
137 Spl.CC No.488/2016
transporting minerals from T.M.Plot to Saikata,
Kallahalli. Now the prosecution is required to explain
that who was the owner of T.M.Plot and why this
transaction had taken place. That apart there is another
tax invoice No.641 dt.21.12.2009 wherein 17 MT of iron
ore was delivered to M/s.Pisces Exim Mumbai at Adani
Plot and next invoice dated 21.12.2009 bearing No.642
also indicate of transportation of 17 MT of iron ore. If for
the sake of arguments, all the aforesaid aspects are
calculated, then it would not tally with the quantity
which is alleged by the prosecution to be supplied by
M/s.Shafia Minerals of accused No.15 Mohammad
Muneer. Though the prosecution has produced account
extracts which indicates of receiving Rs.6,91,698/- it
indicates that the same was issued by M/s Trishala
Enterprises in favour of one Mr.Salim. For this the
prosecution has tried to give explanation during the
course of cross-examination of PW26 B.R.Venugopal
wherein he has deposed that witness who was
summoned i.e., Krishnaraj Mayya has disclosed that the
138 Spl.CC No.488/2016
cheque was requested to be drawn in favour of one
Mr.Salim. Absolutely the prosecution has not collected
any materials to examine how Mr.Salim is related to
M/s.Shafia Minerals and what was is definite role in the
instant case. Merely because one of the witnesses says
that the cheque was issued in favour of some persons as
consideration towards the purchase or supply of iron
ore, the same cannot be accepted as gospel truth. The
duty of the prosecution does not end by mere accepting
the statement, but the Investigating Agency is required
to examine the veracity of the statement with the
materials which has been furnished by them. As noticed
in the instant case all that the Investigating Agency have
done is of issuing some notices to the accused persons
and had collected materials or the documents which
were furnished by them. After collecting of the materials
they had proceeded to obtain account extracts and on
the basis of the some transactions they are contending
that the transportation of iron ore had taken place. The
submissions made by the learned Public Prosecutor with
139 Spl.CC No.488/2016
respect to rely upon the account extract solely cannot be
accepted since the same requires to be corroborated with
other materials.
91. The learned Public Prosecutor has pointed out
that huge transfer of amount to an extent of Rs.2.5 Crore
was made by the M/s.Eagle Traders in favour of
M/s.Vaishnavi Minerals. However, it is the contention of
the learned counsel for accused that the amount which
was transferred was with respect to payment of VAT
amount and in particularly he has submitted that as per
the account extracts of M/s Vaishnavi Minerals
maintained at Vysya Bank, the same would indicate of
making payment towards VAT charges and the very same
amount was reverted back subsequently in the year
2012. However, It noticed from records that
subsequently, the amount was once again transferred to
M/s Ramgopal Minerals and S.B.Minerals and all the
aforesaid acts coupled with the suggestions that
Ramagopal Minerals two occasions had paid VAT to an
extent of Rs.42,37,347 and 25,76,130/- as per Form
140 Spl.CC No.488/2016
No.100 which is forthcoming in the account extract
Ex.P.57(a) somewhat validates the contention of the
accused persons. Though the learned Public Prosecutor
has contended that the accused was duty bound to
explain about the aforesaid aspects which was within his
knowledge the same cannot be accepted at this juncture
for the reason that the prosecution prior to invoking of
the same has to establish certain basic aspects. Truly if
the prosecution are able to establish the fact that the
amounts was transferred by M/s Eagle Traders was with
respect to purchase of iron ore and if the same
corroborated with the account extract of Eagle Traders
and that of M/s.SMSK Mineral Trading Company in a
continuous unbroken chain of event, the same could
have been accepted by presuming that the transaction of
Rs.2.5 Crores transferred by M/s.Eagle traders to
M/s.Vaishnavi minerals or for that matter the Firm of
accused No.2 to 5 was with respect to the supply of iron
ore. However, in the absence of any such materials, the
provision of Sec.106 of Evidence Act cannot be invoked.
141 Spl.CC No.488/2016
CHAPTER -VIII WHETHER THE DIRECTORS BEING MADE
LIABLE FOR THE ACTS OF THE COMPANY
92. The other aspect which is required to be
considered in the instant case is whether the Directors of
the Company can be arraigned as necessary accused
persons for the acts committed by their company. The
law is well settled that a Director cannot be made liable
for the acts of the Company for the simple reason
without there being any materials to indicate that he had
played certain important role towards the transaction.
93. In the instant case it is the case of the
prosecution that the accused No.6 M/s.Naivedya Logistics
Company is being represented by its Directors accused
No.7 Rajesh Ashok Kounte and accused No.8 Rohan
S.Kounte. The prosecution in order to establish their
contention has led the evidence of PW15 Shyam
Shantharam Vete, who has deposed that they were running
about 6-7 companies under the banner of Shivasamarth
Group. Out of which M/s.Naivedya Logistics Company was
also one of the company for which Mr.Shafiulla Syed and
A-7Mr.Rajesh Ashok Kounte and Mrs. Neelam Kounte were
142 Spl.CC No.488/2016
the Directors. He has also deposed that they had furnished
necessary documents with respect to M/s.Pisces Exim
Industrial Revolutions. It is his contention that they have
supplied iron ore to the extent of 3101 MT to M/s.Pisces
Exim Industrial Revolutions which they had procured from
A10 M/s.Shalini Impex Limited. In order to justify their
contention the document at Ex.P.39 came to be marked by
the prosecution. I have bestowed my anxious reading to the
Ex.P.39, which includes the invoices of supplying iron ore
to M/s.Pisces Exim Industrial Revolutions and also the
Letter of Incorporation and certificates. The Memorandum
of Association of M/s.Naivedya Logistics Ltd indicates that
Rajesh A.Kounte and Rohan Kounte were the subscribers
at the time of the inception. However, it has been clarified
by the company itself that during the relevant points of
time Mr.Shafiulla Syed Was the Director of the Company
who was handling with the business. Now the main aspect
which is required to be established by the prosecution is
that the accused persons were all involved in the
transactions and were having knowledge about the day to
day affairs of the Company. Once again if the materials are
143 Spl.CC No.488/2016
clearly appreciated, it does indicate that several invoices
were being raised in favour of M/s.Pisces Exim Industrial
Revolution by M/s.Naivedya Logistics Company. Absolutely
there is no dispute with respect to the fact that
M/s.Naivedya Logistics had purchased 3010 MT of iron ore
from M/s.Shalini Impex Ltd. It is also the contention of the
prosecution that the very same material was sold in favour
of M/s. Pisces Exim Company which was being represented
by accused No.1. However, the invoices which are part and
parcel of Ex.P.39 indicate that M/s.Naivedya Logistics
Company had sold the same in favour of M/s.Pisces Exim
Industrial Revolution which is claimed to be an entirely
different set up. Though the learned Public Prosecutor has
vehemently argued that they are one and the same the
record indicates that the Head offices of both companies
are different. Under the eyes of law the different entities of
company though being represented by the same persons
cannot be considered as one and same persons. In order to
lift the corporate veil and pierce the same I have bestowed
my anxious reading to the evidence of PW15 Shyam
Shantharam Vete. In his cross-examination he has
144 Spl.CC No.488/2016
specifically admitted of producing documents pertaining to
M/s.Pisces Exim Industrial Revolution. He has also
admitted that M/s.Naivedya Logistics Company was not
the mine owner, but they were only the traders and
accused No.8 Rohan S.Kounte was not the Director of the
Company at that point of time. Further, the learned
counsel for accused No.7 has elucidated from the witness
that the head office of M/s.Pisces Exim Industrial
Revolution was situated at Natawar Nagar Mumbai and
they had made the transaction with M/s.Pisces Exim
Industrial Revolution Company and not with M/s.Pisces
Exim Company having its Head office at Andheri Mumbai.
