Karnataka High Court
Sri.S. Muthaiah vs State on 4 August, 2023
Bench: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
1
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF AUGUST 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV
WRIT PETITION NO.16605/2018 (GM-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NOS.17290/2018, 17291/2018,
17292/2018, 19163/2021, 19176/2021,
19178/2021, 19179/2021
IN W.P. NO.16605/2018
BETWEEN:
SRI S. MUTHAIAH
SON OF SANNA SURAIAH
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (RETIRED)
RESIDING AT:
NO.5398/3, 1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS
VINAYAKA BADAVANE
DAVANAGERE - 577 005.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI HASHMATH PASHA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI NASIR ALI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE BY CBI/ACB
GANGANAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 032
REPRESENTED BY
LEARNED SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI P. PRASANNA KUMAR, SPL.PP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF THE
2
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASHING THE PROCEEDINGS IN SPECIAL CC
NO.135/2013 WHICH WAS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE
XLVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL
JUDGE FOR C.B.I. CASES AT BANGALORE, NOW PENDING ON THE FILE
OF HON'BLE LXXXI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT
BANGALORE (CCH-82), WHICH IS ARISING OUT OF R.C.
NO.15(A)/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE CBI/ACB/BENGALURU FOR THE
OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 120B READ WITH SECTION 409, 420,
434, 447, 468, 471 IPC AND UNDER SECTION 13(2) READ WITH
SECTIONS 13(1)(c) AND (d) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT,
1988 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND ETC.
IN W.P. NO.17290/2018
BETWEEN:
SRI S. MUTHAIAH
SON OF SANNA SURAIAH
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (RETIRED)
RESIDING AT:
NO.5398/3, 1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS
VINAYAKA BADAVANE
DAVANAGERE - 577 005.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI HASHMATH PASHA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI NASIR ALI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE BY CBI/ACB
GANGANAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 032
REPRESENTED BY
LEARNED SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI P. PRASANNA KUMAR, SPL.PP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C.,
PRAYING TO QUASHING THE PROCEEDINGS IN SPECIAL CC
NO.6/2014 WHICH WAS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE XLVI
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE
3
FOR C.B.I. CASES AT BANGALORE, NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF
HON'BLE LXXXI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT
BANGALORE (CCH-82), WHICH IS ARISING OUT OF R.C.
NO.14(A)/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE CBI/ACB/BENGALURU FOR THE
OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 120B READ WITH SECTIONS 379, 409,
420, 434, 447, 467, 468, 471 IPC AND UNDER SECTION 13(2) READ
WITH SECTIONS 13(1)(c) AND (d) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION
ACT, 1988 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND ETC.
IN W.P. NO.17291/2018
BETWEEN:
SRI S. MUTHAIAH
SON OF SANNA SURAIAH
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (RETIRED)
RESIDING AT:
NO.5398/3, 1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS
VINAYAKA BADAVANE
DAVANAGERE - 577 005.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI HASHMATH PASHA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI NASIR ALI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE BY CBI/ACB
GANGANAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 032
REPRESENTED BY
LEARNED SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI P. PRASANNA KUMAR, SPL.PP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF THE
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASHING THE PROCEEDINGS IN SPECIAL CC
NO.105/2014 WHICH WAS PENDING ON THE FILE THE HON'BLE XLVI
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE
FOR C.B.I. CASES AT BANGALORE, NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF
HON'BLE LXXXI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT
BANGALORE (CCH-82), WHICH IS ARISING OUT OF R.C.
4
NO.16(A)/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE CBI/ACB/BENGALURU FOR THE
OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 120B READ WITH SECTION 409, 420,
434, 447, 468, 471 IPC AND UNDER SECTION 13(2) READ WITH
SECTIONS 13(1)(c) AND (d) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT,
1988 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND ETC.
IN W.P. NO.17292/2018
BETWEEN:
SRI S. MUTHAIAH
SON OF SANNA SURAIAH
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (RETIRED)
RESIDING AT:
NO.5398/3, 1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS
VINAYAKA BADAVANE
DAVANAGERE - 577 005.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI HASHMATH PASHA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI NASIR ALI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE BY CBI/ACB
GANGANAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 032
REPRESENTED BY
LEARNED SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI P. PRASANNA KUMAR, SPL.PP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF THE
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASHING THE CHARGE SHEET IN SPECIAL CC
NO.21/2014 WHICH WAS PENDING ON THE FILE THE HON'BLE XLVI
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE
FOR C.B.I. CASES AT BANGALORE, NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF
HON'BLE XLVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT
BANGALORE (CCH-82), WHICH IS ARISING OUT OF R.C.
NO.13(A)/2012/CBI/ACB/BANGALORE ON THE FILE OF THE
CBI/ACB/BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 120B
5
READ WITH SECTION 409, 420, 434, 447, 468, 471 IPC AND UNDER
SECTION 13(2) READ WITH SECTIONS 13(1)(c) AND (d) OF
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND
ETC.
IN W.P. NO.19163/2021
BETWEEN:
SRI S. MUTHAIAH
S/O SANNA SURAIAH
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (RETIRED)
RESIDING AT:
D.NO.1762, DATRI NILAYA,
1ST STAGE, 2ND CROSS,
SRI SHIVAKUMARASWAMY BADAVANE,
OPP. ST. JOHN'S HIGH SCHOOL
DAVANAGERE - 577 005.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI HASHMATH PASHA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI NASIR ALI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE BY CBI
BENGALURU
REPRESENTED BY
LEARNED SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
MR. PRASANNA KUMAR P.,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE - 560 001.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI P. PRASANNA KUMAR, SPL.PP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF THE
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 05-05-2020
PASSED IN SPECIAL CC NO.105/2014 AS PER ANNEXURE-N PENDING
ON THE FILE THE HON'BLE LXXXI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL COURT FOR MPs/MLAs, BANGALORE
WHICH IS ARISING OUT OF FIR IN R.C. NO.16-A/2012 ON THE FILE
6
OF RESPONDENT CBI, BANGALORE AS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS OF
LAW AND CONSEQUENTLY AND ETC.
IN W.P. NO.19176/2021
BETWEEN:
SRI S. MUTHAIAH
S/O SANNA SURAIAH
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (RETIRED)
RESIDING AT:
D.NO.1762, DATRI NILAYA,
1ST STAGE, 2ND CROSS,
SRI SHIVAKUMARASWAMY BADAVANE,
OPP. ST. JOHN'S HIGH SCHOOL
DAVANAGERE - 577 005.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI HASHMATH PASHA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI NASIR ALI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE BY CBI
BENGALURU
REPRESENTED BY
LEARNED SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
MR. PRASANNA KUMAR P.,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE - 560 001.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI P. PRASANNA KUMAR, SPL.PP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF THE
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 05-05-2020
PASSED IN SPL.C.C. NO.6/2014 AS PER ANNEXURE-N PENDING ON
THE FILE OF HON'BLE LXXXI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE AND SPECIAL COURT FOR MPs/MLAs, BANGALORE WHICH IS
ARISING OUT OF FIR IN R.C. NO.14-A/2012 ON THE FILE OF
RESPONDENT CBI, BANGALORE AS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW
AND CONSEQUENTLY AND ETC.
7
IN W.P. NO.19178/2021
BETWEEN:
SRI S. MUTHAIAH
S/O SANNA SURAIAH
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (RETIRED)
RESIDING AT:
D.NO.1762, DATRI NILAYA,
1ST STAGE, 2ND CROSS,
SRI SHIVAKUMARASWAMY BADAVANE,
OPP. ST. JOHN'S HIGH SCHOOL
DAVANAGERE - 577 005.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI HASHMATH PASHA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI NASIR ALI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE BY CBI
BENGALURU
REPRESENTED BY
LEARNED SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
MR. PRASANNA KUMAR P.
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE - 560 001.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI P. PRASANNA KUMAR, SPL.PP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF THE
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 05-05-2020
PASSED IN SPECIAL C.C. NO.21/2014 AS PER ANNEXURE-N PENDING
ON THE FILE OF HON'BLE LXXXI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL COURT FOR MPs/MLAs, BANGALORE
WHICH IS ARISING OUT OF FIR IN R.C. NO.13-A/2012 ON THE FILE
OF RESPONDENT CBI, BANGALORE AS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS OF
LAW AND CONSEQUENTLY AND ETC.
8
IN W.P. NO.19179/2021
BETWEEN:
SRI S. MUTHAIAH
S/O SANNA SURAIAH
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (RETIRED)
RESIDING AT:
D.NO.1762, DATRI NILAYA,
1ST STAGE, 2ND CROSS,
SRI SHIVAKUMARASWAMY BADAVANE,
OPP. ST. JOHN'S HIGH SCHOOL
DAVANAGERE - 577 005.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI HASHMATH PASHA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI NASIR ALI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE BY CBI
BENGALURU
REPRESENTED BY
LEARNED SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
MR. PRASANNA KUMAR P.,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE - 560 001.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI P. PRASANNA KUMAR, SPL.PP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF THE
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 05-05-2020
PASSED IN SPECIAL C.C.NO.135/2013 AS PER ANNEXURE-N PENDING
ON THE FILE OF HON'BLE LXXXI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL COURT FOR MPs/MLAs, BANGALORE
WHICH IS ARISING OUT OF FIR IN R.C. NO.15-A/2012 ON THE FILE
OF RESPONDENT CBI, BANGALORE AS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS OF
LAW AND CONSEQUENTLY AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
ON 28.06.2023 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
9
ORDER
S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV. J
THIS ORDER HAS BEEN DIVIDED INTO THE FOLLOWING
SECTIONS TO FACILITATE ANALYSIS:
BRIEF FACTS
ANALYSIS :-
I. VALIDITY OF ORDER OF SANCTION FOR PROSECUTION -
A. AUTHORITY COMPETENT TO GRANT SANCTION FOR PROSECUTION
A.1. SANCTION FOR PROSECUTION UNDER SECTION 197 OF CR.P.C.
AS REGARDS OFFENCES UNDER IPC
A.2. SANCTION FOR PROSECUTION UNDER SECTION 19 OF P.C. ACT
A.3. SANCTION AS REGARDS OFFENCES UNDER THE KARNATAKA
FOREST ACT, 1963
B. APPLICATION OF MIND AND CONSIDERATION OF MATERIALS BY
THE SANCTIONING AUTHORITY -
B.1. W.P.NO.19179/2021 (SPL.CC. NO.135/2013)
B.2. W.P.NO.19176/2021 (SPL.CC. 6/2014)
B.3. W.P.NO.19178/2021 (SPL.CC.NO.21/2014)
B.4. W.P.NO.19163/2021 (SPL.CC.NO.105/2014)
II. QUASHING OF PROCEEDINGS
The petitioner is the accused in relation to the various
First Information Reports (FIR) registered separately
relating to the offence of illegally exporting mined Iron Ore
material from Belekere Port without valid permit which is
alleged to have been facilitated by the accused-petitioner,
who was the then Deputy Conservator of Forests of Bellary
District.
2. It is relevant to note that the registration of the
FIRs was pursuant to the direction of the Apex Court in
Samaj Parivartana Samudaya and Others v. State of
Karnataka and Others1 [Samaj Parivartana
Samudaya], whereby the Central Bureau of Investigation
(CBI) was directed to investigate the alleged illegal mining
of Iron Ore in Bellary Reserve Forest area by M/s.
Associated Mining Companies.
3. The factual matrix and the legal contentions
urged have an overlap in all of the petitions and in order to
W.P. (Civil) No.562/2009 [SLP (Civil) Nos.7366-7367/2010]
avoid passing of conflicting orders, the petitions are
disposed off by a common order.
BRIEF FACTS:-
4. The Apex Court in Samaj Parivartana
Samudaya (supra) had constituted a Central Empowered
Committee (CEC) to conduct a detailed enquiry into the
alleged illegal mining in the State of Karnataka and
directions were issued as contained in the orders extracted
below:-
"As recommended in the report of the CEC the
CBI should institute FIR(s) as suggested in sub
paragraphs (I) and (IV) at pages 12 and 14
respectively of the report and carry out thorough and
intensive investigation including, if so required,
custodial interrogation of any accused.
[...]
Let copies of the CEC reports dated April 27,
2012 and September 5, 2012, be given to the CBI
that may form the basic material for institution of
FIR(s). It will be open to the CBI to refer to the other
reports of the CEC on the issue submitted earlier.
Pursuant to the institution of the FIR(s) by the
CBI as directed above, further proceedings in case
No.189/2010 investigated by the CBI, CID,
Karnataka, shall remain stayed. The CID, Karnataka
shall hand over all records in regard to that case to
the CBI."
Further, the Apex Court directed the CBI to conduct
investigation of illegal extraction of Iron Ore in the forest
areas of Karnataka which was transported to Belekere Port
between 01.01.2009 to 31.05.2010.
5. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions of the Apex
Court, the CBI has registered four FIRs, viz.,
R.C.Nos.13(A)/2012, 14(A)/2012, 15(A)/2012 and
16(A)/2012 for the following offences:-
(a) Section 120-B, 379, 411, 420, 447 of Indian Penal
Code;
(b) Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act;
(c) Section 24 of Indian Forest Act;
(d) Section 21 read with Section 4(1), 4(1)(A) and Section
23 of Mines and Minerals Development and
Regulations Act, 1957 ('MMDR Act' for brevity)
6. After completion of investigation, CBI has filed
chargesheet against the petitioner and other accused and
the petitioner has been charged as regards the commission
of offences punishable under Sections 120-B read with
Section 409, 420, 434, 447, 468, 471 of IPC and under
Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c) and (d) of P.C.
Act. The cognizance was taken and charges were framed
for the aforesaid offences and trial is in progress.
After completion of investigation and taking note of
the chargesheets, cognizance of the offence was taken in
R.C.Nos.13-A/2012 (Spl. C.C.No.21/2014), 14-A/2012 (Spl.
C.C.No.06/2014), 15-A/2012 (Spl.C.C.No.135/2013) and
16-A/2012 (Spl. C.C.No.105/2014).
7. The applications for discharge filed before the
Special Court have been rejected and upon their rejection,
the validity of proceedings have been called in question by
invoking the jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
Applications were also filed by the petitioner/accused
before the Special Court under Section 19 of P.C. Act calling
in question the validity of proceedings on the ground that
the orders of sanction were illegal, which orders have also
been called in question before this Court.
8. The details of the order impugned and the
challenge before this Court is found as below:-
Sl. Writ Petition Number Relief sought in the Writ Petition
No.
1. W.P.No.19176/2021 (i) Writ of certiorari quashing the order
dated 05.05.2020 passed in
Spl.C.C.No.6/2014 [R.C.No.14(A)/2012]
(ii) Quashing of the entire proceedings in
Spl.C.C.No.6/2014 [R.C.No.14(A)/2012]
2. W.P.No.19178/2021 (i) Writ of certiorari quashing the order
dated 05.05.2020 passed in
Spl.C.C.No.21/2014 [R.C.No.13(A)/2012]
(ii) Quashing of the entire proceedings in
Spl.C.C.No.21/2014 [R.C.No.13(A)/2012]
3. W.P.No.19179/2021 (i) Writ of certiorari quashing the order
dated 05.05.2020 passed in
Spl.C.C.No.135/2013 [R.C.No.15(A)/2012]
(ii) Quashing of the entire proceedings in
Spl.C.C.No.135/2013 [R.C.No.15(A)/2012]
4. W.P.No.19163/2021 (i) Writ of certiorari quashing the order
dated 05.05.2020 passed in
Spl.C.C.No.105/2014 [R.C.No.16(A)/2012]
(ii) Quashing of the entire proceedings in
Spl.C.C.No.105/2014 [R.C.No.16(A)/2012]
5. W.P.No.17292/2018 Writ of Certiorari quashing the charge sheet
in Spl.C.C.No.21/2014 [R.C.No.13(A)/2012]
6. W.P.No.17290/2018 Writ of certiorari quashing the proceedings
in Spl.C.C.No.6/2014 (R.C.No.14-A/2012)
7. W.P.No.17291/2018 Writ of certiorari quashing the proceedings
in Spl.C.C.No.105/2014 (R.C.No.16-A/2012)
8. W.P.No.16605/2018 Writ of certiorari quashing the proceedings
in Spl.C.C.No.135/2013 (R.C.No.15-A/2012)
ANALYSIS:-
9. The petitioner is stated to be a Forest Officer of
I.F.S. Cadre and was discharging duty as Deputy
Conservator of Forests, Bellary Division at the relevant point
of time. The directions by the Apex Court in its order of
07.09.2012 was to investigate cases relating to alleged
illegal extraction of 50.79 lakh Metric Tons of Iron Ore from
the forest areas between 01.01.2009 to 31.05.2010 and its
illegal transportation to the Belekere Port.
Subsequent to the Order of the Apex Court dated
07.09.20122, investigation was conducted, charge sheet
was filed and cognizance was taken by the learned Special
Judge. Thereafter the petitioner/accused has sought for
Samaj Parivartana Samudaya (supra)
quashing of proceedings and the charge sheet and also
called in question the validity of the orders on validity of
sanction for prosecution.
