Back
2010 Supreme(Kar) 989
High Court of Karnataka
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JAWAD RAHIM
ILC industries Ltd & Others
Versus
State of Karnataka by Range Forest Officer Ankola Uttara Kannada Karnataka & Another
Crl.P. NO.7645 of 2010, 7646 of 2010 & 7673 of 2010 N Crl.PNO.7645 of 2010
Decided On : 02-11-2010
For the Petitioners:Ravi B. Naik-SR. Counsel for B.C. Thiruvengadam, Advocates.
For the Respondents: A.R. Patil, ASPP.
Headnote:CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 - Sections 155(2) & 156: [Jawad Rahim, J] Investigation of offences under Forest Act - Held, By virtue of Section 62-A(1) of Forest Act, Forest Officer not below rank of Range Forest Officer is deemed to be police officer for purposes of Criminal P. C., Consequently Forest Officer is competent to apply to Magistrate under Section 155(2), Cr.P.C. for grant of permission to investigate non-cognizable offences under provisions of Forest Act. He need not apply to jurisdictional police officer through a complaint to seek such permission from Magistrate.
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 - Section 155(2): [Jawad Rahim, J] Investigation of offences under Act - Seizure of contraband and iron ore - Seizure was reported to Magistrate and it was effected after obtaining permission to investigate case - Investigation had commenced only after permission was granted by Magistrate - Held, Registration of case was thus not in contravention of provisions of Cr.P.C.
CUSTOMS ACT, 1962 - Section 11-H: [Jawad Rahim, J] Illegal transportation of iron ore - Seizure - Provisions of Customs Act do exclude applicability of Forest Act as iron ore which is forest produce defined under Section 2(7)(b)(iv) of Act, with regard to which if any offence is committed, is liable to be seized under Section 62 of Forest Act. There is no repugnancy in provisions relating to seizure of iron ore in Parliamentary legislation, i.e. Customs Act and Karnataka Forest Act.
KARNATAKA FOREST ACT, 1963 - Section 62-A(1): [Jawad Rahim, J] Investigation of offences under Forest Act - Held, By virtue of Section 62-A(1) of Forest Act, Forest Officer not below rank of Range Forest Officer is deemed to be police officer for purposes of Criminal P. C., Consequently Forest Officer is competent to apply to Magistrate under Section 155(2), Cr.P.C. for grant of permission to investigate non-cognizable offences under provisions of Forest Act. He need not apply to jurisdictional police officer through a complaint to seek such permission from Magistrate.
KARNATAKA FOREST ACT, 1963 - Section 62: [Jawad Rahim, J] Investigation of offences under Act - Seizure of contraband and iron ore - Seizure was reported to Magistrate and it was effected after obtaining permission to investigate case - Investigation had commenced only after permission was granted by Magistrate - Held, Registration of case was thus not in contravention of provisions of Cr.P.C.
KARNATAKA FOREST ACT, 1963 - Sections 62 & 2(7)(b)(iv): [Jawad Rahim, J] Illegal transportation of iron ore - Seizure - Provisions of Customs Act do exclude applicability of Forest Act as iron ore which is forest produce defined under Section 2(7)(b)(iv) of Act, with regard to which if any offence is committed, is liable to be seized under Section 62 of Forest Act. There is no repugnancy in provisions relating to seizure of iron ore in Parliamentary legislation, i.e. Customs Act and Karnataka Forest Act.
This Criminal Petition is filed U/S 482 CR.P.C Seeking to Quash the FIR NO.189/2010 dated 08-06-2010 (Vide Annexure-D) registered by the Ankola Pollice Uttara Kannada district, (pursuant to P.C.NO.4/10 dated 03-06-2010 before JMFC, ANKOLA Vide Annexure-B
The Criminal Petition is filed U/S 482 CR.P.C Seeking to Quash the Entrie Proceedings in P.C.NO.54/2010 on the file of JMFC, ANKOLA and quash the FIR NO.189/2010 at Annexure-the registered by the ANKOLA Police.)
These three petitions under Section 482, Cr. P.C. are directed against initiation of prosecution against the petitioners in various cases registered on the file of the jurisdictional magistrate, for offences under the provisions of Karnataka Forest Act and also Indian Penal Code. As common questions of law and facts arise for consideration, the petitions are clubbed to be disposed of by this common order.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the State and examined records in supplementation thereto.
3. The contentious issues urged by both sides shall be referred to while dealing with the relevant questions in the following paragraphs. However, a brief reference to the factual matrix needing reference is as follows.
a) Crl. P.7645/10 is by four petitioners, urging common grievance. The 1st Petitioner – ILC Industries Limited, 2nd petitioner-Ashapura Minechem Limited and 4th petitioner-PJS Overseas Limited are companies incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1956, while the 3rd petitioner-Doddanavar Brothers is a partnership concern.
b) Petitioner no.1 claims to be a reputed two-star export house engaged in the business of exporting minerals including iron ore after outsourcing from miners through proper approved channels after obtaining valid permits. The quantity of iron ore involved is 1,30,000 metric tonnes (MT) stacked in the stockyard of Sri Mallikarjuna Shipping Private Limited (SMSPL). Petitioner no.2 claims to be a company engaged in export of minerals and iron ore after purchasing it from Vaishnavi Minerals, Hospet, mined from their site at vyasanekere. The quantity of iron ore involved is 50,000 MT. The 3rd petitioner, partnership firm claims to be the owner of a mine engaged in export of iron ore. The quantity of iron ore involved is 30,000 WMT of iron ore fines of Grade 58% and 20,000 WMT of iron ore fines of Grade 63.5%. The 4th petitioner also claims to be an exported of minerals and iron ore purchased from various suppliers like Bharath Trading Company, Sandeep Enterprises, Anagha Enterprises and Shri Gajanana Logistics. The quantity of iron ore involved is 16,000 MT.
C) All the petitioners claim they have, after acquiring ore in the manner aforesaid, obtained permits from the Department of Mines and geology. Petitioner no.2 has produced permits granted to it from the Forest Department vide Annexure-T series dated 6.1.2010 and 25.1.2010 appended to the petition. Similarly, the 3rd petitioner claims to have obtained permits from the Forest Department for exporting the said quantity of ore. Likewise, the 4th petitioner has put up a similar plea.
d) it is the case of the petitioners that the iron ore in question is sourced from mines which are licenced within forest mines as well as licenced from non-forest area. Iron ore business involves at all times various intermediaries; mine owners sell the iron ore to various traders or intermediaries and a significant quantity of iron ore is bought by traders and exported to China and in Karnataka is shipped from Mangalore, Karwar and Belekere ports.
e) Belekere port is situate in Uttara Kannada and it is notified under Section 7(a) of the Customs Act as a Customs Notified Port. A copy of the notification is produced at Annexure-A. Karwar and Belekere ports are not ‘all- weather ports’ and before the advent of monsoon and during monsoon, the ports are shut down and in this year, i.e. 2010, the port was notified to be closed for export activity from 15.5.2010. Ho