If the aforesaid evidence is to be appreciated with the
evidence of PW1 Manjunath Annigeri and PW2 Ramesh
Ganwathkar who had accompanied the concerned I.O. for
conducting the search on the premises of M/s.Pisces Exim
Mumbai, it would indicate that they had visited the
premises at Andheri Mumbai. When there is a serious
dispute with respect to the materials and also the identity
of the accused the prosecution should have cleared the
doubts that arose, admittedly the tax invoices and other
145 Spl.CC No.488/2016
transactions and also the amount allegedly made towards
the aforesaid transactions was transferred in to M/s.Pisces
Exim Industrial Revolution which was having its head
office at Natwar Nagar, Mumbai and not in favour of
M/s.Pisces Exim Ltd, Andheri, Mumbai. Under the
circumstances absolutely there are no materials to indicate
that accused No.8 had played a positive overt act during
the course of business. Even otherwise the law is well
settled as per Sec.305 of Cr.P.C., that a company is
required to be represented by its Director who is having
knowledge about the transactions of business. For the sake
of convenience the provision of Sec.305 of Cr.P.C. is
herewith extracted which reads as follows:
305. Procedure when
corporation or registered society
is an accused.
(1)In this section,
“corporation” means an
incorporated company or other
body corporate, and includes a
society registered under the
Societies Registration Act, 1860
(21 of 1860).
(2)Where a corporation is
the accused person or one of the
accused persons in an inquiry or
146 Spl.CC No.488/2016trial, it may appoint a
representative for the purpose of
the inquiry or trial and such
appointment need not be under
the seal of the corporation.
(3)Where a representative of
a corporation appears, any
requirement of this Code that
anything shall be done in the
presence of the accused or shall
be read or stated or explained to
the accused, shall be construed
as a requirement that that thing
shall be done in the presence of
the representative or read or
stated or explained to the
representative, and any
requirement that the accused
shall be examined shall be
construed as a requirement that
the representative shall be
examined.
(4)Where a representative of
a corporation does not appear,
any such requirement as is
referred to in sub-section (3) shall
not apply.
(5)Where a statement in
writing purporting to be signed
by the managing director of the
corporation or by any person (by
whatever name called) having, or
being one of the persons having
the management of the affairs of
the corporation to the effect that
the person named in the
statement has been appointed as
the representative of the
corporation for the purposes of
147 Spl.CC No.488/2016
this section, is filed, the Court
shall, unless the contrary is
proved, presume that such person
has been so appointed.
(6)If a question arises as to
whether any person, appearing
as the representative of a
corporation in an inquiry or trial
before a Court is or is not such
representative, the question shall
be determined by the Court.
94. I have also relied upon the judgment of the
Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka 2021 SCC OnLine KAR
15863 (Krishnaswamy Vs. State by CBI, BS&FC) wherein
it is held as:
7. Since the entire issue
revolves around consideration of
Section 305 of the Cr. P.C., the same
is extracted hereunder for ready
reference:
“305. Procedure when
corporation or registered society is
an accused. –(1) In this section,
“corporation” means an
incorporated company or other body
corporate, and includes a society
registered under the Societies
Registration Act, 1860 (21 of 1860).
(2) Where a corporation is the
accused person or one of the
accused persons in an inquiry or
trial, it may appoint a
representative for the purpose of the
148 Spl.CC No.488/2016inquiry or trial and such
appointment need not be under the
seal of the corporation.
(3) Where a representative of a
corporation appears, any
requirement of this Code that
anything shall be done in the
presence of the accused or shall be
read or stated or explained to the
accused, shall be construed as a
requirement that that thing shall be
done in the presence of the
representative or read or stated or
explained to the representative, and
any requirement that the accused
shall be examined shall be
construed as a requirement that the
representative shall be examined.
(4) Where a representative of a
corporation does not appear, any
such requirement as is referred to in
sub-section (3) shall not apply.
(5) Where a statement in
writing purporting to be signed by
the managing director of the
corporation or by any person (by
whatever name called) having, or
being one of the persons having the
management of the affairs of the
corporation to the effect that the
person named in the statement has
been appointed as the
representative of the corporation for
the purposes of this section, is filed,
the Court shall, unless the contrary
is proved, presume that such person
has been so appointed.
(6) If a question arises as to
whether any person, appearing as
the representative of a corporation
in an inquiry or trial before a Court
is or is not such representative the
149 Spl.CC No.488/2016question shall be determined by the
Court.”
Section 305 of Cr. P.C. deals
with procedure when the
Corporation or registered Society is
an accused; sub-section (1) of
Section 305 defines an incorporated
Company or a Society; sub-section (2)
directs where a Corporation is one
of the accused persons in a trial, it
may appoint a representative for the
purpose of inquiry or trial and such
appointment need not be under the
seal of the Corporation; sub-section
(3) directs where a representative of
the Corporation appears, in his
presence several acts and
formalities of conduct of trial would
take place; sub-section (4) directs
that where a representative of a
Corporation does not appear, any
such requirement as is referred to in
sub-section (3) shall not apply; sub-
section (6) deals with a question
whether any person appearing as
representative of the Corporation in
an inquiry or trial is or is not such
representative shall be determined
by the Court.