I. VALIDITY OF ORDER OF SANCTION FOR PROSECUTION:-
10. The petitioner has assailed the order dated
05.05.2020 passed by the learned Special Judge as detailed
in the Table supra at para 8 whereby, the Sanction orders
issued by the State Government and Central Government
according Sanction under Code of Criminal Procedure,
Karnataka Forest Act and Prevention of Corruption Act
respectively to prosecute the petitioner/accused has been
upheld.
However, it is the contention of the petitioner that
Sanction has not been granted by the Competent Authority.
The petitioner further contends that the whole process
was conducted in a mechanical manner, that the Authorities
concerned have only appended the word "approved", and
that the sanctioning authority has merely endorsed the
draft sanction order submitted by the Investigating
Authority. It was also contended that necessary material
was not placed before the Authority which granted Sanction
thus vitiating the order passed.
A. AUTHORITY COMPETENT TO GRANT SANCTION FOR
PROSECUTION:-
A.1. SANCTION FOR PROSECUTION UNDER SECTION 197 OF
CR.P.C. AS REGARDS OFFENCES UNDER IPC
11. The admitted facts being that petitioner Sri
S. Muthaiah was an I.F.S. Officer [(IFS)(KN-1995)] and was
working as Deputy Conservator of Forests, Bellary territorial
division from 18.07.2008 to 19.05.20103.
12. Insofar as offences under IPC are concerned,
Section 197 of Cr.P.C. mandates obtaining of sanction and
relevant extract is as hereunder:-
"197. Prosecution of Judges and public
servants.--(1) When any person who is or was a
Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not
removable from his office save by or with the
sanction of the Government is accused of any
Details as found in order granting sanction from Government of Karnataka dated
07.08.2013
offence alleged to have been committed by him while
acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his
official duty, no Court shall take cognizance of such
offence except with the previous sanction save as
otherwise provided in the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act,
2013--
(a) xxx
(b) in the case of a person who is employed
or, as the case may be, was at the time of
commission of the alleged offence employed,
in connection with the affairs of a State, of
the State Government:..."
13. The FIR makes out a case that in light of the
findings of the CEC and Lokayukta of Karnataka that
various Mining Companies, viz., M/s.Dream Logistics Co.,
India Ltd.; M/s.ILC Industries, M/s. S.B.Logistics, M/s.
Shree Mallikarjun Shipping Pvt. Ltd., have indulged in illegal
mining in the forest areas of Bellary, Bilekere and other
places of Karnataka and transported such illegally mined
Iron Ore without valid permits issued by the Department of
Mines and Geology as also the Department of Forests
without payment of required royalty and Forest
Development Tax. Such acts, it is stated to have been
done in connivance and in conspiracy with petitioner, the
then Deputy Conservator of Forest Bellary, and his
subordinates. It is alleged that the accused have caused
wrongful loss to the Government of Karnataka and
corresponding gain to themselves.
Clearly, the above information contained in the FIR
would indicate alleged commission of offence by the
accused while being posted as a Deputy Conservator of
Forest, Bellary. The petitioner being an I.F.S. Officer, "was
at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed,
in connection with the affairs of a State, of the State
Government."4
14. The Circular issued by the Government of India,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions,
Department of Personnel and Training dated 27.10.1999
addressed to the Chief Secretaries of all State Governments
though deals with sanction for prosecution under the P.C.
Act against I.A.S. Officers, also adverts to sanction as
Section 197(1)(b) of Cr.P.C.
regards such Officers when discharging official duties in
connection with the affairs of the State Government, which
affirms the legal position as contained under Section 197 of
Cr.P.C. The relevant portion of the said Circular at para-2
reads as follows:-
"2. ... If such a member of the All India
Service is or was serving in connection with the
affairs of the State Government, such sanction u/s
197(1) of the Cr.P.C. for the IPC offences will be
required to be accorded by the State Government
concerned."
15. As the petitioner was employed in connection
with the affairs of the State Government at the time of
alleged commission of offence, under Section 197(b) of
Cr.P.C., previous sanction of the State Government is
required.
16. In the present case, sanction of the State
Government has been obtained as regards the alleged
offence under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. as follows:-
W.P.No.19179/2021 W.P.No.19178/2021 W.P.No.19176/2021 W.P.No.19163/2021
Spl.C.C.No.135/2013 Spl.C.C.No.21/2014 Spl.C.C.No.6/2014 Spl.C.C.No.105/2014
[R.C.No.15(A)/2012] [R.C.No.13(A)/2012] [R.C.No.14(A)/2012] [R.C.No.16(A)/2012]
Ex.P69(h) Ex.P143 Sanction Ex.160 Sanction Ex.105 Sanction
Sanction order u/s order u/s 197 of order u/s 197 of order u/s 197 of
197 of Cr.P.C. Cr.P.C. issued by Cr.P.C. issued by Cr.P.C. issued by
issued by State State Government State Government State Government
Government
17. Section 197 (1)(b) of Cr.P.C. which is applicable
in the present factual matrix provides for sanction of the
State Government. The term 'State Government' is not
defined in the Cr.P.C. and we need to fall back on the
provision under the Karnataka General Clauses Act of 1899,
which defines 'State Government' as follows:-
"3(38c) "State Government",-
xxx
(c) as respect anything done or to be done
after 1st November, 1973 shall mean the
Governor of the State of Karnataka;
18. It is also necessary to look into the provisions of
the Karnataka Government (Transaction of Business) Rules,
1977 and in particular, Rule 18 and 19 and relevant
extracts are as follows:-
"18. All orders or instruments made or executed by
or on behalf of Government shall be expressed to be
made or executed in the name of the Governor of
Karnataka
19. Orders and instruments made and executed in
the name of the Governor of Karnataka, shall be
authenticated by the signature of an Additional Chief
Secretary, a Principal Secretary, a Secretary, a Special
Secretary, an Additional Secretary a Joint Secretary, a
Deputy Secretary, an Under Secretary, a Desk Officer
or any other officer holding these posts on ex-officio
basis or by such other officer as may be specially
empowered in that behalf by the Governor in the
manner specified below, and such signature shall be
deemed to be the proper authentication of such order
or instrument.
By Order and in the name of the Governor of Karnataka,
(Signature)
Name and designation of the Officer authorized to sign
19. Accordingly, where the sanction is required of
the State Government, the order would be by the Governor
of State of Karnataka5 and in terms of the Transaction of
3(38c) of the Karnataka General Clauses Act, 1899
Business Rules6, the order in the name of the Governor
shall be authenticated by the Officers referred to under Rule
19 of the Rules which includes the 'Under Secretary'. In
the present case, the sanction orders as per the Table
above, have been passed in the following manner:-
"BY ORDER AND IN THE NAME OF THE
GOVERNOR OF KARNATAKA
SD/-
(Dr.BAGADI GAUTHAM)
DEPUTY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
DP & AR (SERVICES)"
20. Accordingly, the order passed is in complete
compliance with the provisions of Karnataka General
Clauses Act, 1899 and the Karnataka Government
(Transaction of Business) Rules 1977 and no ground is
made for interference with such order.
21. The contention of the petitioner that sanction for
prosecution even under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. must be
obtained from the appointing and removal authority, i.e.
the President, whose power stands delegated in terms of
Karnataka Government (Transaction of Business) Rules, 1977
the Transaction of Business Rules is liable to be rejected in
light of the plain words in Section 197 of Cr.P.C. which
indicates that sanction is to be obtained from the State
Government where the person is employed "in connection
with the affairs of the State".
A.2. SANCTION FOR PROSECUTION UNDER SECTION 19 OF P.C. ACT
22. In the present case, sanction of the Central
Government has been obtained as regards the offence
under Section 19 of the P.C. Act as follows:-
W.P.No.19179/2021 W.P.No.19178/2021 W.P.No.19176/2021 W.P.No.19163/2021
Spl.C.C.No.135/2013 Spl.C.C.No.21/2014 Spl.C.C.No.6/2014 Spl.C.C.No.105/2014
[R.C.No.15(A)/2012] [R.C.No.13(A)/2012] [R.C.No.14(A)/2012] [R.C.No.16(A)/2012]
Ex.P67 Sanction Ex.146 Sanction Ex.158 Sanction Ex.103 Sanction
order u/s 19 of order u/s 19 of order u/s 19 of order u/s 19 of
P.C. Act issued by P.C. Act issued by P.C. Act issued by P.C. Act issued by
Central Central Central Central
Government Government Government Government
23. Under Section 19 of P.C. Act, no Court can take
cognizance "except with previous sanction" of the
appropriate Government. Relevant extract of Section 19
reads as follows:-
"19. Previous sanction necessary for
prosecution.--(1) No court shall take cognizance of an
offence punishable under sections 7, 11, 13 and 15
alleged to have been committed by a public servant,
except with the previous sanction save as otherwise
provided in the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013--
(a) in the case of a person who is employed, or
as the case may be, was at the time of commission of
the alleged offence employed in connection with the
affairs of the Union and is not removable from his
office save by or with the sanction of the Central
Government, of that Government;
(b) in the case of a person who is employed, or
as the case may be, was at the time of commission of
the alleged offence employed in connection with the
affairs of a State and is not removable from his office
save by or with the sanction of the State Government,
of that Government;
(c) xxx
(2) Where for any reason whatsoever any doubt
arises as to whether the previous sanction as required
under sub-section (1) should be given by the Central
Government or the State Government or any other
authority, such sanction shall be given by that
Government or authority which would have been
competent to remove the public servant from his
office at the time when the offence was alleged to
have been committed."
24. In the present case, as admittedly the petitioner
is employed in connection with the affairs of the State and
as he is an Officer of I.F.S. Cadre, the test to be answered
in order to ascertain the 'Authority competent' to grant
sanction would be "that Government or Authority which
would have been competent to remove the Public Servant
from his Office at the time when offence was alleged to
have been committed."7
25. It is to be noticed that Rule 6 of the Indian
Forest Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1966 deals with the
appointment into the Indian Forest Service and relevant
extract of Rule 6 is as follows:
"6. Appointment to the Service.- 6(1) All
appointment to the Service shall be made by
the Central Government and no such appointment
shall be made except after
recruitment by one of the methods specified in
rule 4."
Section 19(2) of the PC Act
26. Accordingly, an Officer of I.F.S. Cadre being
appointed by the Central Government as enumerated under
Rule 6 of the Indian Forest Service (Recruitment) Rules,
1966, his removal would also be by the same Authority and
accordingly, sanction for prosecution under the P.C. Act
would be of the Central Government.
27. In the absence of any definition of 'Central
Government' in the P.C. Act, we have to fall back upon the
definition under the General Clauses Act, 1897 and the
relevant extract of Section 3(8)(b) reads as follows:-
"(8) "Central Government" shall,--
(a) xxx
(b) in relation to anything done or to be done after
the commencement of the Constitution, mean the
President; and shall include,--
xxx"
28. The orders of the President in terms of Article 77
of the Constitution of India8 are to be made and executed in
"77. Conduct of business of the Government of India.-- (1) All
executive action of the Government of India shall be expressed to be taken in
the name of the President.
the name of the President and the authenticated as may be
specified in the Rules.
29. In terms of Article 77 of the Constitution of
India, the Rules framed are 'Authentication (Orders and
Other Instruments) Rules, 2002'. Rule 2(1) refers to the
mode of authentication as follows:-
"(2) They shall come into force on the date of
their publication in the official gazette. All orders and
other instruments made and executed in the name of
the President shall be authenticated -
(1) by the signature of a Secretary,
Special Secretary, Additional Secretary, Joint
Secretary, Director, Deputy Secretary, or Under
Secretary to the Government of India;
30. In the present case, the order of sanction as
detailed supra have been passed by the Joint Secretary to
(2) Orders and other instruments made and executed in the name of the
President shall be authenticated in such manner as may be specified in rules to
be made by the President, and the validity of an order or instrument which is so
authenticated shall not be called in question on the ground that it is not an order
or instrument made or executed by the President.
(3) xxx"
Government of India and Chief Vigilance Officer in the
following manner:-
"For and on behalf of the President of India
Sd/-
(Ravi S. Prasad)
Joint Secretary to the Govt. of India and
Chief Vigilance Officer"
31. Accordingly, the sanction has been granted by
the Competent Authority in terms of the Rules and statutory
provisions as noticed above.
32. Though the trial Court has not adverted to the
aspect in as much detail, however, the conclusion arrived at
by the trial Court is correct and does not call for
interference.
A.3. SANCTION AS REGARDS OFFENCES UNDER THE KARNATAKA
FOREST ACT, 1963
33. In the present case, sanction of the State
Government has been obtained as regards the offence
under Section 114A of the Karnataka Forest Act as follows:-
W.P.No.19179/2021 W.P.No.19178/2021 W.P.No.19176/2021 W.P.No.19163/2021
Spl.C.C.No.135/2013 Spl.C.C.No.21/2014 Spl.C.C.No.6/2014 Spl.C.C.No.105/2014
[R.C.No.15(A)/2012] [R.C.No.13(A)/2012] [R.C.No.14(A)/2012] [R.C.No.16(A)/2012]
Ex.69(f) Sanction Ex.142 Sanction Ex.159 Sanction Ex.106 Sanction
order u/s 114A of order u/s 114A of order u/s 114A of order u/s 114A of
Karnataka Forest Karnataka Forest Karnataka Forest Karnataka Forest
Act Act Act Act
34. Insofar as the aspect of sanction for offences
under the Karnataka Forest Act, Section 114A provides that
prosecution shall not be entertained "except with the
previous sanction of the State Government." Relevant
extract of Section 114A is as follows:
"114A. Suits or prosecution in respect of acts
done under colour of duty not to be entertained
without sanction of the State Government.- (1)
In any case of alleged offence or of wrong alleged to
have been committed by any Forest Officer, by any
act done under colour or in excess of any such duty
or authority under this Act, or wherein it shall appear
to the court that offence if committed was of the
character aforesaid the prosecution or suit shall not
be entertained except with the previous sanction of
the State Government."
35. The interpretation of 'State Government' would
be in terms of the discussion made as regards sanction for
prosecution under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. (see para19).
36. The sanction in the present case has been
granted by the signatory in the following manner:-
"BY ORDER AND IN THE NAME OF THE
GOVERNOR OF KARNATAKA
SD/-
(DR.BAGADI GAUTHAM)
DEPUTY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DP & AR (SERVICES)"
The sanction granted in the aforementioned manner is
in accordance with the requirements of the applicable law.
37. Accordingly, it is concluded that sanction for
prosecution under Code of Criminal Procedure, Prevention of
Corruption Act and Karnataka Forest Act has been granted
by the Competent Authority.
B. APPLICATION OF MIND AND CONSIDERATION OF MATERIALS
BY THE SANCTIONING AUTHORITY
38. In light of the orders dated 05.05.2020 passed
by the learned Special Judge in Spl. C.C.Nos.135/2013,
21/2014, 6/2014 and 105/2014 on validity of sanction, the
same is taken up for consideration individually.
39. This Court, by its order dated 22.05.2023 has
summoned the documents marked as Exhibits (documents
relating to grant of sanction) referred hereinbelow for
perusal, from the Court of XLVI Additional City Civil and
Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI Cases at
Bengaluru now pending on the file of the LXXXI Additional
City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru (CCCH-82) and
the same have been examined.
Spl.C.C.No.06/2014 Ex.D7 and Ex.D16
Spl.C.C.No.135/2013 Ex.D4 and Ex.P69
Spl.C.C.No.21/2014 Ex.D5 and Ex.D10
Spl.C.C.No.105/2014 Ex.D1 and Ex.D6
40. The evidence is led in support of the sanction
orders by the following:-
W.P.No.19179/2021 W.P.No.19178/2021 W.P.No.19176/2021 W.P.No.19163/2021
Spl.C.C.No.135/2013 Spl.C.C.No.21/2014 Spl.C.C.No.6/2014 Spl.C.C.No.105/2014
[R.C.No.15(A)/2012] [R.C.No.13(A)/2012] [R.C.No.14(A)/2012] [R.C.No.16(A)/2012]
For sanction u/s 19 For sanction u/s 19 For sanction u/s 19 For sanction u/s 19
of P.C. Act - PW32 of P.C. Act - PW35 of P.C. Act - PW44 of P.C. Act - PW25
Mr.Ravishankar Mr.Ravishankar Mr.Ravishankar Mr.Ravishankar
Prasad Prasad Prasad Prasad
For sanction u/s 197 For sanction u/s 197 For sanction u/s 197 For sanction u/s 197
Cr.P.C. and u/s 114A Cr.P.C. and u/s Cr.P.C. and u/s Cr.P.C. and u/s 114A
of Karnataka Forest 114A of Karnataka 114A of Karnataka of Karnataka Forest
Act - PW33 Forest Act - PW34 Forest Act - PW43 Act - PW26
Dr.Bagadi Gautham Dr.Bagadi Gautham Dr.Bagadi Gautham Dr.Bagadi Gautham
B.1. W.P.No.19179/2021 (Spl.CC. No.135/2013)
41. It must be noted that insofar as offences under
the Karnataka Forest Act are concerned, sanction for
prosecution is contained in Ex.P69(f); for the offences
punishable under IPC, order of sanction is passed by the
State Government as per Ex.P69(h) and for the offences
under the P.C. Act, order of sanction is marked as Ex.P67.
