Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
S.K. Panigrahi, J.
Nandalal Rungta - Appellant
Versus
State Of Odisha - Respondent
CRLMP No. 35 of 2022 and CRLMP No. 36 of 2022
Decided On : 18-02-2022
The Court quashed the chargesheet and all criminal proceedings emanating therefrom, including the order of cognizance, in two cases related to alleged illegal mining. The Court held that the State Vigilance Department officials were not authorized to conduct the investigation and file the chargesheet at the relevant time, as per Section 22 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act). The Court also found that the allegations against the petitioners, who were partners in the lessee firms, were not made out based on the evidence and reports of various authorities, including the Multi-Disciplinary Committee (MDC). The Court further held that the principle of vicarious liability cannot be automatically imputed to directors or partners of a company without specific averments and proof of their involvement in the alleged offences.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were partners in two different lessee firms that were accused of illegal mining. The State Vigilance Department conducted an inspection and filed chargesheets against the petitioners and other officials of the State Government, alleging violations of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, the MMDR Act, and the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The petitioners challenged the chargesheets and the subsequent orders of cognizance, arguing that the Vigilance Department officials were not authorized to conduct the investigation and that the allegations against them were not substantiated.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the State Vigilance Department officials were not authorized to conduct the investigation and file the chargesheet at the relevant time, as per Section 22 of the MMDR Act. The Court also found that the allegations against the petitioners were not made out based on the evidence and reports of various authorities, including the MDC. The Court further held that the principle of vicarious liability cannot be automatically imputed to directors or partners of a company without specific averments and proof of their involvement in the alleged offences.
Issues: 1. Whether the State Vigilance Department officials were authorized to conduct the investigation and file the chargesheet. 2. Whether the allegations against the petitioners were made out based on the evidence and reports of various authorities. 3. Whether the principle of vicarious liability can be automatically imputed to directors or partners of a company without specific averments and proof of their involvement in the alleged offences.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 22 of the MMDR Act requires that a complaint for an offence under the Act must be made by a person authorized by the Central or State Government. At the time of the investigation and filing of the chargesheet, the State Vigilance Department officials were not authorized as per this provision. 2. The Court examined the evidence and reports of various authorities, including the MDC, and found that the allegations against the petitioners were not substantiated. 3. The Court held that the principle of vicarious liability cannot be automatically imputed to directors or partners of a company without specific averments and proof of their involvement in the alleged offences.
Final Decision: The Court quashed the chargesheet and all criminal proceedings emanating therefrom, including the order of cognizance, in both cases. The Court also quashed the FIRs in the two cases against the petitioners.
JUDGMENT
S.K. Panigrahi, J. - These petitions have been preferred under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer seeking quashing of the Chargesheet No. 7 dated 26.03.2013, filed by Balasore Vigilance P.S. in VGR Case No. 20 of 2011 and all criminal proceedings emanating therefrom; quashing of the order of cognizance dated 3.06.2013 passed in VGR Case No. 20 of 2011 by the Special Judge (Vigilance) Keonjhar and quashing of the Chargesheet No. 62 dated 31.12.2012 filed by Balasore Vigilance P.S. in VGR Case No. 21 of 2011 and all criminal proceedings emanating therefrom; quashing of the order of cognizance dated 22.02.2013 passed in VGR Case No. 21 of 2011 by the Special Judge (Vigilance) Keonjhar, for the alleged commission of offences u/s. 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ('P.C. Act, 1988'), Sections 420/379/434/447/120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 21(1) of the Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 ('MMDR Act, 1957') and Section 3 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 ('FC Act, 1980'). As both the petitions involve similar facts and relate to the same Petitioner, they are being decided by this common judgment and order.
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts of the present matter are as follows:
i. The present Petitioner in CRLMP No. 35 of 2022 is a Partner of M/s MangilalllRungta (a partnership firm), which was the lessee for the Siljora-Kalimati Manganese and Iron Ore Mines up until 31.03.2020. In terms of the same, the lessee was permitted to dispatch the already raised material up until 31.10.2020 in accordance with the provisions of the MCR, 2016.
ii. Whereas in CRLMP No. 36 of 2022, the present Petitioner is the Director of M/s Rungta Mines Limited (a Pvt. Ltd. Company) which was the lessee for the Jajang Iron and Manganese Mines up until 31.03.2020. The lessee was allowed to dispatch the already raised material up until 31.10.2020 in accordance with the provisions of the MCR, 2016.
iii. On 15.10.2009, the officials of the State Vigilance Department conducted an abrupt inspection of the leasehold areas of the lessee at both the Siljora-Kalimati Manganese and Iron Ore Mines and the Jajang Iron and Manganese Mines. The said inspection continued for 2 days i.e. on 15.10.2009 and 16.10.2009. Pursuant to the same Balasore Vig P.S. Case No. 52 of 2009 and Balasore Vig. P.S. Case No. 53 of 2009 were lodged by officials of the State Vigilance Department at Balasore, Vigilance PS on 18.11.2009.
iv. The present Petitioner along with M/s Mangilall Rungta and M/s Rungta Mines (P) Ltd. filed W.P.(Crl.) No. 786 of 2009 challenging registration of Balasore Vig. P.S. Case No. 52 of 2009 and all proceedings emanating therefrom and W.P.(Crl) No. 787 of 2009 challenging Balasore Vig. P.S. Case No. 53 of 2009 and all proceedings emanating therefrom before this Court. However, at the time of filing the respective Writ Petitions, the charge sheets based on Balasore Vig. P.S. Case No. 52 of 2009 and Balasore Vig. P.S. Case No. 53 of 2009were not filed till then.
v. Pursuant to the lodging of Balasore Vig. P.S. Case No. 52 of 2009, the State Vigilance Department submitted a charge sheet on 26.03.2013 alleging commission of offences u/s. 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Sections 420/120-B of the IPC, 1860; Section 21(1) of the MMDR Act, 1957 and Section 3 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. The Ld. Spl. Judge, Vigilance, Keonjharon receipt of the chargesheet has taken cognizance of the offences in VGR Case No. 20 of 2011. This chargesheet dated 26.03.2013, all proceedings emanating therefrom and subsequent order of cognizance dated 3.06.2013 passed in VGR Case No. 20 of 2011 by the Special Judge (Vigilance) Keonjhar are the subject matter of challenge under CRLMP No. 35 of 2022.
vi. Similarly, pursuant to filing Balasore Vig. P.S.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