8. In terms of sub-section (2)
when the Corporation is an accused
person it has to appoint a
representative for the purpose of
inquiry and trial though it is not to
be under the seal of the Corporation.
Sub-section (3) prescribes for the
Corporation to do many functions or
formalities in a trial for which
presence of the representative as
obtaining in sub-section (2) is
imperative. Answering the charge,
examination or other nuances of
evidence will be when the company
150 Spl.CC No.488/2016
is represented. Sub-section (4)
dilutes the rigour of sub-section (3),
which directs that where a
representative of the Corporation
does not appear any such
requirement referred to under sub-
section (3) will not apply.
9. The section speaks of a
representative not appearing before
the Court. Therefore, the only
interpretation, in my considered
view, that can be given to sub-
section (4) is the nuances of trial of
reading the charge, answering the
charge and requirement of the
accused to be examined will not
happen, if the representative does
not appear. The accused-
Corporation/Company if deliberately
does not appoint anybody to
represent the Company, it would not
be available for such
Corporation/Company to contend
that there has been no fair trial as
obtaining under sub-section (3) as by
the representative not appearing
before the Court, they would lose
such contention to be advanced
later.
95. That apart I have also relied upon decision of
the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2012)5 SCC 661
( Aneeta Hada V Godfather Tours and Travels Private
Limited) wherein the Hon’ble Apex court while discussing
about the liability of the Directors of the company under
151 Spl.CC No.488/2016
the provisions of Negotiable Instrument Act has held as
follows:
32. We have referred to the
aforesaid authorities to highlight
that the company can have criminal
liability and further, if a group of
persons that guide the business of
the companies have the criminal
intent, that would be imputed to the
body corporate. In this backdrop,
Section 141 of the Act has to be
understood. The said provision
clearly stipulates that when a
person which is a company commits
an offence, then certain categories
of persons in charge as well as the
company would be deemed to be
liable for the offences under Section
138. Thus, the statutory intendment
is absolutely plain. As is perceptible,
the provision makes the
functionaries and the companies to
be liable and that is by deeming
fiction. A deeming fiction has its
own signification.
33. In this context, we may
refer with profit to the observations
made by James, L.J. in Levy, In re,
ex p Walton [(1881) 17 Ch D 746 :
(1881-85) All ER Rep 548 (CA)] ,
which is as follows: (Ch D p. 756)
“… When a statute enacts that
something shall be deemed to have
been done, which in fact and truth
was not done, the court is entitled
and bound to ascertain for what
purposes and between what persons
the statutory fiction is to be resorted
to.”
152 Spl.CC No.488/2016
34. Lord Asquith, in East End
Dwellings Co. Ltd. v. Finsbury
Borough Council [1952 AC 109 :
(1951) 2 All ER 587 (HL)] , had
expressed his opinion as follows: (AC
pp. 132-33)
“If you are bidden to treat an
imaginary state of affairs as real,
you must surely, unless prohibited
from doing so, also imagine as real
the consequences and incidents
which, if the putative state of
affairs had in fact existed, must
inevitably have flowed from or
accompanied it. … The statute says
that you must imagine a certain
state of affairs; it does not say that
having done so, you must cause or
permit your imagination to boggle
when it comes to the inevitable
corollaries of that state of affairs.”
38. From the aforesaid
pronouncements, the principle that
can be culled out is that it is the
bounden duty of the court to
ascertain for what purpose the legal
fiction has been created. It is also
the duty of the court to imagine the
fiction with all real consequences
and instances unless prohibited
from doing so. That apart, the use of
the term “deemed” has to be read in
its context and further, the fullest
logical purpose and import are to be
understood. It is because in modern
legislation, the term “deemed” has
been used for manifold purposes.
The object of the legislature has to
be kept in mind.
40. It has been ruled as
follows: (S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals
Ltd. case [(2005) 8 SCC 89 : 2005
153 Spl.CC No.488/2016
SCC (Cri) 1975] , SCC pp. 95-96, para
4)
“4. … It primarily falls on the
drawer company and is extended to
officers of the company. The normal
rule in the cases involving criminal
liability is against vicarious
liability, that is, no one is to be held
criminally liable for an act of
another. This normal rule is,
however, subject to exception on
account of specific provision being
made in the statutes extending
liability to others. Section 141 of
the Act is an instance of specific
provision which in case an offence
under Section 138 is committed by a
company, extends criminal liability
for dishonour of a cheque to officers
of the company. Section 141
contains conditions which have to
be satisfied before the liability can
be extended to officers of a
company. Since the provision
creates criminal liability, the
conditions have to be strictly
complied with. The conditions are
intended to ensure that a person
who is sought to be made vicariously
liable for an offence of which the
principal accused is the company,
had a role to play in relation to the
incriminating act and further that
such a person should know what is
attributed to him to make him
liable.”
49. On a reading of both the
paragraphs from Anil Hada
case [(2000) 1 SCC 1 : 2001 SCC (Cri)
174] , it is evincible that the two-
Judge Bench expressed the view that
the actual offence should have been
committed by the company and then
154 Spl.CC No.488/2016
alone the other two categories of
persons can also become liable for
the offence and, thereafter,
proceeded to state that if the
company is not prosecuted due to
legal snag or otherwise, the
prosecuted person cannot, on that
score alone, escape from the penal
liability created through the legal
fiction and this is envisaged in
Section 141 of the Act. If both the
paragraphs are appreciated in a
studied manner, it can safely be
stated that the conclusions have
been arrived at regard being had to
the obtaining factual matrix
therein.
54. In this context, we may
usefully refer to Section 263 of
Francis Bennion’s Statutory
Interpretation where it is stated as
follows:
“A principle of statutory
interpretation embodies the policy
of the law, which is in turn based on
public policy. … The court presumes,
unless the contrary intention
appears, that the legislator
intended to conform to this legal
policy. A principle of statutory
interpretation can therefore be
described as a principle of legal
policy formulated as a guide to
legislative intention.”
(emphasis supplied)
55. It will be seemly to quote a
passage from Maxwell’s The
Interpretation of Statutes (12th
Edn.):
“The strict construction of
penal statutes seems to manifest
155 Spl.CC No.488/2016itself in four ways: in the
requirement of express language for
the creation of an offence; in
interpreting strictly words setting
out the elements of an offence; in
requiring the fulfilment to the letter
of statutory conditions precedent to
the infliction of punishment; and in
insisting on the strict observance of
technical provisions concerning
criminal procedure and
jurisdiction.”