The Table containing the orders of sanction for offences
under IPC, Karnataka Forest Act and as regards P.C. Act is
detailed supra.
42. Sri Ravishankar Prasad, Additional Secretary in
Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change,
supporting the orders of sanction under the P.C. Act has led
in evidence, while Dr.Bagadi Gautham, Deputy
Commissioner, Chikkamagalur at the time of adducing
evidence, has led in evidence to support the orders of
sanction of the State Government for the offences under the
IPC and Karnataka Forest Act.
43. Sri Ravishankar Prasad has narrated in detail
regarding the aspect of application of mind and specifically
stated that "before approval of the sanction our Department
has examined the FIR, statement of the witness and the
materials collected by the CBI during investigation which
were forwarded by the State Government to our Ministry".
It was deposed that the sanction orders under Section 197
Cr.P.C. as well as regards offences under the Karnataka
Forest Act which were already passed by the State
Government were forwarded to the Central Government. It
was submitted that in terms of the procedure followed,
concurrence of the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) was
obtained and only thereafter file was placed before the
Minister of Environment. It was further deposed that
detailed note sheet has been made by the officials of the
Ministry of Environment and Forests, and eventually after
due consideration sanction has been accorded.
44. It must be noted that Ex.D4 is the file
maintained by the Government of India, Ministry of
Environment and Forests containing all the materials
forwarded by the State Government relating to according
sanction for prosecution for offences under IPC, Cr.P.C. and
Karnataka Forest Act. Ex.D4 also contains materials
regarding the decision making of Central Government
insofar as offences under the P.C. Act.
45. The detailed note sheet in Ex.D4 indicates
background of the case and result of investigation. Insofar
as result of investigation is enumerated, reference is made
to the specific role of the petitioner and also explanation of
the petitioner has been adverted to. Ex.D4 also contains
the letter of Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka,
addressed to the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry
of Environment and Forests dated 14.08.2013 and lists the
documents sent which are as follows:-
"1)Investigation Report (as submitted by CBI) - The
report includes version of the accused officer and
comments of the Investigating Officer to rebut
for their contentions (page no.1 to 274).
2) Case records - 10 boxes containing copy of case
records have been appended. (Pherist page-1).
3) Draft prosecution sanction orders under PC Act
pertaining to Sri S.Muthaiah (Page 1 - 8).
4) Draft prosecution sanction orders under PC Act
pertaining to Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla (Page No.1-
8).
5)Opinion of State Law Department - (page no.3).
6)Original prosecution sanction order under IPC
issued by the State Government in respect of Sri
S. Muthaiah, IFS (G.O.No.DPAR/117/SFP/2013,
dated:07/08/2013) (page-4).
7) Original prosecution sanction order under IPC
issued by the State Government in respect of Sri
Manoj Kumar Shukla, IFS (G.O.No.DPAR/117/
SFP/2013(1), dated:07/08/2013) (page-4)."
46. Ex.D4 also contains a CBI report in R.C.
15A/2012. The said report contains detailed narration
relating to removal of Halkundi, Andhra - Karnataka border
Forest Check Post to facilitate the transportation of Iron Ore
without permits and on fake Andhra Pradesh permits;
explanation of the accused; details regarding summing up
of evidence both, for and against the accused/suspect
persons for whom sanction for prosecution is sought and
conclusion regarding proof of allegation followed by
conclusion. The said report contained a summary of
statement of the forest officials, revenue officials and other
witnesses. The said report also contains the brief summary
of the statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. of
accused/petitioner (Sl.No.189 at Page No.188). The report
contains list of 184 witnesses, description of documents at
Sl.Nos.1 to 156, statements recorded before the Inspector
of Police CBI, ACB Bangalore dated 09.03.2013, 10.03.2013
and interrogation report by the Inspector of Police, CBI.
47. The witness Sri Ravishankar Prasad was
subjected to cross-examination and the petitioner seeks to
rely on certain aspects that have been elicited during cross-
examination.
48. The learned Special Judge while considering the
validity of the order of sanction has passed a detailed order
and referred to the evidence of PW.32 and in specific, has
observed regarding the placing of material before the
Sanctioning Authority as follows:-
"... But this PW.1 has stated that placing of
materials is reflected in the note-sheet being
prepared by his office. He says that he has
personally gone through the said statement of the
witnesses which have been recorded by the
investigating officer. So also he has gone through
the document collected by the I.O. before issuing the
sanction orders."
49. Accordingly, it is clear that the material as listed
in the note-sheet was put up before the Sanctioning
Authority after Sri Ravishankar Prasad had reviewed the
file.
50. As regards the contention relating to draft order
being prepared by the State Government and copied by the
Central Government, the learned Special Judge has
observed as follows:-
"When the facts are similar in this case,
therefore, we cannot find any fault in preparing the
draft sanction order."
Such conclusion arrived at cannot be faulted and does
not call for interference.
51. Dr.Bagadi Gautham - PW.33, who has led in
evidence pertaining to the sanction order by the State
Government has got marked the entire files containing
materials relevant to sanction at Ex.P69 and also got
marked note-sheet at Ex. P69(b). He has deposed
regarding the competence of the State Government to grant
sanction, he has also deposed that along with a request for
sanction, the note sheet of CBI, copy of FIR, copies of
statement of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of
Cr.P.C. during investigating and documents collected by the
Investigation Officer, all of which was placed before the
Chief Minister.
52. A perusal of Ex.P69 indicates that it contains the
final report of the CBI dated 24.05.2013 in
RC.No.15A/2012. It is further stated that along with the
report, CBI had forwarded ten bundles of connected
records. The note sheet in the file refers to the role of Sri
S.Muthaiah/petitioner and refers to the contents of the
report of CBI and contains the signature of the Chief
Minister apart from the signature of the officials concerned,
opinion of the Additional Law Secretary approved by the
Principal Law Secretary is found and accordingly, the
sanction for prosecution has been issued.
53. The note sheet also contains a separate narration
relating to grant of sanction as regards the offences under
the Karnataka Forest Act. Such part of the note sheet
details the role of the petitioner causing loss to the
Government Exchequer by facilitating illegal sale and export
of Iron Ore after removing Andhra-Karnataka border Check
Post at Halkundi and contains the signature of Minister for
Forest, Ecology and Environment Department, Government
of Karnataka, signature of Principal Secretary, signature of
Chief Secretary and the approval of the Chief Minister.
Finally, the order of sanction for prosecution has been
issued.
54. Similarly, permission has been granted as
regards offences under IPC under Section 197 of Cr.P.C.
and the note-sheet contains recommendations to the
Ministry of Forests, Government of India to sanction
prosecution against Sri S.Muthaiah/Petitioner. Prior to such
proceedings, the draft sanction order was forwarded along
with CBI report to the State Government.
55. On 14.08.2013, the Chief Secretary to
Government of Karnataka has addressed a communication
to the Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of
Environment and Forests, while narrating the grant of
sanction for offences under IPC and noting that sanction
under P.C. Act would be required in terms of the
Department of Personnel and Training Circular
No.107/8/889-AVD-I dated 27.10.1999, documents were
forwarded as below:-
"1) Investigation Report (as submitted by CBI) -
The report includes version of the accused
officer and comments of the Investigating
Officer to rebut for their contentions (page
no.1 to 274).
2) Case records - 10 boxes containing copy of
case records have been appended. (Pherist
page-1).
3) Draft prosecution sanction orders under PC Act
pertaining to Sri S.Muthaiah (Page 1- 8).
4) Draft prosecution sanction orders under PC Act
pertaining to Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla (Page
No.1-8).
5) Opinion of State Law Department - (page
no.3).
6) Original prosecution sanction order under IPC
issued by the State Government in respect of
Sri S. Muthaiah, IFS (G.O.No.DPAR/117/
SFP/2013, dated:07/08/2013) (page-4).
7) Original prosecution sanction order under IPC
issued by the State Government in respect of
Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla, IFS (G.O.No.
DPAR/117/SFP/2013(1), dated:07/08/2013)
(page-4)."
56. Ex. P69 contains the case records submitted by
CBI, ACB, Bengaluru. The said contents of which have been
extracted hereinbelow:-
Sl. Description
No.
1 CBI Report
2 Memo of Evidence - oral
3 Memo of Evidence - documentary
4 List of Witnesses
5 List of Documents
6 Accused statements
(i) Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla
(ii) Sri S.Muthaiah
7 Photocopies of relevant statement of
witnesses.
8 Photocopies of relevant documents.
57. Ex.P69 also contains the details of ten bundles of
records submitted by CBI, ACB, Bengaluru, which is detailed
in the Table hereinbelow:-
Sl.No. of Details of contents
the box
1. Statement of witnesses
Witness 1 to 190
Volume 1 to 10
D1 to D45
2. D46 to D70
Volume 11 to 20
3. D70 to D90
Volume 21 to 30
4. D91 to D129
Volume 31 to 40
5. D130 to D135
Volume 41 to 50
6. D135 to D138
Volume 51 to 60
7. D138 to D139 - V-9
Volume 61 to 70
8. D139 to D139 - V-19
Volume 71 to 80
9. D139 to D140
Volume 81 to 90
10. D141 to D156
Volume 91 to 101
58. Insofar as the challenge to the order granting
sanction by the State Government, the learned Special
Judge has noticed the evidence of PW.33 wherein,
Dr.Bagadi Gautam has deposed that the entire file prepared
in his office marked as Ex.P69 was sent to the office of Chief
Minister, after perusal of which sanction was accorded by
the Chief Minister. The learned Special Judge at para-38 of
the order has referred to presumption with regard to official
acts while discussing the attacks as regards to procedure
that was required to be followed by the officials.
59. While referring to the contention that the order
of sanction sent to the Central Government and the order of
sanction of the State Government are replicas of the draft
orders sent by the Investigating Authority, which vitiates
the order passed granting sanction on the ground of
non-application of mind, the learned Special Judge observes
as follows:-
"40. ...When facts are similar and the competent
responsible officer has prepared the order after going
through the records, this defence, of the accused
persons about the imitation of the draft sanction
order, etc., becomes a week (sic) defence. As stated
supra, when the facts are similar we cannot expect
any change in the sanction order to that of the draft
sanction order. The draft sanction order may be a
guidance to prepare the valid sanction order..."
Such conclusion of the learned Special Judge also does
not call for interference.
60. Insofar as the contention that Chief Minister
merely stated as "C£ÀĪÉÆâ¹zÉ" ('approved') and accordingly,
there is no application of mind, the learned Special Judge
observes as follows:
"41. ...Only because such words have been
used by the sanctioning authority, it does not mean
that the entire business transaction of the
Government is a futile exercise. No bias is alleged
against any of the sanctioning authorities in this
case, to favour the CBI or the prosecuting
agency..."
The said conclusion of the learned Special Judge is
also well considered and sufficient and requires no
interference.
61. The learned Special Judge has then referred to
the orders granting sanction and upheld the same. The
learned Special Judge at para-47 while deciding the legality
and validity of the sanction order, has observed rightly as
follows:
"47. No doubt, there are certain admissions
given in the cross-examination of PW32 and 33. But
we are deciding the legality and validity of the
sanction order. At this stage, we have to see that
whether the sanctioning authority has applied its
mind and has issued the sanction 68
Spl.CC.135/2013 order. As laid down in the various
judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the
court cannot sit over the sanction order and pass an
order in favour of the accused persons. The
guidelines which have been set out by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India have to be followed. These
accused No.2 and 7 can very well take advantage of
these admissions at the time of final arguments in
this case."
62. No doubt, the learned Special Judge has
observed that the question as to whether relevant evidence
which would have tilted the balance in favour of the accused
was kept out of consideration is a matter that is to be
decided in trial, is the only question that requires to be
established by the accused, which is kept open.
63. The learned Special Judge has referred to various
judgments of the Apex Court including the guidelines laid
down in State of Maharashtra Through Central Bureau of
Investigation v. Mahesh G. Jain9 [Mahesh G. Jain],
wherein it is observed that the adequacy of material placed
before the sanctioning authority cannot be gone into by the
Court, as it does not sit in appeal over the sanction order.
The learned Special Judge observes that order of sanction
ought not to be construed in a pedantic manner and has
rejected the attack against the sanction order and the said
order of learned Special Judge being well reasoned, does
not call for interference.
64. The scope of interference in attack as against the
order of sanction is limited and is laid down by the Apex
Court in its various decisions and relevant extracts are
reproduced below:-
(a) C.S. Krishnamurthy v. State of Karnataka10
[C.S.Krishnamurthy]-
(2013) 8 SCC 119
(2005) 4 SCC 81
"7. ...Therefore, the accused has to account
for difference between the two. The sanction itself
shows that there is something to be accounted for
by the accused. When the sanction itself is very
expressive, then in that case, the argument that
particular material was not properly placed before
the sanctioning authority for according sanction and
the sanctioning authority has not applied its mind
becomes unsustainable. When sanction order itself
is eloquent enough, then in that case only formal
evidence has to be produced by the sanctioning
authority or by any other evidence that the sanction
was accorded by a competent person with due
application of mind. In the present case the learned
Additional Sessions Judge took a very narrow view
that all the papers were not placed before the court
to show that there was proper application of mind
by the sanctioning authority.... Though the
sanctioning authority who came in the witness box
could not answer some questions in cross-
examination, yet this Court held that sanction itself
is eloquent read with evidence of the sanctioning
authority and the same is valid. In the present case,
the facts contained in the sanction order read with
evidence of the sanctioning authority makes it clear
that sanction was properly accorded and is valid.
8. In this connection, a reference was made to
a decision of the Constitution Bench in the case
of R.S. Pandit v. State of Bihar [1963 Supp (2) SCR
652 : (1964) 2 Cri LJ 65] wherein Their Lordships
after referring to a decision of the Privy Council in
the case of Gokulchand Dwarkadas
Morarka v. R. [AIR 1948 PC 82 : 49 Cri LJ 261]
observed as under: (SCR pp. 662-63)
"Section 6 of the Act also does not require
the sanction to be given in a particular form.
The principle expressed by the Privy Council,
namely that the sanction should be given in
respect of the facts constituting the offence
charged equally applies to the sanction under
Section 6 of the Act. In the present case all
the facts constituting the offence of
misconduct with which the appellant was
charged were placed before the Government.
The second principle, namely, that the facts
should be referred to on the face of the
sanction and if they do not so appear, the
prosecution must prove them by extraneous
evidence, is certainly sound having regard to
the purpose of the requirements of a
sanction."
The said judgment is an authority for the point that if
the order of sanction is eloquent, that would suffice and
even in the absence of which it was open to the prosecution
to supplement the deficiencies in the order of sanction by
extraneous evidence.
(b) State of Maharashtra Through CBI v. Mahesh G.
Jain11
"14. From the aforesaid authorities the following
principles can be culled out:
14.1. It is incumbent on the prosecution to
prove that the valid sanction has been
granted by the sanctioning authority after
being satisfied that a case for sanction has
been made out.
14.2. The sanction order may expressly show
that the sanctioning authority has perused
the material placed before it and, after
consideration of the circumstances, has
granted sanction for prosecution.
14.3. The prosecution may prove by adducing
the evidence that the material was placed
before the sanctioning authority and its
satisfaction was arrived at upon perusal of
the material placed before it.
14.4. Grant of sanction is only an
administrative function and the sanctioning
authority is required to prima facie reach the
(2013) 8 SCC 119
satisfaction that relevant facts would
constitute the offence.
14.5. The adequacy of material placed before
the sanctioning authority cannot be gone into
by the court as it does not sit in appeal over
the sanction order.
14.6. If the sanctioning authority has perused
all the materials placed before it and some of
them have not been proved that would not
vitiate the order of sanction.
14.7. The order of sanction is a prerequisite
as it is intended to provide a safeguard to a
public servant against frivolous and vexatious
litigants, but simultaneously an order of
sanction should not be construed in a
pedantic manner and there should not be a
hypertechnical approach to test its validity."
The above principles summarise the legal framework
within which validity regarding order of sanction is to be
tested and keeping this in mind the validity of the order of
sanctions in the present case requires to be tested.
65. In light of the above, if the orders of sanction are
looked into, it is clear that the same are eloquent enough.
66. The relevant extracts of the sanction order speak
for themselves and the same are extracted hereinbelow:-
EX.P67- ORDER OF SANCTION BY CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IN
REGARD TO P.C. ACT
"6. Whereas it is alleged that Shri Muthaiah, the
then DCF, Bellary Division and Shri Manoj Kumar
Shukla, the then Conservator of Forests, Bellary, in
collusion with Shri G.Janardhana Reddy, the then
Bellary District -in-charge Minister and his associates,
on 15th October 2008, removed the Andhra-Karnataka
border forest check post existed at Halkundi, to
facilitate the illegal transportation of iron ore without
valid permits by three firms belonging to Shri Gali
Janardhana Reddy and his men."
