SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Ori) 459

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
Satrughana Pujahari, J.
Md. Mofazzalur Rahman & Anr.. – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha (Vigilance) – Respondent
CRLMC NO.2272 of 2021 (In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the Charge-sheet No. 04 dated 30.03.2012, filed by Balasore Vigilance P.S. in VGR Case No. 23 of 2011, corresponding to T.R. No. 16 of 2012, registered in the Court of the Special Judge (Vigilance), Keonjhar as well as the order of cognizance dated 21.11.2012 passed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Keonjhar.)
Decided On : 23-09-2022

Advocates appeared:
M/s. Pranaya Kumar Dash, V. Mohapatra, G. Khanna, S. Mohanty, Advocates., for the Appellant; Mr. Srimanta Das, Sr. Standing Counsel (Vig.), for the Respondent

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioners would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court, leading to the quashing of the charge-sheet and consequential proceedings.

Headnote:

Section 482 - Quashing of Charge-sheet - Code of Criminal Procedure - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, IPC, MMDR Act, 1957, Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 - [Illegal Mining Activities, Quashing of Charge-sheet, Cognizance of Offences] - Sections 13(2), 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Sections 201, 420, 379, 120-B of IPC, Section 21 of the MMDR Act, 1957, Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 - The court discussed the allegations of illegal mining activities, evasion of payment, discrepancy in stock, and violation of mining and forest acts. The court found that the statutory requirements were not followed, and the allegations against the petitioners were not specific, leading to the quashing of the charge-sheet and consequential proceedings.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners sought quashing of the Charge-sheet, the order of cognizance, and the consequential proceedings on the grounds that the prosecution was unauthorized, lacked factual or legal basis, and the trial Court passed the impugned order without applying judicial mind.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the allegations against the petitioners were not specific, and the statutory requirements were not followed. The court concluded that the continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioners would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court, leading to the quashing of the charge-sheet and consequential proceedings.

Issues: The issues revolved around the unauthorized prosecution, lack of factual or legal basis, and the absence of specific allegations against the petitioners.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the statutory requirements were not followed, and the allegations against the petitioners were not specific, leading to the quashing of the charge-sheet and consequential proceedings.

Final Decision: The CRLMC was allowed, and the impugned order and consequential proceedings against the petitioners were quashed.

JUDGMENT

S. Pujahari, J. - This is an application filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the 'Cr.P.C.') seeking for quashing of the Charge-sheet dated 30.03.2012 filed in Balasore Vigilance P.S. Case No.55 of 2009 (VGR Case No.23 of 2011), corresponding to T.R. No.16 of 2012 in the court of the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Keonjhar, the order dated 21.11.2012 passed by the said learned Court taking cognizance of the offences under Sections 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short the 'P.C. Act') and under Sections 201, 420, 379, 120-B of IPC, Section 21 of the MMDR Act, 1957 and Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 against the petitioners and co-accused persons, and the consequential proceedings.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Srimanta Das, the learned Sr. Standing counsel appearing for the Vigilance Department.

3. The F.I.R. in this case appears to have been lodged by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Cell, Unit Office, Bhubaneswar on the basis of Vigilance enquiry conducted by the Vigilance Team on 10.11.2009 and 11.11.2009 in respect of Balada Block Iron Ore Mines of M/s. Serajuddin & Co. over an area of 829.27 acres/335.594 Hect. at village-Balada under Barbil Tahasil, District- Keonjhar, on the allegation of illegal mining activities of the said company. Pursuant to the said report, a case was registered by the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Balasore Division, Balasore, and on completion of investigation, charge-sheet was laid for the offences indicated above against fourteen accused persons including the present petitioners, who are the Partners of the aforesaid firm, namely, M/s. Serajuddin & Co., i.e., the mining lease holder in respect of Balada Iron Ore Mines. On the basis of the charge-sheet so submitted, the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Keonjhar has taken cognizance of those offences and issued process to the petitioners and the co-accused persons. Hence, the present application.

4. The petitioners have sought for quashing of the Charge-sheet, the impugned order of cognizance and the consequential proceeding on the grounds, inter-alia, that the very inception of the prosecution is unauthorized, inasmuch the Vigilance Police had no authority to conduct the joint enquiry or verification prior to issuance of the Notification No.IV(A)SM-101/209-307/SM dated 27.01.2010 which devolved limited power on police for the purpose of detection, seizure and search into the alleged Mining activities. Admittedly, the F.I.R. in the present case has been drawn on the basis of a Vigilance enquiry report said to have been conducted on 10.11.2009 and 11.11.2009, i.e., prior to issuance of the aforesaid Notification. It is the further contention of the petitioners that the charge-sheet as submitted against them is also bereft of any factual or legal basis, and that the learned trial Court has passed the impugned order of cognizance without application of judicial mind. The allegation wise counter submissions made by the petitioners vide their application at hand may be broadly outlined as under:-

    (i) It is alleged by the prosecution that the Mining leaseholder had disproportionately despatched a quantity of 4,283.723 MT of Iron Ore from 4.290 ha. of forest area without any forest clearance and the cost of the same comes to Rs.21,41,862.00 @ Rs.500/- per ton approximately. It is further alleged that there was illegal excavation and despatch of a quantity of 80,262 MT of Iron Ore to the tune of Rs.10,43,40,600/- by the Lessee-company from the DLC forest land without forest clearance. It is also alleged by the prosecution that the Lessee-company had developed quarries in between virgin land in Block-D and Block-E and also developed benches in Block-D within the virgin of DLC Forest and Plot Nos.1 and 2 of village- Nayagarh, and thereby illegally produced Iron Ore of 55,429.669 MT by e

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top