56. We have referred to the
aforesaid passages only to highlight
that there has to be strict
observance of the provisions regard
being had to the legislative
intendment because it deals with
penal provisions and a penalty is
not to be imposed affecting the
rights of persons, whether juristic
entities or individuals, unless they
are arrayed as accused. It is to be
kept in mind that the power of
punishment is vested in the
legislature and that is absolute in
Section 141 of the Act which clearly
speaks of commission of offence by
the company. The learned counsel
for the respondents have vehemently
urged that the use of the term “as
well as” in the section is of immense
significance and, in its tentacle, it
brings in the company as well as the
Director and/or other officers who
are responsible for the acts of the
company and, therefore, a
prosecution against the Directors or
other officers is tenable even if the
company is not arraigned as an
accused. The words “as well as”
have to be understood in the
context.
156 Spl.CC No.488/2016
58. Applying the doctrine of
strict construction, we are of the
considered opinion that commission
of offence by the company is an
express condition precedent to
attract the vicarious liability of
others. Thus, the words “as well as
the company” appearing in the
section make it absolutely
unmistakably clear that when the
company can be prosecuted, then
only the persons mentioned in the
other categories could be vicariously
liable for the offence subject to the
averments in the petition and proof
thereof. One cannot be oblivious of
the fact that the company is a
juristic person and it has its own
respectability. If a finding is
recorded against it, it would create
a concavity in its reputation. There
can be situations when the
corporate reputation is affected
when a Director is indicted.
96. When the aforesaid judgment is juxtaposed
with the facts of the case it would clearly indicate that
the prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case with
respect to overt act of accused No.8. Even otherwise the
selling of iron ore by accused No.6 M/s.Naivedya
Logistics Company in favour of accused No.1 itself is
doubtful for the reasons that the materials placed before
the court are pertaining to M/s.Pisces Exim Industrial
157 Spl.CC No.488/2016Revolution which is entirely different from M/s.Pisces
Exim Company, Mumbai.
97. It is also relevant to note that several traders
have been left out by the Investigation Agency. For
instance it is the allegation of the prosecution that
accused No.2 to 5 and accused No.16 Company had sold
about 20,000 MT of iron ore in favour of M/s.Eagle
Traders which is being represented by Kori Nagaraj and
B.Nagendra, they have been arraigned as witness in the
above case and in spite of that they are not examined
before the court. That apart, the reason for arraigning
them as witnesses instead of accused is also not
forthcoming. It is the allegation of the prosecution that
the materials were found in its entirety by M/s.Eagle
Traders in favour of M/s.SMSK, even they have not been
arraigned as accused person. If for a moment the
contention of the prosecution that the transportation
itself violates the rigors of MMRD Act, then they have to
explain why the aforesaid traders were left out. Even
otherwise the provisions of MMDR Act clearly
158 Spl.CC No.488/2016enumerates and casts a duty upon the mine head owner
also to pay necessary duty and royalty to the
Government on the minerals extracted in their leasehold
area. The aforesaid aspect would only indicate that the
mine head owner M/s.Adarsh Enterprises though had
supplied minerals to M/s.Claria Marketing Services and
M/s.Vijay Plast-O-Print, have not been arraigned as
accused persons.
98. When the entire materials are carefully
appreciated the missing links are not joined by the
prosecution to indicate the existence of hatching of
criminal conspiracy by accused persons. With respect to
the other aspects of committing an offence under
Sec.379 of IPC the same cannot be pointed by the
prosecution in its entire charge sheet material. Though
the charge sheet has been filed by the prosecution for
offence under Sec.409 of IPC , there was no sufficient
materials to indicate that who was entrusted with the
property and whether such entrustment was valid and
159 Spl.CC No.488/2016hence for the said reason no charge has been framed by
this court for offence under Sec.409 of IPC.
99. With respect to the rigors of Sec.420 of IPC,
the prosecution is required to establish that the accused
persons had entertained dishonest intention right from
the inception of the case. In order to better appreciate
the same it would be apt to rely upon the judgment of
the Hon’ble Apex court reported in (2022)7 SCC 124
(Vijay Kumar Ghai Vs. State of West Bengal) wherein it is
held as:
32. A fraudulent or dishonest
inducement is an essential
ingredient of the offence. A person
who dishonestly induces another
person to deliver any property is
liable for the offence of cheating.
33. Section 420 IPC defines
“cheating and dishonestly inducing
delivery of property” which reads as
under:
“420. Cheating and
dishonestly inducing delivery of
property.–Whoever cheats and
thereby dishonestly induces the
person deceived to deliver any
property to any person, or to make,
alter or destroy the whole or any
part of a valuable security, or
anything which is signed or sealed,
160 Spl.CC No.488/2016and which is capable of being
converted into a valuable security,
shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to
seven years, and shall also be liable
to fine.”
34. Section 420 IPC is a
serious form of cheating that
includes inducement (to lead or
move someone to happen) in terms of
delivery of property as well as
valuable securities. This section is
also applicable to matters where the
destruction of the property is
caused by the way of cheating or
inducement. Punishment for
cheating is provided under this
section which may extend to 7 years
and also makes the person liable to
fine.
35. To establish the offence of
cheating in inducing the delivery of
property, the following ingredients
need to be proved:
(i) The representation made by
the person was false.
(ii) The accused had prior
knowledge that the representation
he made was false.
(iii) The accused made false
representation with dishonest
intention in order to deceive the
person to whom it was made.
(iv) The act where the accused
induced the person to deliver the
property or to perform or to abstain
from any act which the person
would have not done or had
otherwise committed.
161 Spl.CC No.488/2016
100. It would be profitable to rely upon the
judgment of the Hon’ble Apex court reported in (2023)3
SCC 423 (Deepak Gaba V State of U P) wherein it has
been held as:
18. In order to apply Section
420IPC, namely, cheating and
dishonestly inducing delivery of
property, the ingredients of Section
415IPC have to be satisfied. To
constitute an offence of cheating
under Section 415IPC, a person
should be induced, either
fraudulently or dishonestly, to
deliver any property to any person,
or consent that any person shall
retain any property. The second
class of acts set forth in the section
is the intentional inducement of
doing or omitting to do anything
which the person deceived would not
do or omit to do, if she were not so
deceived. Thus, the sine qua non of
Section 415IPC is “fraudulence”,
“dishonesty”, or “intentional
inducement”, and the absence of
these elements would debase the
offence of cheating. [Iridium India
Telecom Ltd. v. Motorola Inc., (2011)
1 SCC 74 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1201]
19. Explaining the contours,
this Court in Mohd. Ibrahim v. State
of Bihar [Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of
Bihar, (2009) 8 SCC 751 : (2009) 3
SCC (Cri) 929. This Court, in this
case, has cautioned that the ratio
should not be misunderstood, to
162 Spl.CC No.488/2016record the clarification, which in
the present case, in our opinion, is
not of any avail and help to
Respondent 2 complainant. We
respectfully concur with the
clarification as well as the ratio
explaining Sections 415, 464, etc.