"15. Whereas, Shri Muthaiah, the then Deputy
Conservator of Forests, and Shri Manoj Kumar Shukla,
the then Conservator of Forests, Bellary, have admitted
that Halkundi check post was removed by them at the
behest of Shri G.Janardhana Reddy, the then Bellary
district-in-charge Minister. Hence, Shri S. Muthiah and
Shri Manoj Kumar Shukla did misuse their official
positions as government servants and closed the
Halkundi Forest Border check post with dishonest
intention, in conspiracy with Shri.G.Janardhana Reddy
and thereby caused wrongful loss to the Government of
No.15011/02/2013-AVU dated 20.05.2014
Karnataka, by evading the collection of Forest Tax at
the said check post.
16. Whereas, the Karnataka Lokayuktha did
conduct searches at Belekeri Port during
February/March, 2010 and seized voluminous
documents, including fake Andhra permits purported
to be issued by the Department of Mines and Geology,
Anantapur and Kadappa etc. During the course of
investigation, the documents seized by the Karnataka
Lokayukta that were used for transporting illegal iron
ore to Belekeri Port were collected by the CBI. The
examination of the officials of DMG Anantapur and
Kadappa, Andhra Pradesh, revealed that they have not
issued anypermits for transporting iron ore from
Andhra Pradesh to karnataka during 2009-10. Shri
K.Shivashankar Reddy, mine owner of M/s.
K.Rajmohan Reddy Mines, Kadappa, have stated in
their recorded statements that only on two occasions
supply of about 850 Mts of iron ore in the name of
M/s. Shree Manjunatheswara Minerals, Hospet, was
shown. They have supplied the said quantity of iron
ore through Shri. N.Muralidhara Reddy, Mineral Agent,
working in the above referred mines. Shri N.
Muralidhara Reddy in his statement has revealed that
the above mentioned mine owners have only sold
DMG permits got issued from DMG Kadappa, without
actual supply of iron ore. It has further been revealed
that various Andhra permits seized by Lokayuktha
from Belekeri port were not issued by DMG Kadappa
and were forged ones. These forged Andhra permits
were deposited with Belekeri port at the time of
delivery of iron ore by claiming that the material was
brought from Andhra Pradesh. The removal of
Halkundi check post at Andhra-Karnataka border,
helped them to make the claim and to freely transport
the illegal iron ore to Belekeri port by using this
modus operandi.
17. Whereas, Shri. S.Muthaiah and Shri Manoj
Kumar Shukla in collusion with Shri.G.Janardhana
Reddy and his associates, removed the Andhra-
karnataka border check post at Halkundi in October,
2008 to facilitate illegal transportation of iron ore
without permits. They have colluded with Shri
G.Janardhana Reddy and his associates, facilitated
illegal mining and transportation of iron ore in Bellary
district, enabled Sri.Janardhana Reddy and his
associates to construct an approach road to Dalmia
Mines through the leasehold areas of M/s.Veeyam
Mines and to do large scale illegal mining in the
Dalmia Mines in 2009-10. They have allowed Sri
Janardhana Reddy and his Associates, illegal mining,
store illegally extracted iron ore in Lakshminarayana
Mines, P.K.Halli plot; SBM plot; P.K.Halli; MSPL
Stockyard, Ingalagi, Veeyam Plot, Ingalagi, Karapudi
Plot, Kariganur; Swastik Plot, Bellary road, V.Nagappa
Stockyard, Kallahalli, SVK Mines and Plot,
Vyasanakere, SVK Plot, Danapur and other
plots/stockyards falling under the jurisdiction of
Bellary Forest Division. Both they have conceded to
the demands of Shri.G.Janardhana Reddy and his
cronies and harassed their rival mining owners,
favoured the mines controlled by Shri Janardhana
Reddy. They did not take action on the reports
submitted by their subordinate officials on the illegal
mining activity in the forest areas in Bellary District,
accepted illegal gratification and allowed illegal mining
and transportation. Shri Muthaiah and Shri Manoj
Kumar Shukla have aided Shri Janardhana Reddy in
usurping 40-60% of iron ore from other mine owners.
18. Whereas, Shri.S.Muthaiah facilitated illegal
mining and transportation of iron ore, pressurized
other mine owners, and also threatened them to
comply with the conditions put by Shri G.Janardhana
Reddy with regard to sharing the iron ore excavated
from their mines.
19. Whereas, the aforesaid acts of
Shri.S.Muthaiah, the then Deputy Conservator of
Forests, Bellary and others, constitute offences
punishable under section 120-B r/w 409, 420, 434,
447, 468, 471 of IPC and Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d)
of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
20. And whereas, the President of India, being
the authority, competent to remove Shri.S.Muthaiah,
IFS, KN:95, the then Deputy Conservator of Forests,
Bellary Division, Karnataka, after fully and carefully
examining the materials/records placed before him
and taking into account the available evidence,
including FIR, copies of statements of witnesses
recorded u/s 161 of Cr.P.C 1973, documents collected
in the course of investigation by the Central Bureau of
Investigation in RC-15(A)/2012/CBI/ACB/BLR, in
respect of the said allegations, is satisfied that
Shri.S.Muthaiah, IFS, KN:95, the then Deputy
Conservator of Forests, Bellary Division, Karnataka,
should be prosecuted for the said offences and any
other offences made out from the facts mentioned
above.
21. Now, therefore, the President of India thus
hereby accord sanction as required under Section 197
Cr.P.C. and 19(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 (Act No.49 of 1988) for the prosecution of
Shri S. Muthaiah, IFS, KN:95, the then Deputy
Conservator of Forests, Bellary, for the offences
punishable under section 120-B r/w 409, 420, 434,
447, 468, 471 of IPC and sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d)
of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and other
offences made out from the above mentioned facts
and punishable under the provisions of any law in
respect of aforesaid acts for taking cognizance of the
said offences by a court of competent jurisdiction."
EX.P-69(f) - ORDER OF SANCTION BY STATE GOVERNMENT IN
REGARD TO KARNATAKA FOREST ACT
"6. That Shri S.Muthaiah, the then Deputy
Conservator of Forests, Bellary and Shri Manoj Kumar
Shukla, the then Conservator of Forests, Bellary, in
collusion with Shri G.Janardhana Reddy, the then
Bellary District-in-charge Minister and his associates
removed the Andhra-Karnataka border forest check
post existed at Halkundi in October 2018 (15/10/2008)
to facilitate the illegal transportation of iron ore without
valid permits by three firms of Gali Janardhana Reddy
and his men."
17. That, Shri S. Muthaiah and Shri Manoj Kumar
Shukla in collusion with Shri G.Janardhana Reddy and
his associates removed the Andhra Karnataka Border
Forest Check Post existing at Halkundi in October
2008 to facilitate illegal transportation of iron ore
without permits. They colluded with Shri G.Janardhana
Reddy and his associates and facilitated illegal mining
and transportation of iron ore in Bellary District. They
enabled Shri G.Janardhana Reddy and his associates
to construct an approach road to Dalmia Mines
through the lease hold area of M/s Veeyam Mines and
to do large scale illegal mining in the Dalmia Mines
during 2009-10. They allowed Shri G.Janardhana
Reddy and allowed his associates to do illegal mining
G.O.No. DPAR 117 SFP 2013(1), Bangalore dated 09/10/2013
and store illegally extracted iron ore in
Lakshminarayana mines. P.K.Halli plot, SBM Plot, P.K.
Halli, MSPL Stockyard Indalgi Veeyam Plot, Ingalgi,
Karapudi plot, Kariganur, Swastik Plot, Bellary Road,
V.Nagappa Stock yard, Kallahalli, SVK Mines and plot,
Vyasanakere, SVK Plot, Danapur and other plots/stock
yards falling under the jurisdiction of Bellary Forest
Division. They conceded to the demands of Shri
G.Janardhana Reddy and his cronies and harassed
their rival mine owners and favoured the mines
controlled by Shri G.Janardhana Reddy. They did not
take action on the reports submitted by his
subordinate officials regarding illegal mining activity in
the forest areas in Bellary District. They accepted
illegal gratification and allowed illegal/mining and
transportation. They aided Shri G.Janardhana Reddy
in usurping 40-60% of iron ore from other mine
owners.
18. That, Shri S. Muthaiah, to facilitate illegal mining
and transportation of iron ore was pressurizing other
mine owners. He was also threatening them to comply
with the conditions put by Shri Gali Janardhana Reddy
in respect of sharing of iron ore excavated from their
mines.
19. Whereas, the aforesaid acts of Shri S.Muthaiah, the
then Deputy Conservator of Forests, Bellary and others
constitute offences punishable under section 120-B r/w
409, 420, 434, 447, 468, 471 of IPC and Sections 13(2)
r/w 13(1)(c) & (d) of PC Act, 1988.
20. And whereas, the Government of Karnataka after
due and careful examination of the materials such as
copy of FIR, copies of statement of witnesses recorded
u/s sec. 161 Cr.PC 1973, documents collected during
the course of investigation by the CBI in RC-15
(A)/2012/CBI/ACB/Bangalore which were placed before
it in regard to the said allegations, consider that a
prima-facie case has been made out against the said
Sri.S.Muthaiah the then Deputy Conservator of Forests,
Bellary presently under suspension that he should be
prosecuted for the above said offences.
21. Now, therefore, the Government of Karnataka do
hereby accord sanction under section 114-A of the
Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 for the prosecution of Shri
S. Muthaiah, the then Deputy Conservator of Forests,
Bellary, in a court of law for the aforesaid offences and
for taking cognizance of the said offences by the court
of competent jurisdiction."
EX.P69(h) - SANCTION BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT AS
REGARDS OFFENCES UNDER IPC
"Whereas, the Central Bureau of
Investigation, Anti Corruption Branch, Bangalore has
investigated in detail into the above said allegations
G.O. No.DPAR 117 SFP 2013, Bangalore dated 7.8.13
in RC.15(A)/2012/CBI/ACB/BLR. The CBI has
examined the witnesses and Government officials
and scanned documents in connection with the
above said allegations during the course of
investigation.
Whereas, the investigation by the CBI-ACB
Bangalore, has brought forth enough evidence
against Sri.S.Muthaiah, IFS(KN-1995) former DCF,
Bellary district, Bellary with regard to the allegations
made against him, listed as below:
a) Sri.S.Muthaiah, IFS the then DCF, Bellary in
collusion with others abused his official position and
with deliberate intention to extend undue favour to
M/s.Obalapuram Mining Company and omitted to
collect the exchange fee.
b) Removed Andhra Karnataka border check-post at
Halkundi to facilitate illegal transportation of iron ore
without valid permits by 3 firms of Gali Janardhana
Reddy and his men. Transferred staff deployed at
Halkundi Check-post without replacement. Thus the
checking of vehicles carrying illegal iron ore and
issuance of form No.29 and collection of forest tax
were stopped with dishonest 64 intention to facilitate
Sri.G.Janardhana Reddy and his associates in the
transportation of illegal iron ore through the check-
post and caused wrongful loss to Government of
Karnataka by evading collection of the tax at the said
check-post.
c) By abusing his official position he helped M/s.
OMC Company owned by G.Janardhana Reddy to
transport their illegal iron ore freely without any
permits or any checking. Withdrew the services of
forest guards and foresters deployed at Halkundi
Check Post and transferred them to their respective
parent places.
Whereas, the said acts of Sri. S.Muthaiah, IFS
constitute offences punishable under sections 120-B
r/w 409, 420, 434, 447, 468, 471 of Indian Penal
Code 1860 and u/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) & (d) of PC
Act 1988.
Whereas, the Government of Karnataka after
due and careful examination of the materials such as
copy of the FIR, statements of witnesses and the
accused and related documents etc., collected during
the course of investigation by the CBI-ACB in RC-
15(A)/2012/CBI/ACB BLR and also the defence
statement of Sri.S.Muthaiah, IFS, which were placed
before it in regard to the said allegations and
circumstances of the case and on subjective 65
examination of the materials and having prima-facie,
objectively satisfied and considered that it is a fit
case to accord sanction to prosecute Sri.S.Muthaiah,
in a Court of Law for the above said offences.
Now, therefore, the Government of Karnataka
by the powers vested with it under section 197(1) of
Cr.P.C 1973 hereby accords sanction to the CBI for
the prosecution of Sri S.Muthaiah, IFS (KN-1995),
former Deputy Conservator of Forests, Bellary, for
the aforesaid offences punishable under Sections
120-B r/w 409, 420, 434, 447, 468, 471 of the
Indian Penal Code 1860."
67. Insofar as the contention that insufficient
materials having been placed before the Authority as
noticed above, communication has been addressed by the
CBI to the State Government producing the CBI Report and
the summary of the materials sent is forthcoming on bare
perusal of the Index which is as follows:
Sl. Description
No.
1 CBI Report
2 Memo of Evidence - oral
3 Memo of Evidence - documentary
4 List of Witnesses
5 List of Documents
6 Accused statements
(i) Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla
(ii) Sri S.Muthaiah
7 Photocopies of relevant statement of
witnesses.
8 Photocopies of relevant documents.
68. It is noticed that the said report is exhaustive
and contains all materials. In fact, the note sheet of the file
marked as Ex.P69 recites that the CBI has not only sent the
final report dated 24.05.2013 in RC.15A/2012-
CBI/ACB/BLR against the petitioner but have also sent
"along with the report CBI has forwarded 10 bundles of
connected records which are kept in safe custody in the
section".
69. Further, when the State Government has
forwarded the sanction orders to the Central Government,
all material that was before it has been sent which includes
the volume of 10 boxes of papers as is evident from the
letter dated 14.08.2013. The description of 10 boxes is as
follows:-
Sl.No. of Details of contents
the box
1. Statement of witnesses
Witness 1 to 190
Volume 1 to 10
D1 to D45
2. D46 to D70
Volume 11 to 20
3. D70 to D90
Volume 21 to 30
4. D91 to D129
Volume 31 to 40
5. D130 to D135
Volume 41 to 50
6. D135 to D138
Volume 51 to 60
7. D138 to D139 - V-9
Volume 61 to 70
8. D139 to D139 - V-19
Volume 71 to 80
9. D139 to D140
Volume 81 to 90
10. D141 to D156
Volume 91 to 101
70. The contention that certain materials were not
placed before the Authority is liable to be rejected, as the
Authority in the orders of sanction passed in the orders
impugned herein records that there has been a perusal of
materials including FIR, copies of statement of witnesses
recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., documents collected
in the course of investigation by CBI in R.C.15A/2012-
CBI/ACB/BLR, and the order specifically states that all
documents collected in the course of investigation by the
CBI have been looked into.
71. The reference to ten boxes of documents
forwarded by CBI can be construed as containing the
entirety of investigation documents including Section 164
Cr.P.C. statement. The CBI report which makes a summary
of the material before it, has also referred to the Section
164 statement at Sl.No.189 and recorded a summary of the
same. It could be inferred that the said statements under
Section 164 Cr.P.C. is a part of the materials contained in
the boxes sent by CBI.
72. The officers have not only led evidence relating
to the sanction orders passed but have also led evidence to
supplement the sanction order listing the material placed
before the sanctioning Authority and if sanction order is
read with such evidence the same would fall within the
guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in C.S.
Krishnamurthy (supra).
73. Even though there may be some discrepancies in
the oral evidence of Sri.Ravishankar Prasad and Dr.Bagadi
Gautam regarding the materials placed before the
sanctioning Authority, that by itself cannot outweigh
evidence on sanction order and materials produced before
the sanctioning Authority as would come out from Ex.D4
and Ex.P69. The oral evidence of witness cannot take away
the effect of the note sheet which recites placing of
materials of ten boxes before the Authority. A similar
contention was rejected by the Apex Court in C.S.
Krishnamurthy (supra) after referring to the observations
of the Apex Court in Balaram Swain v. State of Orissa15
[Balaram Swain]. The relevant observations in para-10 in
C.S. Krishnamurthy are extracted hereinbelow:-
"10.In the case of Balaram Swain v. State of
Orissa [1991 Supp (1) SCC 510 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 707]
the High Court reversed the finding of the trial court that
the sanctioning authority has not applied his mind on the
materials placed before him. It was observed in para 9
that the sanctioning authority, namely, PW 4 has stated
on oath that he perused the consolidated report of the
vigilance and fully applied his mind and thereafter issued
the sanction. The admission of PW 7 in that case that the
entire record was not looked into, was held to be not
fatal to the sanction. The finding of the High Court was
affirmed by the Apex Court. Likewise, PW 40 i.e. the
sanctioning authority in the present case, has gone
through the report of the Superintendent of Police and
after discussing the matter with the Legal Department
has accorded sanction. That is enough to show that there
is due application of mind in the present case."
1991 Supp (1) SCC 510
74. It must be noted that the learned Special Judge
was merely exercising power of judicial review and once the
sanction order recites that there is perusal of material and
evidence is led by the officers concerned which reveals that
all materials collected during investigation has been placed
before the sanctioning Authority, nothing further remains.
The learned Special Judge nor this Court sit as a court of
Appeal. In the absence of any mala fides established, it can
be construed by invoking the presumption under Section
114 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 that the acts are done as
required, which presumption has not been rebutted. The
oral evidence including statements made in cross-
examination at the most only brings out that the witness
does not recollect details of the specific materials perused.
