M/s Ramgad Minining and Minersia Pvt Ltd (RMMPL) v. M/s P. Venkanashetty & Brothers

ORDER Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners.

2. The brief facts are as follows: The first petitioner herein is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and petitioner No.2 is a partnership firm, registered under the Partnership Act. The said petitioners are arraigned as accused Nos. 3 and 4 proceedings initiated by the State for offences punishable under Sections 409 of the Indian Penal Code, and Sections 104(c), 149(1)(6) of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 and Rule 82 and 104(c) of the Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969.

3. The petitioners have been accused of commission of the aforesaid offences and the charge sheet would indicate that the petitioners are shown to have been absconding, which by itself is an untenable accusation since the petitioners are legal entities, and it could not be said that they are absconding. The learned Magistrate having taken cognizance of the alleged offences, the petitioners are before this Court.

4. The facts are, that the first petitioner has obtained a mining lease from the State Government and is exploiting iron ore on the basis of the said lease. The second petitioner is holding a mining lease from the State Government and is also excavating iron ore from Kadidakolla State Forest in Sandur. Both the petitioners carrying on their activities accordance with law and there have been no complaints whatsoever, of their business activity. g 4

5. One Basheet Ahmed, an employee of the first petitioner Company, who incidentally is no more in the services of the Company, had along with another co-employee, on

26.3 .2005, had visited to the Office of the Range Forest Officer, Hospet, with 20 books containing Form No.31, prescribed under the Karnataka Forest Act & Rules as a way-permit, for the purpose of obtaining the official seal of the Deputy Forest Officer. When they were at the Office of the said authority, those 20 books which they were carrying were seized and when they were enquired as to where they had got those books, it was stated that they were brought from the custody of the first petitioner-Company. On such information, the authorities thereafter proceeded to the premises of first petitioner- Company and seized 23 books containing Form No.31. It is on the seizure of those books that the authorities have chosen to initiate the proceedings against these petitioners as well as the two employees, namely, accused Nos.1 to 4. In that background, the court below having taken cognizance on the S 5 basis of the above allegations, the petitioners are before this Court.

6. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit, Rule 149 of the Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969, provides for authorisation to issue way-permits to lease holders such as the petitioners by the Officer who is authorised to issue such permits, books containing the blank way permit forms, not exceeding 100 at a time. Therefore, the petitioners’ case is that they have legitimately obtained the blank way permit forms from the authorised Officer and it is those fonns that they had brought them to the Officer for his signature to issue way permitsinrespectoftheironoretobetransported. Itisatthat point of time, that the books have been seized and a complaint has been lodged inexplicably against the present petitioners. Since there was no breach of the law as the petitioners were in possession of less than the maximum number of books, which they could hold at a time, the petitioners cannot be said to have committed the offences alleged. It is in this vein, that the learned Counsel would take this Court through Rule 149 of the 6 Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969, to indicate that there is no apparent breach committed. He would, hence, submit that the complaint if unrebutted, would not make out a case as against the petitioners and on that principle, he would submit that the proceedings as against the petitioners would have to be quashed, as it is the well settled position of law that if the complaint does not make out a case against the accused, the proceedings would necessarily have to be set at naught. As the Companies’ reputation and its goodwill is at stake, in view of the said criminal proceedings, it is of great significance that the said proceedings be quashed outright.

7. The learned Counsel would further submit, the false and vague case that is sought to be foisted against the petitioners is compounded by the fact that, the proceedings have been initiated by the very Forest Department against the Officials who had initiated the proceedings against petitioners and the said officers having been placed under suspension on the ground that the complaint having been filed against the petitioners on the vague allegations, was irregular S 7 and that it could not be sustained. In this regard, the learned counsel has produced documents to establish, that the books which were seized were in fact issued by the competent authority at the relevant point of time and therefore, there was no apparent infirmity or other illegality committed by the petitioners.

8. While the learned Government Advocate, would seriously object to the petition being considered. He would submit the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance by application of mind and even if the contentions are to be accepted, is for the petitioners to place the same before the Magistrate under which they would be entitled to seek discharge. The petitioners seeking to produce additional documents in these proceedings, would not advance their case, as they would necessarily have to be scrutinized by way of evidence and the petitioners case being considered on the present petition would result in miscarriage of justice. Since there is an allegation of breach of trust and the offence punishable under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 8 would necessarily have to be scrutinized as to whether the petitioners are entitled to be discharged on the basis of the material allegations, and the lower Court being in the most vantage position to address the same, this petition does not warrant consideration.

9. By way of reply, the learned Counsel for the petitioners would point out, that though the invocation of Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code by itself would not make out an offence punishable under the said section having been committed by the petitioners, the said section has been routinely invoked. That by itself, would not prevent this Court from exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, though there is no apparent case made out against the petitioners even if all the complaint allegations are accepted. Since, on the face of it, the petitioners are entitled to possess a 100 books of blank way-permits and since it alleged that the Company has been found in possession of only 43 books, it would not make out a case of breach of the Rule 9 nor could it be a ground of breach of trust, as sought to be alleged. Hence, he would submit that the petition be allowed.

10. Given the above facts and circumstances, the mere possession of books of the blank way-permits, which are on the face of it, shown to have been issued by the competent authorities, would indicate that there is no apparent breach of any Rule or any law committed by the petitioners. The mere possession of such books being held out as being an offence committed under Section 149(1)(6) of the Karnataka Forest Rules 1969, therefore, inexplicable. Secondly, is not shown as to the manner in which the present petitioners, viz., the Company and the Partnership Firm, are held to be guilty of any offences having been committed. The books have been voluntarily disclosed by the accused and that by itself would indicate that there was no surreptitious procuration of the said books and the same having been seized by the authorities, as demonstrated, it would appear that even if the entire allegations in the complaint are accepted, there is no case made out against the petitioners. 10 II. Hence, the petition is allowed. The proceedings in C.C. No.3347/2006 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) and JMFC, Hospet, in so far as the petitioners are concerned, are quashed. JUDGE Sub!