IPC.] , observed that for the offence
of cheating, there should not only be
cheating, but as a consequence of
such cheating, the accused should
also have dishonestly adduced the
person deceived to deliver any
property to a person; or to make,
alter, or destroy, wholly or in part, a
valuable security, or anything
signed or sealed and which is
capable of being converted into a
valuable security.
101. The juxtaposition of the aforesaid dictum can
be summarized in short as follows: –
a) Deception of any person
b) Fraudulently or dishonestly inducing
any person to deliver any property
c) To consent that any person shall
retain any property and finally
intentionally inducing that person to
do or omit to do anything which he
would not do or omit.
102. If the aforesaid ingredients are applied to the
case on hand, firstly the prosecution is required to prove
163 Spl.CC No.488/2016
that there was a fraudulent intention at the inception of
the case. Time and again it has been held by the Hon’ble
Apex Court that, an intention to cheat and defraud
should be in existence right from the beginning. In order
to better appreciate the same, once again, at the cost of
repetition, the evidence requires to be revisited. The
provision of Sec.420 would clearly stipulate that mere
misrepresentation of the fact would not be sufficient and
it is a sine-qua-non that accused who entertained the
mala-fide intention from the beginning itself. Further,
the Hon’ble Apex Court in another occasion has held
that, in order to prove the dishonest intention, it would
be possible always to insist upon direct evidence.
However, reasonable inferences can be drawn from the
circumstances which are prevailing. In this regard, the
judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, reported in (2005) 9
SCC 15 (Devender Kumar Singla Vs. Baldev Krishan
Singla) wherein it is held by the Hon’ble Apex court as
follows:
164 Spl.CC No.488/2016
8. As was observed by this
Court in Shivanarayan Kabra
v. State of Madras [AIR 1967 SC 986
: 1967 Cri LJ 946] it is not necessary
that a false pretence should be
made in express words by the
accused. It may be inferred from all
the circumstances including the
conduct of the accused in obtaining
the property. In the true nature of
things, it is not always possible to
prove dishonest intention by any
direct evidence. It can be proved by
a number of circumstances from
which a reasonable inference can be
drawn.
9. On the proved facts it is
seen that a cheque was handed over
to the complainant and in the
receipt it was stated that the shares
have been received. The High Court
has referred to this factual position
and drawn a conclusion that the
receipt (Ext. PW 3/B) which was
admittedly executed by accused
Devender clearly states that the
shares had been transferred. The
mere fact that the cheque was filled
in by the complainant is not
sufficient to take away the effect of
the statement in the receipt. The
plea that it was an advance receipt
does not appear to have been even
agitated before the courts below.
10. Significantly, there was no
suggestion to the complainant (PW
3) that the shares had not been
delivered.
103. Absolutely there are no materials to indicate
that there was an inducement being made either by
165 Spl.CC No.488/2016
accused No.1 or by accused No.2 to 5 and their company
accused No.16 M/s.S.B.Minerals in favour of accused
No.1 to deliver the property. Unless the inducement by
one of the accused person and also in furtherance of
inducement if a property is delivered the provision of
Sec.420 of IPC would not be attracted. Here in the
instant case there are no materials to indicate that the
minerals belong to Government since it was all extracted
from the lease hold area itself and it is admitted by the
prosecution that the minerals which were extracted were
all legal. When the extraction itself was admitted to be
legal it is obvious that the company/firm which had
extracted the same had paid necessary royalty and taxes
to the Government. Even otherwise the documents
which are placed before the court indicates of several
permits being placed of which there is no answer by the
prosecution that whether the said permits were forged or
whether the permits which are placed before the court
are not applicable to the case on hand. Instead it seems
that the final Investigating Officer Mr.N.H.
166 Spl.CC No.488/2016
Ramachandraiah had dumped the documents before the
court without looking in to the veracity of the same. It is
unfortunate to note that the Investigation was entrusted
to Special Investigation Team of Karnataka Lokayukta
with a fond hope that the same will be carried out in
accordance with law. Though the FIR was registered
against the other persons who had transported the iron
ore, the final investigating officer for the reasons best
known to him had arraigned them as witnesses and got
filed the charge sheet before the court. The filing of the
charge sheet itself creates lot of lacunas which could not
be cured by the prosecution during the course of trial.
Under the circumstances, the prosecution has utterly
failed to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt and
the points for consideration are answered accordingly.
Though the prosecution as well as the learned counsels
for accused have relied upon plethora of judgments
during the course of their arguments, the judgments are
all pertaining to the very same facts which is well settled
by the superior courts and for the said reasons they are
167 Spl.CC No.488/2016
not quoted in the judgment rendered herein except the
one which is relevant for facts of the case.
CHAPTER-IX SUMMATION
104. In the instant case the prosecution has
contended that about 20659.13 MT of iron ore was
extracted by M/s.S.B.Minerals who was having the
ML2515 for a period of 20 years and after extraction,
they had sold 16987.69 MT to M/s.Eagle Traders who
were not arraigned as necessary accused in the instant
case. It is the contention of the prosecution that
M/s.Eagle Traders had sold the same in favour of
M/s.SMSK Mineral Trading Company in its entirety who
in turn sold it to Mr. Kori Nagaraj, M/s.Shalini Impex
Ltd., of A10, who had also sold in favour of M/s.Pisces
Exim Mumbai. The prosecution has also contended that
M/s.Adarsh Enterprises had extracted iron ore from
their leasehold area and had sold in favour of M/s.Claria
Marketing Services Pvt Ltd., who had sold 1086.7 MT in
favour of accused No.11 Vijay Plast-O-Print who had in
168 Spl.CC No.488/2016
fact sold the same to M/s.Naivedya Logistics Company
and also it is submitted that accused No.15 had also
sold iron ore which was procured by him from unknown
place in favour of M/s.Vijay Plast-O-Print. It is quite
interesting to note that the persons who had transported
have been left out and only some the persons who had
allegedly involved have been arraigned as accused
persons. The prosecution case would indicate that the
iron ore materials were extracted and sold by
M/s.S.B.Minerals in favour of M/s.Eagle Traders who
had credited the amount. However, the M/s.Eagle
Traders or M/s.SMSK Mineral Trading Company or Kori
Nagaraj or M/s.Adarsh Enterprises have not been
arraigned as accused persons. Unless the chain of events
are established by the prosecution to indicate that the
same are continuously connected and if the prosecution
contends that minerals were extracted illegally the
person who had extracted along with the person who had
stored, transported and sold ought to have been
arraigned as accused person. Though it is submitted
169 Spl.CC No.488/2016
that the transactions were made on ex-plot basis, the
same transaction of ex-plot basis all of a sudden cannot
be converted in to an illegal trade. Even otherwise, the
DMG permits and Forest Passes which are produced
before the court indicates of obtaining necessary
permission by M/s.S.B.Minerals and also by M/s.Adarsh
Enterprises. Unless it is pointed out that the permits
which are placed before the court does not pertain to the
aforesaid transaction the contention of attracting the
rigors under MMDR Act or under the provisions of IPC
cannot be justified. Hence, the prosecution has utterly
failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Sequentionally I do not have any hesitation to answer
the points for consideration in the negative and hence,
the Points No.1 to 5 are answered in Negative.