Such leeway ought to be granted as regards oral testimony
of officials when there is an intervening time gap between
the order granting sanction in the year 2013 and the
evidence being led in the year 2019.
75. Insofar as the contention that there has been no
application of mind by the Authority granting sanction as
draft sanction order was sent by the Investigating Authority
to the State Government and the State Government while
forwarding the file to the Central Government had also
forwarded a draft sanction order which draft sanction orders
are almost identical to the sanction orders passed by the
State Government and the Central Government has been
rightly rejected by the learned Special Judge as noticed
above.
76. It must be noted that in terms of the CBI Manual
the draft sanction order is required to be sent to the
sanctioning Authority. The relevant extract of Vigilance
Manual, 2021 by the Central Vigilance Commission reads as
follows:
"6.6.2 Cases where prosecution recommended:
...The report, which may be accompanied by
the draft sanction order, should give the rank and
designation of the authority competent to dismiss
the delinquent officer from service and the law or
rules under which that authority is competent to do
so."
It is in accordance with such practice that the draft
sanction orders are sent by the Investigating Authority. The
identity of the draft sanction order and the final order of
sanction cannot by itself lead to a conclusive finding that
the sanctioning Authority has acted without application of
mind. The practice of sending draft sanction order is in fact
mandated by the Vigilance Manual and much need not be
read into such sending of draft sanction order nor can it be
construed such action reflects an intention to dictate to the
sanctioning Authority by the Investigation Authority.
77. Similarly, the use of the word "C£ÀĪÉÆâ¹zÉ"
("approved") by the Chief Minister and the Minister of Forest
and Environment, Government of India, cannot by itself be
reflective of non-application of mind. The practice of
Constitutional/Senior Government functionaries of
approving the notes put up by the administrative hierarchy
cannot be faulted. The assent to the note by the word
approved cannot be assailed as reflecting non-application of
mind. The note-sheet at Exhibit-P69 and Exhibit-D4 is
typical of notes by administrative Authorities which are so
full of details as in the present case that a perusal of the
same would give a complete picture of the relevant facts
and makes the tasks of the decision making functionary a
simple exercise and the word "approved" must be read in
conjunction with the content of the note which has led the
Authority to a particular conclusion. Mere existence of such
notes which are a guide to the Authority will not necessarily
result in conferring no discretion to the Authority, which is
free to take any decision on such note. It is only when such
note leads to a conclusion which differs with the decision
making Authority that reasons maybe required to be spelt
out. If however the decision making Authority accepts the
leads as provided in the note sheet, the expression of
consent to such lead by the word "approved" would be
sufficient and there is no warrant for any further
explanation or reasoning required from the authority.
Accordingly, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the
well considered order of the learned Special Judge.
78. It must also be noted that the Apex Court16
having held that the accused has no right to participate in
the decision making process of the sanctioning Authority as
it has been held to be an administrative decision, subjecting
the order granting sanction to scrutiny more than what the
learned Special Judge has subjected it to, is not warranted.
B.2. W.P.No.19176/2021 (Spl.CC.6/2014)
79. The petitioner in this Writ Petition has sought for
issuance of writ of certiorari to quash order passed on
05.05.2020 at Annexure-'N' whereby orders on validity of
sanction have been passed by the learned Special Judge
upholding the orders at Exhibits-P157 to P162 issued by the
State Government and Central Government according
sanction to prosecute Accused Nos.11 and 13.
80. The evidence has been let in by Dr.Bagadi
Gautham as PW-43 on behalf of the State Government and
Sri Ravishankar Prasad PW-44 who has led in evidence on
Superintendent of Police (C.B.I.) v. Deepak Chowdhary and Others - (1995) 6 SCC 225
behalf of the Central Government. On behalf of
Prosecution, Exhibits-P.1 to P.162 have been marked.
81. The order of the learned Special Judge narrates
that PW.43 has stated that the relevant documents have
been sent by the Office of the CBI which includes copies of
FIR, copies of statements recorded during investigation and
five boxes of documents, all of which had been sent to the
Office of the Chief Secretary along with the report.
82. The file of the Government of Karnataka is
marked as Exhibit-D16 and contains a note sheet which has
the summary of the allegations made in the FIR as against
accused Sri S.Muthaiah, the petitioner herein.
83. The C.B.I. Report in R.C.14A/2012 contains a
summary of details relating to the accused; background of
the case; allegations in FIR; result of investigation which
contains the details relating to export proceeds, purchases
made by M/s.ILC Industries Ltd., list of suppliers against
whom investigation is completed, details of transportation
made to Belekeri Port; the role of accused No.11; regarding
explanation of the accused; summing up of evidence,
conclusion and final recommendation.
84. The details of case records submitted by CBI,
Anti Corruption Branch, Bengaluru in R.C.14A/2012/CBI/
ACB/BLR is as follows:-
Sl.No. of the Details of contents
box
1 List of witnesses
Witnesses 1 to 104 & 105 to 150
+
D-1 to D-138 (Vol-3)
(23 Volumes)
2 D-139 (Vol-1) to D-198
(21 Volumes)
3 D-199 to D-841
(19 Volumes)
4 D-842 to D-1393
(18 Volumes)
5 D-1394 to D-1663
(16 Volumes)
85. The contents of five boxes forwarded by CBI of
documents are as follows:-
Box No.1 - R.C.14A/2012-CBI/ACB/BLR
Details of case records - from 01 to 138 (Vol.3)-23 volumes
and list of witnesses:-
List of documents Serial Number
Volume - 1 D-01 - D-06
Volume - 2 D-07 - D-08
Volume - 3 D-09(1) - D-09 (3)
Volume - 4 D-09(4) - D-09(4)
Volume - 5 D-09(5) - D-09(5)
Volume - 6 D-09(6) - D-09(6)
Volume - 7 D-10 - D-14
Volume - 8 D-15 - D-79
Volume - 9 D-80 - D-83
Volume - 10 D-84 - D-88
Volume - 11 D-89 - D-92
Volume - 12 D-93 - D-100
Volume - 13 D-101 - D-114
Volume - 14 D-115 - D-123
Volume - 15 D-124 - D-135
Volume - 16 D-136- D-136
Volume - 17 D-137 - D-137
Volume - 18 D-137-(Vol-1)
Volume - 19 D-137-(Vol-2)
Volume - 20 D-137-(Vol-3)
Volume - 21 D-138-(Vol-1)
Volume - 22 D-138-(Vol-2)
Volume - 23 D-138-(Vol-3)
Box No.2 - R.C.14A/2012-CBI/ACB/BLR
Details of case records - from 139 (Vol.1) to 198 - 21
volumes:-
List of documents Serial Number
Volume - 1 D-139-(Vol-1)
Volume - 2 D-139-(Vol-2)
Volume - 3 D-139-(Vol-3)
Volume - 4 D-139-(Vol-4)
Volume - 5 D-139-(Vol-5)
Volume - 6 D-140-D-150
Volume - 7 D-151 - D-159
Volume - 8 D-160 - D-162
Volume - 9 D-163 - D-164
Volume - 10 D-165 - D-166
Volume - 11 D-167 - D-168
Volume - 12 D-169 - D-170
Volume - 13 D-171 - ---
Volume - 14 D-172 - ---
Volume - 15 D-173 - D-174
Volume - 16 D-175- D-184
Volume - 17 D-185 - (Vol-1)
Volume - 18 D-185 - (Vol-2)
Volume - 19 D-186 - ---
Volume - 20 D-187- ---
Volume - 21 D-188 - D-198
Box No.3 - R.C.14A/2012-CBI/ACB/BLR
Details of case records - from 199 to 841 - 19 Volumes:-
List of documents Serial Number
Volume - 1 D-199 - D-200
Volume - 2 D-201 - D-206
Volume - 3 D-207 - D-215
Volume - 4 D-216 - D-222
Volume - 5 D-223 - D-231
Volume - 6 D-232 - D-235
Volume - 7 D-236 - D-245
Volume - 8 D-246 - D-254
Volume - 9 D-255 - D-261
Volume - 10 D-262 - ---
Volume - 11 D-263 - D-268
Volume - 12 D-269 - D-290
Volume - 13 D-291 - D-423
Volume - 14 D-424 - D-706
Volume - 15 D-707 - D-813
Volume - 16 D-814 - D-832
Volume - 17 D-833 - D-837
Volume - 18 D-838 - D-839
Volume - 19 D-840 - D-841
Box No.4 - R.C.14A/2012-CBI/ACB/BLR
Details of case records - from 842 to 1393 - 18 Volumes:-
List of documents Serial Number
Volume - 1 D-842 - D-845
Volume - 2 D-846 - D-848
Volume - 3 D-849 - ---
Volume - 4 D-850 - D-851
Volume - 5 D-852 - D-853
Volume - 6 D-854 - D-854 (Vol.1)
Volume - 7 D-854 - D-854 (Vol.2)
Volume - 8 D-855 - D-856
Volume - 9 D-857 - D-862
Volume - 10 D-863 - D-873
Volume - 11 D-874 - D-877
Volume - 12 D-878 - D-879
Volume - 13 D-880 - D-885
Volume - 14 D-886 - D-897
Volume - 15 D-898 - D-1253
Volume - 16 D-1254 - D-1327
Volume - 17 D-1328 - ---
Volume - 18 D-1329 - D-1393
Box No.5 - R.C.14A/2012-CBI/ACB/BLR
Details of case records - from 1394 to 1663 - 16 Volumes:-
List of documents Serial Number
Volume - 1 D-1394 - D-1397
Volume - 2 D-1398 - D-1414
Volume - 3 D-1415 - D-1432
Volume - 4 D-1433 - D-1437
Volume - 5 D-1438 - D-1439
Volume - 6 D-1440 - D-1441
Volume - 7 D-1442 - D-1443
Volume - 8 D-1444 - D-1445
Volume - 9 D-1446 - D-1447
Volume - 10 D-1448 - D-1500
Volume - 11 D-1501 - D-1501 (30)
Volume - 12 D-1501 (31)- D-1501 (38)
Volume - 13 D-1501 (39)- D-1501 (42)
Volume - 14 D-1501 (43)- D-1501 (45)
Volume - 15 D-1501 (46)- D-1501
Volume - 16 D-1511 - D-1663
86. Upon consideration of all these materials, the
Chief Minister has granted approval for sanction for
prosecution both under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. as also as
regards the offences under the Karnataka Forest Act, 1962
under Section 114A. PW.43, Dr.Bagadi Gautam, who was
working as Deputy Secretary, DPAR Services at the relevant
period of time has deposed that the CBI office had sent
copies of the FIR along with copies of statements recorded
during investigation and five boxes of documents to the
Office of Chief Secretary along with report seeking sanction.
It is deposed that according to the procedure, the file was
sent to the Department of Personnel and Administrative
Reforms and PW.43 went through the entire files/reports
and two sets of recommendation were sent to the Chief
Minister to accord sanction to prosecute accused No.11
(petitioner herein) and that the Chief Minister had approved
the recommendation both as regards IPC offences and also
as regards offences under the Karnataka Forest Act.
87. It is also deposed that the proposal was sent to
the Government of India, Ministry of Environment and
Forests for according sanction to prosecute the petitioner for
offences under the provisions of P.C. Act. It is specifically
asserted that he personally went through all the records. It
is reiterated that the Investigating Officer had sent the
report along with five boxes of report and that all of such
documents were also sent to the Chief Minister. Though
there are certain stray admissions in response to
suggestions, however, the same will not have the effect of
watering down the procedure as followed, as reflected in the
note sheet of the Government which is marked as an
Exhibit.
88. Once the State Government had approved and
accorded sanction, the proposal was forwarded to the
Ministry of Environment and Forests, Vigilance Department
in terms of the note sheet (Exhibit-D7) containing the
proceedings of Central Government, the details of
documents forwarded are as follows:-
"2. Government of Karnataka has forwarded the
following documents along with the proposal:-
(a) Investigation report (as submitted by CBI) and
it includes version of the accused officers and
comments of the Investigation Officer to rebut the
contentions and the accused statements;
(b) Case records - 5 boxes containing copy of case
records;
(c) Draft sanction orders under P.C. Act pertaining
to both Sri S.Muthaiah and Sri Manoj Kumar
Shukla;
(d) Opinion of State Law Department;
(e) Copies of prosecution, sanction orders issued
by the State Government under Karnataka Forest
Act and Cr.P.C. in respect of (a) Sri S.Muthaiah (i)
G.O.No.DPAR/32/SFP/2014(1), dated 22.02.2014
and (b) Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla - (i)
G.O.No.DPAR/32/SFP/2014(3), dated 22.02.2014
and (ii) G.O.No.DPAR/32/SFP/2014(4), dated
22.02.2014."
89. Clearly, the entire investigation report as
submitted by the CBI including the case records contained
in about five boxes had been sent by the State Government
to the Ministry of Environment and Forests. The note sheet
contains the background of the case; crux of the
allegations; details of accused persons; details regarding
facilitation provided for the transportation of Iron Ore
without permits and on fake Andhra Pradesh permits; role
of accused-petitioner; explanation and defence of the
accused; rebuttal to the explanation of the petitioner;
summary of evidence of witnesses. It comes out from the
note-sheet that the case was referred to CVC and such
reference was approved by the Minister and with the
recommendation of the Joint Secretary, the matter was
placed for approval of the Minister and finally the approval
was recorded.
90. The evidence is clear regarding the material
being placed before the Competent Authority. The witnesses
have withstood cross-examination, note sheet of the State
Government at Ex.D16 and that of the Central Government
at Ex.D7 clearly lists out records including CBI report with
documents is contained in five boxes being placed before
the Authority while granting sanction by the Government of
Karnataka and the said documents also being sent to the
Central Government is borne out from the note sheet.
91. The CBI report by itself is voluminous and the
narration made above in the note sheet contain all
necessary details and accordingly approval by use of the
word "C£ÀĪÉÆâ¹zÉ" ('approved') is sufficient in terms of the
discussion supra at para 77.
92. Even in Ex.D7, the note sheet is voluminous and
contains all necessary information, perusal of which would
guide the competent authority to come to a correct
conclusion.
93. The learned Special Judge also by a detailed
order has arrived at a well considered decision that requires
no interference.
94. The sanction orders are by themselves reflective
of application of mind and are eloquent. The learned Special
Judge noted the relevant extracts of the sanction orders
which are reproduced as below:
EX.P158 (ANNEXURE-E) - SANCTION ORDER BY CENTRAL
GOVERNMENT17
"18. Whereas, both Shri S. Muthaiah and Shri M. K.
Shukla did not initiate action against the illegal mining
activities carried out by Shri G. Janardhan Reddy and
his companions either at the surrendered area of LMC
mines or at the mining lease area of M/s. Ramgad
Minerals and Mining Pvt. Ltd (Dalmia Mines) which
also belonged to the State Government as statutory
clearances were yet to be given for handing over the
lease area(Dalmia Mines) to M/s Ramgad Minerals and
Mining Pvt. Ltd., despite receipt of several complaints
from M/s Ramgad Minerals and Mining Pvt. Ltd.,
Equally, they have not taken any action on the illegal
encroachment or illegal mining carried out at the lease
area of M/s MSPL at Vyasankere, i.e., in ML No.2416
by the lessees M/s SB Minerals, Vyasankere(ML No.
2515) and M/s VINAG(ML No.2553).
19. Whereas, the investigation revealed that by the
above acts Shri Muthaiah, in collusion with others
have committed the offences punishable under
sections 120-B r/w 409, 420, 379, 434, 447, 467,
468, 471 of IPC; u/s 13(2) r/w 13(1) (c) & 13(1)(d) of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
No.15011/02/2014-AVU dated 20.10.2014
20. And Whereas, the President of India, the
competent authority to remove the said Sri S.Muthaiah,
IFS, KN:95 the then Deputy Conservator of Forest,
Bellary Division, Karnataka State and presently under
suspension, after duly and carefully examining all the
materials, such as copy of the FIR, copies of the
statements of witnesses and documents etc., collected
during the course of investigation by the investigating
agency-Central Bureau of Investigation(CBI) in
RC.14(A)/2012/CBI/ACB/Bangalore, is satisfied that
prima facie, a case is made out against Shri S.
Muthaiah, IFS, KN:95 the then Deputy Conservator of
Forest, Bellary Division, Karnataka State, presently
under suspension.
21. Now, therefore, the President of India does
hereby accord sanction as required under section 197
Cr. P.C. and 19(1)(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 for the prosecution of Shri S.Muthaiah, IFS,
KN:95 the then Deputy Conservator of Forest, Bellary
Division, Karnataka State, presently under suspension
for the offences punishable under Sec.120-B r/w 409,
420, 379, 434, 447, 467, 468, 471 of IPC U/s.13(2)
r/w 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 and other offences made out from the
above mentioned facts and punishable under the
provisions of any law in respect of aforesaid acts for
taking cognizance of the said offences by a court of
competent jurisdiction."
EX.P.160 - ORDER OF SANCTION BY STATE GOVERNMENT AS
REGARDS OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 197 OF CR.P.C.