105. Point No.6: In view of my findings on point
No.1 to 5, I proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
Acting under Sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C., the
accused No.2 to 4, 6 to 8, 11 to 16 are found not
170 Spl.CC No.488/2016guilty of the offence punishable under Sec.120-B,
379 and 420 of IPC and under Sec.4(1), 4(1A) r/w
Sec.21 and 23 of Mines and Minerals
(Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and for
the offence under Rule 144 punishable under
Rule 165 of Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969 and
accordingly, they are acquitted.
Bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused
persons stand extended till the completion of the
period of appeal.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, transcribed by
him, revised and corrected by me and then pronounced in
the Open Court on this the 7th day of March, 2025)
Digitally signed by
SANTHOSHGAJANANABHAT SANTHOSHGAJANANABHAT
Date: 2025.03.10 16:16:00 +0530
(Santhosh Gajanan Bhat)
LXXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City (CCH-82)
(Special Court exclusively to deal with
criminal cases related to elected former
and sitting MPs/MLAs in the State of
Karnataka)
ANNEXURES
1. Witnesses examined by the prosecution:-
PW1 CW1 Manjunath Annigeri
PW2 CW2 Ramesh Ganwathkar
PW3 CW6 P.Somashekar
PW4 CW7 S.Prakash
PW5 CW4 C.Siddaraju
PW6 CW11 Manjappa.C.N.
171 Spl.CC No.488/2016
PW7 CW12 Manoj Kumar
PW8 CW5 Prakash Patil
PW9 CW8 Arun Pawar
PW10 CW21 Rajeev Chaturvedi
PW11 CW10 A.G.Basavarajappa
PW12 CW23 Prasanth Hadagali
PW13 CW46 Ravi
PW14 CW40 Sharanappa B. Patil
PW15 CW43 Shyam Shantharam Vete
PW16 CW47 Jaheeruddin H.Mulla
PW17 CW14 Narayanaswamy
PW18 CW13 Violet B.Gomes
PW19 CW17 Venkatesh H.R.
PW20 CW34 Prakash Gopalkrishna Bhat
PW21 CW35 Pavan Kumar
PW22 CW52 Mohammed Sidiq Shaik
PW23 CW49 P.Krishna Raj Mayya
PW24 CW55 Syed Asif Pasha
PW25 CW56 Siraj Ahmed
PW26 CW59 B.R. Venugopal
PW27 CW22 Shivashankar
PW28 CW60 N.H. Ramachandraiah
2. Witnesses examined by the defence/accused.- Nil
3. Documents exhibited by the prosecution.
Ex.P.1 FIR
Ex.P.1(a) Signature of PW1
Ex.P.2 Search list dt.13.5.2015
172 Spl.CC No.488/2016
Ex.P.2(a) Signature of PW2
Ex.P.2(b) Signature of PW5
Ex.P.3 Certificate issued by Lokayuka with
respect to traveling and assisting them on
13 and 14.5.2015
Ex.P.4 Covering letter dated 9.7.2015
Ex.P.4(a) Signature of PW3
Ex.P.5 Certified copies of the documents
furnished by PW3 along with annexure
are collectively marked (page No.294 to
356)
Ex.P.6 Covering letter dt.21.5.2015
Ex.P.7 Enclosures marked along with covering
letter letter dt.21.5.2015 found in the
charge sheet at page No.378 to 393
Ex.P.8 Letter dated 1.2.2016 addressed to
Deputy Director
Ex.P.9 Reply letter dated 2.2.2016
Ex.P.10 Letter dated 6.7.2016 by I.O.
Ex.P.11 Reply letter dt.12.7.2016
Ex.P.12 Search list which is at page No.55 to 99
of the charge sheet
Ex.P.13 Covering letter dt.30.12.2015
Ex.P.14 Documents pertaining to
M/s.S.B.Minerals and R.Mallamma are
collectively marked which are at Page
No.482 to 530 of the charge sheet
Ex.P.15 Covering letter at page No.532 of charge
sheet
Ex.P.15(a) Signature of PW7
Ex.P.16 Attested documents of Legal Metrology
Department
173 Spl.CC No.488/2016
Ex.P.17 Agreement entered between M/s PEC Ltd
and M/s Pisces Exim Company, Mumbai
Ex.P.18 true copy of the letter dated 09.02.2016
Ex.P.19 Account extract of M/s SMSK Mineral
Trading Company
Ex.P.20 True copy of the truck wise details
furnished by the company
Ex.P.21 True copy of the stack sampling and
analysis
Ex.P.22 True copy of the certificate of Importer-
Exporter code
Ex.P.23 Certificate of registration
Ex.P.24 Certificate of Importer-Exporter code of
PEC Ltd.,
Ex.P.25 VAT certificate along with PAN Card
and GST Certificate of PEC is
collectively marked
Ex.P.26 True copy of the invoice which are in 5
sheets are collectively marked
Ex.P.27 Account extract at Axis Bank (page
No.236 to 291)
Ex.P.28 Covering letter dt.30.5.2015 through Port
Officer, Karwar
Ex.P.29 Details furnished along with Covering
letter dt.30.5.2015 by M/s.PEC
Ex.P.30 Covering letter dt.6.10.2015
Ex.P.30(a) Signature of PW10
Ex.P.31 Covering letter furnished on dt.2.2.2016
before Investigating Agency
Ex.P.32 Covering letter dt.5.1.2016 along with
documents page No.453 to 479 of the
charge sheet
174 Spl.CC No.488/2016
Ex.P.32(a) Details furnished by the Deputy
Conservator of Forest, Mr. Basavaraj
before PW28 which is collectively
marked at Ex P-32 and the said
document is marked as Ex P-32(a)
Ex.P.33 Transportation bills along with
account extract (page No.1113 to
1126)
Ex.P.34 Mahazar drawn at Vyasanakere Plot
Ex.P.34(a) Signature of PW12
Ex.P.34(b) Signature of PW22
Ex.P.34(c) Signature of PW24
Ex.P.34(d) Signature of PW26
Ex.P.34(e) Signature of PW27
Ex.P.35 Covering letter dated 4.1.2016
Ex.P.36 Authorisation letter
Ex.P.37 Relevant documents such as deed of
partnership, mining lease documents,
transactions that are taken place (page
No.2073 to 2171 of charge sheet)
collectively marked
Ex.P.37(a) The purchase order pertaining to M/s
Claria Marketing company dated
10.11.2009 towards purchasing of
5000 M.T. of Iron Ore
Ex.P.37(b) bulk permit in this regard is marked
as Ex.P-37(b)
Ex.P.37(c) Invoice is marked as Ex P-37(c).