"15) Further both Sri. S. Muthaiah and Sri
Manoj Kumar Shukla did not initiate action against
the illegal mining activities carried out by Sri. G
Janardhana Reddy and his associates either at the
surrendered area of LMC mines or at the mining
lease area of M/s Ramgad Minerals and Mining Pvt..
Ltd., (Dalmia Mines) which also belonged to the
State Government as statutory clearances were yet
to be given for handing over the lease area (Dalmia
Mines) to M/s Ramgad Minerals and Mining Pvt., Ltd.,
despite receipt of several complaints from M/s
Ramgad Minerals and Mining Pvt., Ltd. Similarly,
they had not taken any action regarding the illegal
encroachment or illegal mining carried out at the
lease area of M/s MSPL at Vyasanakere i.e., in ML
No.2416 by the lessees M/s SB Minerals,
Vyasanakere (2515) and M/s VINAG (ML No.2553).
16) By the above acts Sri. S. Muthaiah, in collusion
with others have committed the offences punishable
under Sections 120-B, r/w 409, 420, 379, 434, 447,
467, 468, 471 of IPC; u/s 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (c) and
13 (1)(d) of PC Act 1988.
17) WHEREAS, the above said acts of Sri. S.
Muthaiah, the then Deputy Conservator of Forests,
G.O. No. DPAR 32 SFP 2014(2) Bangalore, dated 22.2.2014
Bellary District, Bellary, with others constitute the
commission of the above said offences.
18) AND, WHEREAS, the Chief Minister on behalf of
the Government of Karnataka, the competent
authority to accord sanction against the said Sri. S.
Muthaiah, the then Deputy Conservator of Forests,
Bellary District, Bellary and presently under
suspension, after fully and carefully examining all the
materials, such as copy of the FIR, copies of the
statements of witnesses, documents collected etc.,
during the course of investigation by the
Investigating Agency in RC.14(A)/2012/CBI/
ACB/Bangalore, which were placed before the Chief
Minister for his consideration in regard to the said
allegations, consider that a prima-facie case has
been made out against Sri. S. Muthaiah, the then
Deputy Conservator of Forests, Bellary District,
Bellary, presently under suspension and that he
should be prosecuted for the above said offences.
19) Now, therefore Government of Karnataka, do
hereby accord sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C.,
for the prosecution of Sri S.Muthaiah, IFS in a court
of law for the said offences and for taking cognizance
of the said offences by the Court of Competent
jurisdiction."
EX.P159 - ORDER OF SANCTION BY STATE GOVERNMENT AS
REGARDS OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 114A OF THE KARNATAKA
FOREST ACT19.-
"15) Further both Sri. S. Muthaiah and Sri
Manoj Kumar Shukla did not initiate action against
the illegal mining activities carried out by Sri
G.Janardhan Reddy and his associates either at the
surrendered area of LMC Mines or at the mining
lease area of M/s Ramgad Minerals and Mining Pvt.,
Ltd., (Dalmia Mines) which also belonged to the
State Government as statutory clearances were yet
to be given for handing over the lease area (Dalmia
Mines) to M/s Ramgad Minerals and Mining Pvt., Ltd.,
despite receipt of several complaints from M/s
Ramgad Minerals and Mining Pvt., Ltd., Similarly,
they had not taken any action regarding the illegal
encroachment or illegal mining carried out at the
lease area of M/s MSPL at Vyasanakere i.e., in ML
No.2416 by the lessees M/s SB Minerals,
Vyasanakere (2515) and M/s VINAG (ML No.2553).
16) By the above acts Sri. S. Muthaiah, in
collusion with others have committed the offences
punishable under Sections 120-B, r/w 409, 420, 379,
434, 447, 467, 468, 471 of IPC; u/s 13 (2) r/w 13
(1)(c) and 13 (1)(d) of PC Act 1988.
17) WHEREAS, the above said acts of Sri.
S.Muthaiah, the then Deputy Conservator of Forests,
G.O. No.DPAR 32 SFP 2014 (1) Bangalore, dated 22.02.2014
Bellary District, Bellary, with others constitute the
commission of the above said offences.
18) AND, WHEREAS, the Chief Minister on
behalf of the Government of Karnataka, the
competent authority to accord sanction against the
said Sri. S. Muthaiah, the then Deputy Conservator
of Forests, Bellary District, Bellary and presently
under suspension, after fully and carefully examining
all the materials, such as copy of the FIR, copies of
the statements of witnesses, documents collected
`etc., during the course of investigation by the
Investigating Agency in RC.14(A)/2012/CBI
/ACB/Bangalore, which were placed before the Chief
Minister for his consideration in regard to the said
allegations, consider that a prima-facie case has
been made out against Sri. S. Muthaiah, the then
Deputy Conservator of Forests, Bellary District,
Bellary, presently under suspension and that he
should be prosecuted for the above said offences.
19) Now, therefore Government of Karnataka,
do hereby accord sanction under Section 114-A of
karnataka Forest Act, 1963 for the prosecution of Sri
S.Muthaiah, IFS in a Court of law for the said
offences and for taking cognizance of the said
offences by the court of competent jurisdiction."
95. Clearly, the sanction order speaks for itself and
the learned Special Judge nor this Court are sitting in
appeal and in the absence of any allegation of mala fides,
no grounds are made out for interference in the orders of
Sanction as upheld by the learned Special Judge. Further,
the conclusion arrived supra at para 64 would also reveal
narrow scope for interference.
96. It is also necessary to note that the reasoning of
the learned Special Judge is identical substantively to the
reasoning in the order passed in Spl.CC.No.135/2013 and
accordingly, the discussion on the legal aspect regarding
scope of interference is to be treated as a part of reasoning
leading to non-interference with the order of the Special
Judge insofar as Spl.CC.No.6/2014.
B.3. W.P.No.19178/2021 (Spl.CC.No.21/2014)
97. The petitioner/accused No.2 has sought for
setting aside of the order dated 05.05.2020 which is the
order passed on validity of sanction, whereby the learned
Special Judge has upheld the sanction for prosecution
issued by the State Government and Central Government.
98. The facts are identical as narrated and the order
dealt with in the other Writ Petitions, the only difference is
of being involvement of Exporter M/s.Dream Logistics Co.
(India) Pvt. Ltd., who is alleged to have exported 9.16 lakh
Metric Tons of Iron Ore through Belekeri Port between
01.01.2009 and 31.05.2010. It is alleged that there was
illegal mining in the forest area of Bellary without valid
permits from the Department of Mines and Geology and
Department of Forests and also without payment of royalty
under Forest Development Acts. All these activities, it is
alleged has been made in connivance and conspiracy with
accused No.2 and other Government officials of other
Departments, resulting in wrongful loss to Government of
Karnataka and accordingly, FIR was registered for the
offences punishable under 120-B read with Section 420,
379, 411, 447 of IPC, Section 13(2) read with Section
13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, 1988, Section 21 read with 4(1),
4(1)(A) and Section 23 of MMDR and Section 24 of
Karnataka Forest Act, 1963.
99. Insofar as sanction of prosecution for offences
under the Karnataka Forest Act, P.C. Act and IPC, the Head
of Branch C.B.I. and A.C.B. had sought for sanction for
prosecution against the petitioner and Sri Manoj Kumar
Shukla. The C.B.I. having registered a criminal case in
R.C.13(A)/2012 on 13.09.2012 against M/s.Dream Logistics
Co., requisition for sanction to Authorities was made. The
note sheet with orders of sanction and other documents
insofar as are relevant to the proceedings before the State
Government has been marked as Ex.D.10. The note sheet
contains synopsis of allegations as regards the petitioner
(accused No.2) and also the allegations against Sri Manoj
Kumar Shukla (accused No.10). The said Exhibit contains
an index of the material that has been sent by the CBI,
ACB, Bengaluru, which includes the statement of witnesses
Nos.1 to 186 and other documents detailed as
hereinbelow:-
Details of case records submitted by CBI, ACB,
Bengaluru in R.C.13(A)/2012/CBI/ACB/BLR.
Sl.No. of Details of contents
the box
1. Statement of witnesses
Witness 1 to 186
D-1 to D-180
(23 Volumes)
2. D-181 to D-427
(26 Volumes)
3. D-428 to D-713
(20 Volumes)
4. D-714 to D-1180
(19 Volumes)
5. D-1181 to D-1230
(11 Volumes)
6. Letters
100. The contents of boxes of documents are as
follows:-
Box No.1 - R.C.13A/2012-CBI/ACB/BLR
Details of case records - from 01 to 180 - 23 volumes
and statement of witnesses 1 to 186:-
List of Serial Number
documents
Volume - 1 D-01(1) - D-20(169)
Volume - 2 D-21(1) - D-21(494)
Volume - 3 D-22 - D-87
Volume - 4 D-88 - D-11
Volume - 5 D-112- D-112 (486)
Volume - 6 D-113 - D-127
Volume - 7 D-128(1) - D-128(631)(Vol.1)
Volume - 8 D-128(614) - D-128(1115)(Vol.2)
Volume - 9 D-129 - D-131
Volume - 10 D-132 - D-134
Volume - 11 D-135 - D-137
Volume - 12 D-138 - D-146
Volume - 13 D-147 - D-156
Volume - 14 D-157 - D-170
Volume - 15 D-171(1) - D-171(631)(Vol.1)
Volume - 16 D-171(632) - D-171(1261)(Vol.2)
Volume - 17 D-172(1) - D-172(400)
Volume - 18 D-173(1) - D-173(475)
Volume - 19 D-173(476) - D-173(1035)
Volume - 20 D-174(1) - D-174(455)
Volume - 21 D-175(1) - D-175(348)
Volume - 22 D-176(1) - D-176(341)
Volume - 23 D-177(1) - D-180
Box No.2 - R.C.13A/2012
Details of case records - from 181 to 427 - 26
Volumes:-
List of documents Serial Number
Volume - 1 D-181 - D-182
Volume - 2 D-183 - D-187
Volume - 3 D-188 - D-195 (ii)
Volume - 4 D-196(i) - D-207 (ii)
Volume - 5 D-208 - D-213
Volume - 6 D-214 - D-219
Volume - 7 D-220 - D-244
Volume - 8 D-245 - D-253
Volume - 9 D-254 - D-261
Volume - 10 D-262 - D-271
Volume - 11 D-272 - D-278
Volume - 12 D-279 - D-284
Volume - 13 D-285 - D-294
Volume - 14 D-295 - D-298
Volume - 15 D-299 - D-310
Volume - 16 D-311 - D-343
Volume - 17 D-344 - D-347
Volume - 18 D-348 - D-351
Volume - 19 D-352 - D-355
Volume - 20 D-356 - D-359
Volume - 21 D-360 - D-363
Volume - 22 D-364 - D-367
Volume - 23 D-368 - D-372
Volume - 24 D-373 - D-377
Volume - 25 D-378 - D-385
Volume - 26 D-386 - D-427
Box No.3 - R.C.13A/2012
Details of case records - from 428 to 713 - 20 Volumes:-
List of documents Serial Number
Volume - 1 D-428 - D-465
Volume - 2 D-466 - D-469
Volume - 3 D-470(485) - D-470(727)
Volume - 4 D-471 - D-482
Volume - 5 D-483(1) - D-483(581)
Volume - 6 D-484(1) - D-484(829)
Volume - 7 D-485(1) - D-485(612)
Volume - 8 D-486 - D-500
Volume - 9 D-501 - D-516
Volume - 10 D-517 - ---
Volume - 11 D-518 - D-543
Volume - 12 D-544 - D-584
Volume - 13 D-585 - D-594
Volume - 14 D-595 - D-653
Volume - 15 D-654 - D-661
Volume - 16 D-662 - D-672
Volume - 17 D-673 - D-675
Volume - 18 D-676 - D-682
Volume - 19 D-683 - D-694
Volume - 20 D-695 - D-713
Box No.4 - R.C.13A/2012
Details of case records - from 714 to 1180 - 19 Volumes:-
List of documents Serial Number
Volume - 1 D-714 - D-718
Volume - 2 D-719 - D-724
Volume - 3 D-725 - D-733
Volume - 4 D-734 - D-735
Volume - 5 D-736 - D-746
Volume - 6 D-747 - D-753
Volume - 7 D-754 - D-784
Volume - 8 D-785 - D-864
Volume - 9 D-865 - D-913
Volume - 10 D-914 - D-1076
Volume - 11 D-1077- D-1107
Volume - 12 D-1108-1 - D-1115
Volume - 13 D-1116 - D-1122
Volume - 14 D-1123 - D-1135
Volume - 15 D-1136 - D-1155
Volume - 16 D-1156 - D-1170
Volume - 17 D-1171 - D-1171
Volume - 18 D-1172 - D-1175
Volume - 19 D-1176 - D-1180
Box No.5 - R.C.13A/2012
Details of case records - from 1181 to 1230 - 11 Volumes:-
List of documents Serial Number
Volume - 1 D-1181 - D-1186
Volume - 2 D-1187 - D-1201
Volume - 3 D-1202 - D-1211
Volume - 4 D-1212 - D-1215
Volume - 5 D-1216 - D-1218
Volume - 6 D-1219 - D-1222
Volume - 7 D-1233 - (Vol.1)
Volume - 8 D-1233 - (Vol.2)
Volume - 9 D-1224 - D-1226
Volume - 10 D-1227 - D-1227
Volume - 11 D-1228 - D-1230
101. The file was put up for orders and after having
obtained comments of the Deputy Secretary (Services), the
Chief Secretary, in terms of the note sheet, approval for
according sanction for prosecution to Sri Muthaiah has been
granted by the Chief Minister. The proceedings also notes
that in light of the approval granted, the Government
Orders have been passed as regards sanction for
prosecution for offences under the Karnataka Forest Act and
under Code of Criminal Procedure as regards the petitioner.
Subsequently, suitable proposal to the Government of
India, Ministry of Environment and Forests has been sent
with necessary documents. The note sheet would further
reveal that the opinion of the Law Department has been
obtained. The order dated 17.02.2014 of the State
Government according sanction under Section 197 of
Cr.P.C. for prosecution of the petitioner for the offences
under IPC has been marked through Dr.Bagadi Gautham
(PW-34) as Ex.P.143.
102. In terms of Ex.P.143/69(c), the details are
enumerated regarding the complaint against M/s.Dream
Logistics Co., R.C.13A/2012, the relevant facts relating to
the offences made out, details are also found as regards the
Competent Authority to accord sanction and formal order
granting sanction.
103. Similar order on the same date granting
sanction under Section 114A of the Karnataka Forest Act,
1963 for prosecution of the petitioner is marked as
Ex.P.142/D69(a).
104. Dr.Bagadi Gautham, Deputy Commissioner,
Chikkamagalur, who was the Deputy Secretary, DPAR
Services at the relevant period of time has been examined
as PW-34 and through him, has produced the relevant
proceedings, which are marked as Ex.D.10 and he has also
been subjected to cross-examination.
105. After the State Government had accorded
sanction for prosecution, the file was forwarded by the Chief
Secretary to Government, Government of Karnataka to the
Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of
Environment and Forests through letter dated 09.04.2014.
The details of records sent are as follows:-
"1) Investigation Report (as submitted by CBI) -
The report includes version of the accused
officer and comments of the Investigation
Officer to rebut their contentions (page no.1 to
255).
2) Case records - 5 boxes containing copy of case
records have been appended. (Pherist placed
at page 1-6).
3) Draft sanction orders under PC Act pertaining
to both Sri S.Muthaiah (P.1 -10) and Sri Manoj
Kumar Shukla, (P.11-20).
4) Opinion of State Law Department - (page no.
1-3).
5) Copy of prosecution sanction order issued by
the State Government under Karnataka Forest
Act and Cr.P.C. in respect of :-
(a) Sri S.Muthaiah,
(i)(G.O.No.DPAR/30/SFP/2014(1),
dated:17/02/2014).
(ii)(G.O.No.DPAR/30/SFP/2014(2),
dated:17/02/2014).
(b)Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla
(i)(G.O.No.DPAR/30/SFP/2014(3),
dated:17/02/2014).
(ii)(G.O.No.DPAR/30/SFP/2014(4),
dated:17/02/2014)."
106. The file containing the note sheet and relevant
documents referred to by the Ministry of Environment and
Forests has been marked as Ex.D5. The note sheet refers
to the documents furnished by Government of Karnataka,
background of the case, explanation of defence of petitioner
against whom prosecution has been sought, summing up of
evidence both for, and against the accused/suspected
persons, conclusion whether allegation is proved, details of
the statement submitted to the CBI by accused No.2
(petitioner herein), summary of statements of officials of
the Forest Department and final recommendation of CBI.
107. Initially, the matter was referred to the Vigilance
by the Central Government and note has been prepared
accordingly. This is the procedure followed in terms of the
Vigilance Manual of C.V.C. The file was then placed before
the Joint Secretary to Government of India and Chief
Vigilance Officer. Finally, the sanction orders have been
issued by the Competent Authority.
108. The said file contains the C.B.I. report consisting
of all details regarding the accused, allegations as per FIR,
result of investigation, modus operandi - procedure adopted
in the sale of Iron Ore, details of bank transactions,
Calendar of Evidence (documentary) in R.C.13A/2012/CBI/
ACB/BLR, the statement of S. Muthaiah dated 08.11.2013 is
also enclosed.
109. It is clear from the above narration that all the
necessary material documents have been placed before the
Authority competent to grant approval for sanction and a
detailed note sheet is prepared leading to the competent
Authority finally taking a decision. Such material is
sufficient for the Competent Authority in recording its
approval and proceeding to pass the order of sanction.
110. The Chief Minister has also by order merely
observed - "C£ÀĪÉÆâ¹zÉÉ" ("approved"), which however is to be
construed as being sufficient in light of the detailed note
sheet and the materials placed.
111. The learned Special Judge by a well reasoned
order identical in substantial aspects to the orders passed in
R.C.15A/2012 and R.C.14A/2012 has held in the affirmative
as regards validity of sanction orders. The learned Special
Judge has rightly observed that granting of sanction is an
Executive action and accordingly the scope of interference is
narrow, that the Court does not sit in appeal and that minor
contradictions in the oral evidence would not vitiate the
orders granting sanction.
112. The sanction orders are by themselves reflective
of application of mind and are eloquent. The learned Special
Judge noted the relevant extracts of the sanction orders
which are reproduced as below:-
Ex.P142 - ORDER OF SANCTION BY STATE GOVERNMENT AS REGARDS
OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 114A OF THE KARNATAKA FOREST ACT.20
"16) Whereas, Sri. S. Muthaiah and Sri. Manoj
Kumar Shukla in collusion with Sri. G. Janardhana
Reddy and his associates removed the Andhra-
Karnataka Border Forest Check-post existing at
G.O.NO. DPAR 30 SFP 2014(1), BANGALORE DATED:17/02/2014
Halkundi in October 2008 to facilitate illegal
transportation of iron ore without permits. They
colluded with Sri. G. Janardhana Reddy and his
associates and facilitated illegal mining and
transportation of iron ore in Bellary District. They
enabled Sri. G. Janardhana Reddy and his associates
to do large scale illegal mining in Dalmia Mines during
2009-10. They allowed Sri. G. Janardhana Reddy and
allowed his associates to do illegal mining and store
illegally extracted iron ore in Lakshminarayana mines,
P.K. Halli Plot; SBM Plot, P.K. Halli; MSPL Stockyard,
Ingalagi; Veeyam Plot, Ingalagi; Karapudi Plot,
Kariganur; Swastik Plot, Bellary Road; V. Nagappa
Stock Yard, Kallahalli; SVK Mines and Plot,
Vyasanakere; SVK Plot, Danapur; SVK Plot,
Jaisinghpur and other plots/stockyards falling under
the jurisdiction of Bellary Forest Division. They
conceded to the Sri. G. Janardhana Reddy and his
cronies and harassed their rival mine owners and
favoured the mines controlled by Sri. G. Janardhana
Reddy. Sri. S.Muthaiah was also threatening them to
comply with the conditions put by Sri. Gali Janardhana
Reddy in respect of sharing of iron ore excavated from
their mines. They did not take action on the reports
submitted by his subordinate officials regarding illegal
mining activity in the forest areas in Bellary District.
They accepted illegal gratification and allowed illegal
mining and transportation. They aided Sri. G.
Janardhana Reddy in usurping 40-60% of iron ore
from other mine owners. Further, they failed to take
any action on the large scale illegal transportation of
iron ore which was done by overloading the vehicles
with more than permitted quantity which enable the
other accused Sri. K.V.Nagaraj, Sri. K. Mahesh Kumar
and Sri. Idli Yarriswami to cause the transportation of
illegal iron ore sold by Sri. G. Janardhana Reddy and
Sri.Shyamraj Singh to various parties and finally
exported by M/s Dream Logistics Company (I) Pvt.,
Ltd.,
17) Whereas, the aforesaid acts Sri.
S.Muthaiah, the then Deputy Conservator of
Forests,Bellary and others constitute offences
punishable under Section 120-B r/w 409, 420, 434,
447, 468,471 of IPC and Sections 13(2) r/w 13 (1) (d)
of PC Act, 1988.
18) And whereas, the Chief Minister on behalf of
the Government of Karnataka, the competent
authority to accord sanction against the said Sri.
S.Muthaiah, the then Deputy Conservator of
Forests,Bellary District, Bellary, Karnataka State and
presently under suspension, after fully and carefully
examining all the materials, such as, copy of the FIR,
copies of statements of witnesses recorded U/s 161 of
Cr.PC, 1973, documents collected etc., during the
course of investigation by the investigating Agency in
RC-3(A)/2012/CBI/ACB/Bangalore, which were placed
before the Chief Minister for his consideration in
regard to the said allegations, consider that a prima-
facie case has been made out against the said Sri. S.
Muthaiah, the then Deputy Conservator of Forests,
Bellary, presently under suspension and that he
should be prosecuted for the said offences and any
other offences made out from the facts mentioned
above.
19) Now, therefore, Government of Karnataka, do
hereby accord sanction under Section 114-A of
Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 for the prosecution of Sri.
S. Muthaiah, IFS, the then Deputy Conservator of
Forests, Bellary, in a Court of Law for the aforesaid
offences and for taking cognizance of the said offences
by the Court of competent jurisdiction."
Ex.P-143 - ORDER OF SANCTION BY STATE GOVERNMENT AS
REGARDS OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 197 OF CR.P.C.
"16) Whereas, Sri. S. Muthaiah and Sri. Manoj
Kumar Shukla in collusion with Sri. G. Janardhana
Reddy and his associates removed the Andhra-
Karnataka Border Forest Check-post existing at
Halkundi in October 2008 to facilitate illegal
transportation of iron ore without permits. They
colluded with Sri. G. Janardhana Reddy and his
G.O. NO. DPA 30 SFP 2014(2), BANGALORE DATED 17/02/2014
associates and facilitated illegal mining and
transportation of iron ore in Bellary District. They
enabled Sri. G. Janardhana Reddy and his associates
to do large scale illegal mining in Dalmia Mines
during 2009-10. They allowed Sri. G. Janardhana
Reddy and allowed his associates to do illegal mining
and store illegally extracted iron ore in
Lakshminarayana mines, P.K. Halli Plot; SBM Plot,
P.K. Halli; MSPL Stockyard, Ingalagi; Veeyam Plot,
Ingalagi; Karapudi Plot, Kariganur; Swastik Plot,
Bellary Road; V. Nagappa Stock Yard, Kallahalli; SVK
Mines and Plot, Vyasanakere; SVK Plot, Danapur;
SVK Plot, Jaisinghpur and other plots/stockyards
falling under the jurisdiction of Bellary Forest
Division. They conceded the demands to Sri. G.
Janardhana Reddy and his cronies and harassed their
rival mine owners and favoured the mines controlled
by Sri. G. Janardhana Reddy. Sri. S. Muthaiah was
also threatening them to comply with the conditions
put by Sri. Gali Janardhana Reddy in respect of
sharing of iron ore excavated from their mines. They
did not take action on the reports submitted by his
subordinate officials regarding illegal mining activity
in the forest areas in Bellary District. They accepted
illegal gratification and allowed illegal mining and
transportation. They aided Sri. G. Janardhana Reddy
in usurping 40-60% of iron ore from other mine
owners. Further, they failed to take any action on
the large scale illegal transportation of iron ore which
was done by overloading the vehicles with more than
permitted quantity which enable the other accused
Sri. K.V.Nagaraj, Sri. K. Mahesh Kumar and Sri. Idli
Yarriswami to cause the transportation of illegal iron
ore sold by Sri. G. Janardhana Reddy and
Sri.Shyamraj Singh to various parties and finally
exported by M/s Dream Logistics Company (I) Pvt.,
Ltd.,
17) Whereas, the aforesaid acts Sri.
S.Muthaiah, the then Deputy Conservator of
Forests,Bellary and others constitute offences
punishable under Section 120-B r/w 409, 420, 434,
447, 468, 471 of IPC and Sections 13(2) r/w 13 (1)
(d) of PC Act, 1988.
18) And whereas, the Chief Minister on behalf
of the Government of Karnataka, the competent
authority to accord sanction against the said
Sri.S.Muthaiah, the then Deputy Conservator of
Forests, Bellary District, Bellary, Karnataka State and
presently under suspension, after fully and carefully
examining the materials such as copy of the FIR,
copies of statements of witnesses recorded Us 161 of
Cr.PC, 1973, documents collected etc, during the
course of investigation by the investigating Agency in
RC-13(AV)2012/CBI/ACB/Bangalore, which were
placed before the Chief Minister for his consideration
in regard to the said allegations, consider that a
prima-facie case has been made out against the said
Sri S. Muthaiah, the then Deputy Conservator of
Forests, Bellary, presently under suspension and that
he should be prosecuted for the said offences and
any other offences made out from the facts
mentioned above.
19) Now, therefore, Government of Karnataka,
do hereby accord sanction under Section 197 of
Cr.P.C. for the prosecution of Sri. S. Muthaiah, IFS,
the then Deputy Conservator of Forests, Bellary, in a
Court of Law for the aforesaid offences and for taking
cognizance of the said offences by the Court of
competent jurisdiction."
Ex.P-146 - ORDER OF SANCTION BY CENTRAL GOVERNMENT AS
REGARDS OFFENCE UNDER P.C. ACT.
16. Whereas, the investigation revealed that Shri S.
Muthaiah and Shri Manoj Kumar Shukla in collusion
with Shri Janardhana Reddy and his associates
removed the Andhra Pradesh-Karnataka border
forest check post existed at Halkundi, in October,
2008 to facilitate illegal transportation of iron ore
without permits. Both they have colluded with Shri
G.O. NO. DPA 30 SFP 2014(2), BANGALORE DATED 17/02/2014
Janardhana Reddy and his companions; eased illegal
mining and transportation of iron ore in Bellary
District. They enabled Shri G.Janardhana Reddy and
his associates to construct an approach road to
Dalmia Mines through the lease hold area of M/s
Veeyam Mines and to do large scale illegal mining in
the Dalmia Mines during 2009-10. They allowed Shri
G. Janardhana Reddy and allowed his associates to
do illegal mining and store illegally extracted iron ore
in Lakshminarayana mines, P. K. Halli plot; S.B.M
plot, PK Halli; MSPL Stock Yard, Ingalagi; Veeyam
plot, Ingalagi; Karapudi plot, Kariganur; Swastik
plot, Bellary Road; V. Nagappa Stockyard, Kallahalli;
S.V.K. Mines and plot, Vyasanakere; SVK plot,
Danapur; S.V.K plot, Jaisinghpur and other
plots/stockyards falling under the jurisdiction of
Bellary Forest Division. They granted to the
demands of Shri .Janardhana Reddy and his
associates; harassed their rival mine owners and
favored the mines controlled by Shri G.Janardhana
Reddy. Shri Muthaiah was also threatened them to
comply with the conditions put by Shri Gali
Janardhana Reddy in respect of sharing of iron ore
excavated from their mines. Both Shri S. Muthaiah
and Shri Manoj Kumar Shukla have not taken any
action on the reports submitted by his subordinate
officials with regard to illegal mining activity that has
been going on in the forest areas in Bellary district.
They have accepted illegal gratification; allowed
illegal mining and transportation. They aided Shri
G.Janardhana Reddy in appropriating 40-60% of iron
ore from other mine owners. Further, they failed to
take any action on the large scale illegal
transportation of iron ore which was done by
overloading the vehicles with more than permitted
quantity that enabled the other accused Shri
K..V.Nagaraj, Shri K. Mahesh Kumar and Shri Idly
Yarriswami to cause the transportation of illegal iron
ore sold by Shri G Janardhan Reddy and Shri
Shyamraj Singh to various parties and finally
exported by M/s Dream Logistics Company (I) Pvt.
Ltd.
17. Whereas, the investigation revealed that
the aforesaid acts of Shri.S. Muthaiah, the then Dy.
Conservator of Forests, Bellary and others constitute
offences punishable under section 120-B r/w 409,
420, 434, 447, 468, 471 of IPC and Sections 13(2)
r/w 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
18. And whereas, the President of India, the
competent authority to remove the said Shri S.
Muthaiah, IFS, KN:95, the then Deputy Conservator
of Forest, Bellary Division, Karnataka State and
presently under suspension, after duly and carefully
examining all the materials, such as copy of the FIR,
copies of the statements of witnesses recorded u/s
161 of Cr. P.C., 1973, and documents etc., collected
during the course of investigation by the
investigating agency, i.e., Central Bureau of
Investigation(CBI) in RC. 13(A)/2012/CBI/ACB/
Bangalore, which were placed before the President
for his consideration for the said allegations and the
President of India is satisfied that prima facie, a case
is made out against Shri S. Muthaiah, IFS, KN:95,
the then Deputy Conservator of Forest, Bellary
Division, Karnataka State, presently under
suspension.
19. Now, therefore, the President of India
does hereby accord sanction as required under
section 197 Cr. P.C. and 19(1)(a) of the of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for the
prosecution of Shri S. Muthaiah, IFS, KN:95, the
then Deputy Conservator of Forests, Bellary, for the
offences punishable under section 120-B r/w 409,
420, 379, 434, 447, 467, 468, 471 of IPC; u/s 13(2)
r/w 13(1)(c) & 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 and other offences made out from the
above mentioned facts and punishable under the
provisions of any law in respect of aforesaid acts for
taking cognizance of the said offences by a court of
competent jurisdiction."
113. Clearly, the sanction order speaks for itself and
the learned Special Judge nor this Court are sitting in appeal
and in the absence of any allegation of mala fides, no
grounds are made out for interference in the orders of
Sanction as upheld by the learned Special Judge.
114. The discussion made supra at para 64 are to be
taken note of to support conclusion of non-interference.
115. Accordingly, the order of learned Special Judge
does not call for interference.
B.4. W.P.No.19163/2021 (Spl. CC.No.105/2014)
116. The petitioner/accused No.2 has challenged the
order on validity of sanction dated 05.05.2020 at Annexure-
'N', whereby the orders issued by the State Government
and Central Government according sanction to prosecute
the petitioner have been held to be valid.
117. The Superintendent of Police, CBI, ACB,
Bengaluru has forwarded CBI report in
RC.16(A)/2012/CBI/ACB/BLR/8558 and has requested the
State Government to accord sanction for prosecution
against the petitioner (accused No.2) and Sri Manoj Kumar
Shukla (accused No.8) with respect to offences under the
P.C. Act, Cr.P.C., and Karnataka Forest Act. It is further
made out from the note sheet that CBI report and the
volume containing oral and documentary evidence are
placed below. The note sheet and connected records
maintained by Government of Karnataka in
R.C.16(A)/2012/CBI/ ACB/BLR/8558 is marked as Ex.D6.
118. The main allegations in terms of the CBI report
as noticed in the note sheet is that during the period
between 01.01.2009 to 31.05.2010, a quantity of 88.06
Metric Tons of Iron Ore was exported from Belekeri Port by
73 exporters and about 50.00 lakh Metric Tons of Iron Ore
was exported without permits. It is further alleged that
M/s.Sri Mallikarjuna Shipping Private Ltd., had mined
illegally in forest areas and transported Iron Ore without
valid permits issued by the Department of Mines and
Department of Forest without payment of royalty and Forest
Development Tax.
119. The note sheet contains the summary of
allegations against the petitioner who was the then Deputy
Conservator of Forest, Bellary and in collusion with
G.Janardhana Reddy, had removed the Andhra - Karnataka
border forest check post at Halkundi on 15.10.2008 to
facilitate illegal transportation of Iron Ore without permit.
It is further alleged that issuance of Form-29 and collection
of forest tax was stopped with the dishonest intention to
facilitate transport of Iron Ore freely without any permits or
checking.
120. The note sheet indicates that file was put up
before the State Government for according of sanction
under Section 197 of Cr.P.C., 114A of Karnataka Forest Act
and making recommendation to the Central Government to
grant sanction of prosecution under Section 19(1)(a) of P.C.
Act. Same has been approved by the Chief Minister with
the note 'C£ÀĪÉÆâ¹zÉ' ('approved').
121. After issuance of orders as noted above pursuant
to the approval by State Government, the file was
forwarded to Government of India, Ministry of Environment
and Forests for considering grant of sanction under Section
19(1)(a) of P.C. Act. It is noticed that the opinion of
Deputy Secretary to Government, Law, Justice and Human
Rights Department of Government of Karnataka was also
taken.
122. The file also contains a letter by the CBI, Anti
Corruption Branch dated 17/18.12.2015 addressed to the
Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka and had
forwarded a self-contained note showing the background of
the case. The records submitted by CBI, Anti Corruption
Branch in RC.16A/2012/CBI/ ACB/BLR are as follows:-
Sl.No. of Details of contents
the box
1. R.C.16(A)/2012-BLR
Calendar of Evidence
(DOCUMENTARY - Page 1-387 and
ORAL - Page 1-135) +
D-1 to D-246
(23 Volumes)
2. D-247 to D-384
(19 Volumes)
3. D-385 to D-418
(20 Volumes)
4. D-419 to D-466
(19 Volumes)
5. D-467 to D-508
(19 Volumes)
6. D-507-508 (A) to D-650
(18 Volumes)
7. D-651 to D-1235
(21 Volumes)
8. D-1236 to D-1898
(22 Volumes)
123. It is further evident that the entirety of records
received by the State Government from the CBI was
forwarded to Government of India and the list of documents
sent by the State Government alongwith communication
dated 24.04.2014 is extracted as below:-
"1) Investigation Report (as submitted by CBI) -
The report includes version of the accused
officer and comments of the Investigation
Officer to rebut their contentions (page no.1 to
109).