Ex P-37(d) the account extracts pertaining to
Adarsha Enterprises dated 14.10.2009
for Rs.12,00,000/-
Ex.P.37(e) another transaction dated 27.10.2009
175 Spl.CC No.488/2016
for Rs.10,00,000/-
Ex.P.38 letter dated 01.08.2015 issued by SIT
and also the bank extracts and cash
vouchers, truck detail etc., which are
at page No.1948 to 1977 of the charge
sheet (are all collectively marked)
Ex.P.39 Documents dated 27.08.2015 issued
by the Director of company Mr. Rajesh
Kounte on behalf of Naivedya Logistics
India Pvt. Ltd., and the entire
documents which is at page No.1984
to 2056 (are all collectively marked)
Ex.P.40 certified copy of the documents which
are at page No.2172 to 2218 of the
charge sheet (are collectively marked)
Ex.P.41 letter dated 23.01.2016 along with
necessary documents attested by
PW17 (page No.551 to 624 of charge
sheet) (collectively marked)
Ex.P.42 letter dated 22.07.2017 along with the
documents at Page No.536 to 549 of
the charge sheet (are all collectively
marked)
Ex.P.43 letter dated 25.07.2015 along with all
relevant documents (Page No.872 to
959 in the charge sheet) (collectively
marked)
Ex.P.44 letter dated 28.09.2015 issued by the
investigating agency
Ex.P.45 covering letter dated 07.11.2015 along
with account opening form of M/s
Naivedya Logistics India Pvt Ltd., and
also the certified copy of the statement
of account for the period 01.01.2009
176 Spl.CC No.488/2016
to 31.12.2009 along with Banker’s
Book of Evidence Act (are all
collectively marked) (The documents
are at page No.1761 to 1806 of the
charge sheet).
Ex.P.45(a) The relevant portion with respect to
the transaction dated 16.10.2009
Ex.P.45(b) The relevant portion with respect to
another transaction on 23.10.2009 for
Rs. 75,00,050/-
Ex.P.46 letter dated 18.12.2015 issued by the
investigating agency
Ex.P.47 statement of account of M/s Trishla
Minerals for the period 01.12.2009 to
31.01.2010, account opening form,
KYC Documents, VAT certificate along
with certificate issued under Banker’s
book Evidence Act, Certificate under
Sec.65(B) of Indian Evidence Act (the
documents are all collectively marked)
(the documents are at page No.1808 to
1818 of the charge sheet)
Ex.P.48 VAT registration certificate pertaining
to M/s Trishla Minerals
Ex.P.49 documents which includes of invoices,
bank account extract and bills
furnished by Haji Logistics (are all
collectively marked) (Page No.2237 to
2257 of charge sheet)
Ex.P.50 notice dated 08.05.2015
Ex.P.51 the documents furnished by M/s
Vaishnavi Minerals which are the true
copy of the original along with its
covering letter (are marked subject to
objections) (Page No.1005 to 1051 in
177 Spl.CC No.488/2016
the charge Sheet)
Ex.P.52 the documents received from Customs
House Agent, Belekeri Port Mr. Arun
Pawar with respect to the export made
by M/s PEC Ltd, from Belekeri Port
Ex.P.53 transport bill along with account
extract with respect to M/s Pisces
Exim (are collectively marked)
(documents are in page No.1107 to
1112 of volume No.5)
Ex P-54 covering letter dated 24.04.2015 which
is now marked as
Ex.P.55 Account statement at volume No.6
page No.1300-1359 of M/s Eagle
Traders for transferring M/s Eagle
Traders and Logistics had transferred
an amount of Rs.2,50,00,000/-
(Rupees Two Crore Fifty lakhs) to the
account of M/s Vaishnavi Minerals to
their account at ING Kotak Mahindra
Bank, Ballary,
along with its covering letter dated
22.01.2016
along with certificate issued under
Banker’s Book of Evidence Act and
and under Sec.65(B) of Indian
Evidence Act (collectively marked)
Ex.P.55(a) relevant portion / entry dated
9.1.2010 for transfer of a Rs.1 Crore.
Ex.P.56 account extract which is furnished by
Kotak Mahindra Bank along with the
covering letter dated 03.02.2016 with
KYC documents pertaining to M/s
Vaishnavi Minerals along with
certificate under Banker’s Book
178 Spl.CC No.488/2016
Evidence Act and Sec.65(B) of Indian
Evidence Act (collectively marked)
Ex.P.56(a) relevant portion of account transaction
dated 09.01.2010 found on page
No.1577 of charge sheet
Ex.P.56(b) the entry dated 05.12.2009 in the
account extract of M/s Vaishnavi
Minerals for reeving Rs.1,50,00,000/-
Ex.P.56(c) The account extract pertaining to M/s
Vaishnavi Minerals which is showing
that it had transferred a sum of
Rs.72,50,000/- in 2 installments on
18.12.2009 to an extent of
Rs.30,00,000/- and Rs.42,50,000/- on
19.01.2010 in favour of M/s
Ramagopal Minerals (which is at
volume No.7 page No.1575)
The relevant entry regarding aforesaid
transaction is marked as Ex P-56(c)
Ex.P.56(d) Relevant entry on 19.01.2010 with
respect to transfer of Rs.42,50,000/-
Ex.P.57 Entire statement of account extracts
pertaining to M/s Ramagopal Minerals
commencing from page No.1496 to
1513 (collectively marked)
Ex.P.57(a) the relevant portion of the account
extract pertaining to the transaction
dated 18.12.2009 indicating transfer
of Rs.30,00,000/- and the transaction
of Rs.42,50,000/- dated 19.01.2010
Ex.P.58 Letter dated 04.07.2015 addressed to
District Registrar, Ballari to ascertain
whether M/s S.B. Minerals were
registered partnership firm.
179 Spl.CC No.488/2016
Ex.P.59 Letter dated 19.06.2015 addressed to
Forest Department and as well as
Environment Department,
Government of India to furnish details
enquiring the permission accorded to
M/s R. Mallamma with ML No.1806
and M/s S.B. Minerals, Vyasanakere
with respect to extraction of Iron Ore.
Ex.P.60 covering letter along with the account
extract of M/s SMSK Mineral Trading
Company with the certificate issued
under Sec.2(A) of Banker’s Book
Evidence Act and Sec.65(B) of Indian
Evidence Act (are all collectively
marked)
Ex.P.60(a) the relevant entry is for the date
09.02.2010
Ex.P.61 Covering letter dt.22.02.2016 along
with documents (they are all
collectively marked) (documents are at
page No.987 to 1003 of the charge
sheet)
Ex.P.62 The covering letter dated 15.12.2015
furnished by Axis Bank, Margoa along
with the account extract, KYC
documents pertaining to M/s Pisces
Exim along with certificate under
Sec.2(A) of Banker’s Book Evidence Act
(which are all collectively marked)
Ex.P.62(a) The relevant portion of the entry dated
05.02.2010 made by them to an extent
of Rs.1,00,00,000/-
Ex.P.62(b) Relevant entry regarding the amount
transferred on 08.02.2010 to an extent
of Rs.2,00,00,000/-
180 Spl.CC No.488/2016
Ex.P.62(c) relevant entries forthcoming at Ex P-
62 on the date on 05.10.2009 where in
two occasions a sum of
Rs.10,00,000/- each are paid
Ex.P.62(d) Relevant entry dated 15.10.2009
wherein a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- was
transferred
Ex.P.62(e) Relevant entry dated 23.10.2009
another extent of Rs.10,00,000/- came
to be transferred
Ex.P.62(f) Relevant entry dated 23.01.2010
wherein a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- was
transferred to D.B. Roadlines to the
account of Mr. M. Shivashankar
Ex.P.62(g) Relevant entry dated 25.01.2010
wherein a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- was
also transferred
Ex.P.62(h) Relevant entry dated 02.02.2010
wherein as sum of Rs.20,00,000/- was
transferred
Ex.P.62(j) The relevant transaction which is
reflected in the aforesaid account
extract at page No.1166
Ex P-62(k) Relevant entry in account extract Ex
P-62 wherein relevant transaction on
30.12.2009 for Rs.10,00,000/-
Ex P-62(l) Relevant entry regarding transaction
for Rs.8,00,000/- on 16.01.2010
Ex P-62(m) Relevant entry in Ex.P.62 dated
15.12.2009 for transfer of a sum of
Rs.50,00,000/-
Ex P-62(n) Relevant entry regarding the
181 Spl.CC No.488/2016
transaction dated 23.12.2009 for Rs.1
Crore
Ex.P.63 On the request dated 24.04.2015, the
Customs Superintendent Mr.
Ramachandra furnished necessary
documents with respect to export
made by M/s PEC Ltd marked as Ex
P-63 (page No.417 to 449 in volume
No.2 of the charge sheet).
Ex.P.64 the covering letter dated 09.07.2015
along with annexure with respect to
the details of M/s Vaishnavi Minerals,
Hospete (are collectively marked)
Ex.P.65 Details furnished by Commercial Tax
Department with respect to M/s SMSK
Mineral Trading Company, Hospet on
14.07.2015 (which are at page No.712
to 775 of charge sheet) (they are all
collectively marked)
Ex.P.66 attested copy of the death certificate of
Mr.Anand, who is owner of M/s Star
Minerals who had died on 05.11.2010
Ex.P.67 letter dated 30.09.2015
Ex.P.68 Statement of CW-41 Munna Khan
dated On 14.09.2015 wherein had
appeared before PW26 and had given
statement with respect to
transportation of Iron Ore through
M/s Sujal transport stating that for
the transportation of the aforesaid Iron
Ore A-9 Mr. Anand (dead) had made
the payment for the same.
Ex.P.69 Covering letter addressed by the
Manager of Indian Bank Hospet
Branch with respect M/s Vijay Plast
182 Spl.CC No.488/2016
‘O’ Print along with original account
opening firm, statement of account,
certificate issued under Sec.2(A) of
Banker’s Books of Evidence Act,
Certificate issued under Sec.65(B)(4)
(C) of Indian Evidence Act (and they
are now collectively)
Ex.P.70 Covering letter along with documents
i.e., certified copy of VAT certificate,
rent agreement, copy of invoice dated
30.11.2009, attested copy of the bills
towards purchase of Iron Ore from
M/s Trishala Minerals to an extent of
274.86 M.T., attested copy of bank
accounts showing receipt from M/s
Vijay ‘O’ Plasto and payment made to
M/s Trishala Minerals and also VAT
returns for the month of November
2009 (aforesaid documents are all
collectively marked) (documents are at
page No.2220 to 2235 of the charge
sheet)
4. Documents exhibited by the Defence/Accused:-
Ex.D.1 The documents collected by PW26
from Department of Mines and
Geology with respect to extraction and
transportation of iron ore along with
its return by M/s.S.B.Minerals during
the period 1.1.2009 to 31.5.2010 for
its destination to Belekeri Port which
are available in the charge sheet dated
15.7.2015
Ex.D.2 Covering Letter dated 31.12.2015 along
with the copy of the documents enclosed
183 Spl.CC No.488/2016therein are all collecively marked
(marked by confrontation)
Ex.D.3 Statement of accused No.2 Anand Singh
Ex.D.4 Relevant portion in the account extract
pertaining to M/s.Vaishnavi Minerals
Ex.D.5 Account extract of M/s.S.B.Minerals (2
pages) (marked by confrontation)
5. List of Material Objects marked by the prosecution:- Nil
Digitally signed by
SANTHOSHGAJANANABHAT SANTHOSHGAJANANABHAT
Date: 2025.03.10 16:15:41 +0530
LXXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City (CCH-82)
(Special Court exclusively to deal with criminal
cases related to elected former and sitting
MPs/MLAs in the State of Karnataka)