2) Case records - 8 boxes containing copy of case
records have been appended. (Pherist placed
at page 1-9).
3) Draft sanction orders under PC Act pertaining
to both Sri S.Muthaiah (P.1 -10) and Sri Manoj
Kumar Shukla, (P.11-21).
4) Opinion of State Law Department - (page no.1-
3).
5) Copy of prosecution sanction order issued by
the State Government under Karnataka Forest
Act and Cr.P.C. in respect of :-
(a) Sri S.Muthaiah,
(i)(G.O.No.DPAR/33/SFP/2014(1),
dated:18/02/2014).
(ii)(G.O.No.DPAR/33/SFP/2014(2),
dated:18/02/2014).
(b)Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla
(i)(G.O.No.DPAR/33/SFP/2014(3),
dated:18/02/2014).
(ii)(G.O.No.DPAR/33/SFP/2014(4),
dated:18/02/2014)."
124. On a perusal of materials placed before the State
Government, it is clear that all relevant materials including
the CBI report has been placed before the State
Government and it cannot be stated that materials placed
before the sanctioning authority was incomplete. The
manner in which the note sheet is prepared with relevant
comments does also indicate that though the granting of
sanction is by a cryptic note 'C£ÀĪÉÆâ¹zÉ' ("approved"), the
same could pass scrutiny in light of the contents of the note
sheet.
125. Insofar as sanction under Section 19(1)(a) of
P.C. Act, upon Central Government receiving the proposal
by Government of Karnataka, the note sheet is prepared by
the Joint Secretary and Chief Vigilance Officer. The file
containing the relevant records in the office of Central
Government is marked as Ex.D1.
126. The note sheet contains examination of the case
including the offences with respect to which cases are
registered; background of the case; details regarding orders
of the Apex Court; allegations in the FIR; result of
investigation by the CBI containing necessary details
(removal of check post at the border, wrongful loss caused
to Government, explanation of accused person, rebuttal to
the defence of petitioner, role of Sri S.Muthaiah, summing
up evidence, conclusion and final recommendation).
127. The file was forwarded to the Central Vigilance
Commission as per applicable Guidelines prior to which
concurrence of Minister, Environment and Forests was
sought and obtained. The note sheet refers to Minister for
Environment and Forests having approved grant of sanction
for prosecution after which the matter was referred to
Vigilance and finally the orders were passed.
128. The CBI report is a part of the said file and
contains all necessary details including details of the
offences, details of the accused, background of the case,
allegations in FIR, result of investigation, details regarding
procurement and legality, details regarding removal of
Halkundi Check Post, details regarding wrongful loss and
wrongful gain, explanation and defence of the accused,
rebuttal of defence of the accused, role of the accused,
reference to the statement recorded under Section 164
before the Magistrate in RC.No.16(A)/2012, summing up of
evidence, conclusion and final recommendation made for
sanction of prosecution.
129. The evidence of Dr.Bagadi Gautham, who was
working as Deputy Secretary, DPAR Services at relevant
point of time, has been adduced on behalf of the
prosecution as PW26 and has been cross-examined in
detail.
130. The sanction by Government of Karnataka under
Section 197 Cr.P.C. for offences under IPC is marked as
Ex.P105, sanction for prosecution under Section 114A of
Karnataka Forest Act, Ex.P106 is marked through Dr.Bagadi
Gautham.
131. Similarly, the evidence of Sri Ravishankar Prasad
who was working as Joint Secretary and Chief Vigilance
Officer in Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government
of India has been adduced as PW25 and has also been
cross-examined at length and has got marked Ex.P103,
which is the order of sanction by the Central Government
and Ex.D1, which is the file containing the particulars
relating to orders of sanction by the Central Government.
132. Identical suggestions as in other complaints are
made and replies are obtained in support of their contention
to the effect that sanction orders are similar to the draft
sanction orders and regarding the Competent Authority to
sign the sanction orders and other contentions of the
accused as are recorded in the evidence in complaints, viz.,
RC.Nos.13A/2012, 14A/2012 and 15A/2012.
133. Specific suggestions have been made regarding
the eight boxes of documents not finding a mention in the
note sheet. However, as regards such specific question,
Ex.D6 contains reference that the said eight boxes were
sent as per document in Ex.D6 at page No.317.
134. The learned Special Judge has passed a detailed
order on 05.05.2020 containing the summary of background
facts, complaint allegations and supports the order by
detailed reasoning. The Special Court has extracted
relevant portions of the sanction orders which are as
follows:-
EX.P103 - ORDER OF SANCTION BY CENTRAL
GOVERNMENT23
"19. Whereas, the investigation has also disclosed
that both Shri M.K.Shukla and Shri.S.Muthaiah have
not initiated any action against the illegal mining
activities carried out by Shri G.Janardhan Reddy and
his companians either at the surrendered area of
LMC mines or at the mining lease area of
M/s.Ramgad Minerals and Mining Pvt. Ltd (Dalmia
Mines) which also belonged to the State Government
No.15011/3/2014-AVU dated 20.10.2014
as statutory clearances were yet to be given for
handing over the lease area (Dalmia Mines) to M/s.
Ramgad Minerals and Mining Pvt. Ltd., regardless of
receipt of several complaints from M/s.Ramgad
Minerals and Mining Pvt. Ltd. Similarly they had not
taken any action regarding the illegal encroachment
or illegal mining carried out at the lease area of
M/s.MSPL at Vyasankere ie., in ML No.2416 by the
lessees M/s. SB Minerals, Vyasankere (ML.2515)
etc.,
20. Whereas, in prolongation to the said conspiracy,
the investigation revealed that the above acts of Sri.
Satish Krishna Sail, (A-1) Managing Director of M/s.
Shree Mallikarjun Shipping Pvt. Ltd., Shri
S.Muthaiah, (A-2) the then Dy.Conservator of
Forests, Bellary; Shri S P Raju (A-3) the then
Dy.Director, Department of Mines and Geology,
Hospet, Shri G.Janardhana Reddy (A-4), the then
Bellary District incharge Minister, Shri M.Ali Khan (A-
5), partner, M/s. Devi Entrprises and PA to Shri
G.Janardhana Reddy; Shri Kenche Mahesh Kumar @
Karapudi Mahesh (A-6), partner, M/s. Shree
Lakshmivenkateswara Minerals; Shri KVN nagaraj @
Swastik Nagaraj (A-7), Director, M/s. Swastik Steels
Hospet Pvt. Ltd., Shri Manoj Kumar Shukla (A-8),
the then Conservator of Forests, Bellary; Shri
Ramakanth Yallappa Hullar (A-9), the then Circle
Inspector, Sandur Circle; Shri B.Nagendra (A-10),
Partner, M/s. Eagle Traders and Logistics; Shri
B.P.Anand Kumar @ Anand Singh (A-11), Proprietor,
M/s.Vyshnavi Minerals; Shri Shyam Raj Singh (A-
12), Partner, M/s. SVK Minerals; Shri Praveen Singh,
(A-13) Director, M/s. Sai Krishna Minerals Pvt. Ltd.,
Shri.K.V.N Govindraj (A-14), Shri Jakeer Sharief (A-
15) Shri Kuruba Nagaraj (A-16), Partner M/s.Eagle
Traders and Logistics, Shri K.Janardhana Reddy (A-
17) Parnter, M/s. SB Logistics and M/s. Shree
Mallikarjun Shipping Pvt. Ltd., (A-18), (represented
by its Managing Director Shri Satish Krishna Sail)
caused the wrongful loss of over and above Rs.90.72
crore to the Government exchequer and wrongful
gain for themselves.
21. Whereas, by the above acts Sri.S.Muthaiah,
IFS, KN:95, the then Deputy Conservator of Forests,
Bellary in collusion with others have committed the
offences punishable under sections 120-B r/w 409,
420, 434, 447, 468, 471 of IPC; u/s 13(2) r/w
13(1)(c) & (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
22. Whereas, the above said acts of
Shri.S.Muthaiah, IFS, KN:95, the then Deputy
Conservator of Forests, Bellary Circle, Bellary
(Accused No.2) with others constitute the
commission of the above said offences.
23. And Whereas, the President of India, the
competent authority to remove the said Shri
S.Muttaiah, the then Conservator of Forests, Bellary
Circle, Bellary and presently under suspension, after
duly and carefully examining all the materials, such
as copy of the FIR, copies of the statements of
witnesses and documents etc., collected during the
course of investigation by the investigating agency,
that is, Cental Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in RC
16(A)/2012/CBI/ACB/Bangalore, which were placed
before the President for his consideration for the said
allegations and the President of India is satisfied that
prima facie, a case is made out against Shri
S.Muthiah, IFS, KN:95, the then Deputy Conservator
of Forests, Bellary Circle, Bellary presently under
suspension.
24. Now, therefore, the President of India does
hereby accords sanction for the prosecution of Shri
S.Muthaiah, IFS, KN:95, the then Deputy
Conservator of Forests, Bellary, u/s 19(1)(a) of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and other
offences made out from the above mentioned facts
and punishable under the provisions of any law in
respect of aforesaid acts for taking cognizance of the
said offences by a court of competent jurisdiction."
EX.P105 - ORDER OF SANCTION BY STATE GOVERNMENT UNDER
SECTION 197 OF CR.P.C.24
"14) That in pursuance of the said conspiracy,
Sri.S.P.Raju (A-3) the then Deputy director,
Department of Mines and Geology, Hospet during the
period 2009-10 had not taken any action regarding
the violation of mining activities at the lease area of
SB Minerals, Vyasanakere Mines (ML.2515) and
instructed his subordinate official to file a wrong
report stating that no mining activity was being
undertaken at Vyasanakere mines. That he had also
submitted false reports mentioning that no mining
activity was being carried out in the decreed area
between SB Minerals (SVK Vyasanakere ML.2515)
and M/s. MSPL at Vyasanakere (ML.2416), whereas
in reality rampant illegal mining was going on in the
said area which was well within his knowledge. That
in furtherance to the said conspiracy, Sri.S.P.Raju
(A-3) had not inspected any of the mines despite
several complaints lodged by the mine owner M/s.
Ramgad Minerals and Mining Pvt. Ltd., also known as
Dalmia Mines (ML.No.2010) regarding the illegal
encroachment by the neighbouring lessees into said
Dalmia mines (ML.2010).
15) That in pursuance of the said conspiracy
Sri.Ramakanth Yallappa Hullar (A-9), the then Circle
GO NO.DPAR 33 SFP 2014(2) Bangalore Dated 18-02-2014
Inspector, Sandur Circle in conspiracy with other
accused persons facilitated Sri.Karapudi Mahesh (A-
6), Sri. Swastik Nagaraj (A-7) and other accused
persons to transport illegal iron ore without permits
from his jurisdiction during the period 2009-10. That
despite reporting the said illegal transportation by
his subordinates, he did not take any action, instead
instructed his subordinates not to touch the vehicles
belonging to the said accused persons thereby
enabling the accused persons to transport the illegal
iron ore without permits to Belekeri Port and in
return he had accepted illegal gratifications from the
said accused persons.
16) That investigation has also disclosed that
vide letter No.Est./deputation/CR.23/2005.06/362
dated 23-03-2009, Sri.S.Muthaiah, the then Deputy
Conservator of Forests, Bellary had written a letter to
the conservator of Forests, Bellary intimating that at
the monthly meeting of RFOs and ACFs of Bellary
Division held at the office of DCF, Bellary on 02-03-
2009, it was decided to withdraw the services of the
Foresters and Forest Guards deployed at Halkundi
Check-post and recommended for withdrawing the
staff deployed at Halkundi Check-post and to
transfer them to their respective parent places.
Whereas, no such decision was taken in the said
monthly meeting of RFOs and ACFs. In pursuant to
the said letter, Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla vide his
order No.17/2009.10 dated 24.06.2009 transferred
the Forest staff deployed at Halakundi Check Post in
connivance with other accused persons. When the
staff deployed in the said Halakundi Check Post
(Andhra-Karnataka Border Check Post) were
transferred without replacement, the Check Post
automatically closed.
17) That investigation has also disclosed that
Sri.S. Muthaiah had intimated to Dr.U.V.Singh Vide
his letter No. Compt/Lok/BCD/89/2007/ARE-2(F)
dated 17-03-2009 that he had not obtained any
order from competent authority to stop issuance of
exchange permits at Halkundi Andhra-Karnataka
border check-posts. That Sri.Biswajit Mishra, who
was posted as Deputy Conservator of Forests, Bellary
in October-November 2009, had written a D.O.letter
vide letter to Sri.Manoj Kumar Shukla, conservator of
forests, expressing concern regarding the stoppage
of issuance of Form 29 at Halkundi Check-post and
had clearly stated that as per Rule 145(4) of KFR
1969, a pass ie., Form 29 is mandated for transport
or removal of forest produce from outside the State.
Moreover Rule 152(1) also clearly stipulates that no
forest produce brought into the State by road or
water shall be conveyed within the limits of the State
beyond the first check-post after its entry into the
State without a pass in Form 29 issued under Rule
145 after the surrender of the "Import Pass". Thus, it
is clear that any forest produce entering into the
State of Karnataka would require a pass in Form 29
for transportation of forest produce with the State.
Sri.Biswajit Mishra had expressed concern, that if
this matter was not sorted then it would become
difficult to regulate the transportation of iron ore in
Karnataka and he had also expressed concern that
exempting from issuing Form-29 would result in the
loss of revenue to the State Government. He had
also brought to the notice that even the Hon'ble
Lokayuktha had mentioned that stoppage of issuance
of Form-29 would result in an annual revenue loss of
Rs.14 lakhs.
18) That Investigation has also disclosed that a
direction was also issued from the office of the
Additional Principal Chief conservator of Forests,
Bangalore vide letter No.B4/Departmental
passes/CR-7, 09-10 dated 19/20-11-2009 addressed
to the Conservator of Forests, Bellary ie., and also to
DCF, Bellary vide the directions was issued to issue
Form No.29 as scheduled at Halkundi Check-post.
That, despite clear instruction for the resumption of
issuing Form-29, no coercive action/decision was
taken by Shri S. Muthaiah and also by Shri
S.M.K.Shukla for the resumption of the issuance of
Form 29 clearly revealing that both had actively
colluded with other accused persons in the illegal
excavation/transportation of iron ore. Thus, the
checking of vehicles carrying illegal iron ore and
issuance of Form No.29 and collection of Forest Tax
(Government Revenue) were stopped with dishonest
intention to facilitate Sri.G.Janardhana Reddy and his
associates in transportation of illegal iron ore
through the said Karnataka Andhra border forest
check-post. In this manner, Sri.S.Muthaiah, the then
Deputy Conservator of Forest, Bellary and Sri. Manoj
Kumar Shukla, the then CF, Bellary have colluded
with Sri.G.Janardhana Reddy, the then minister with
the Government of Karnataka.
19) It is also revealed that both Sri.S.Muthaiah
and Sri. Manoj Kumar Shukla did not initiate action
against the illegal mining activities carried out by
Sri.G.Janardhana Reddy and his associates either at
the surrendered area of LMC mines or at the mining
lease area of M/s. Ramgad Minerals and Mining Pvt,
Ltd., (Dalmia Mines) which also belonged to the
State Government as statutory clearances were yet
to be given for handing over the lease area (Dalmia
Mines) to M/s.Ramgad Minerals and Mining Pvt, Ltd.
Despite receipt of several complaints from
M/s.Ramgad Minerals and Mining Pvt. Ltd. Similarly,
they had not taken any action regarding the illegal
encroachment or illegal mining carried out at the
lease area of M/s. MSPL at Vyasanakere ie., in ML
No.2416 by the lessees M/s S.B.Minerals,
Vyasanakere (ML.2515) etc.,
20) That the above acts of Sri.Satish Krishna
Sail (A-1), managing Director, M/s. Shree Mallikarjun
Shipping Pvt, Ltd., Sri.Muthaiah (A-2) the then
Deputy Conservator of Forests, Bellary, Shri S P Raju
(A-3) the then Dy.Director, Department of Mines and
Geology, Hospet, Shri G.Janardhana Reddy (A-4),
the then Bellary District incharge Minister, Shri M.Ali
Khan (A-5), partner, M/s. Devi Entrprises and PA to
Shri G.Janardhana Reddy; Shri Kenche Mahesh
Kumar @ Karapudi Mahesh (A-6), partner, M/s.
Shree Lakshmivenkateswara Minerals; Shri KVN
nagaraj @ Swastik Nagaraj (A-7), Director, M/s.
Swastik Steels Hospet Pvt. Ltd., Shri Manoj Kumar
Shukla (A-8), the then Conservator of Forests,
Bellary; Shri Ramakanth Yallappa Hullar (A-9), the
then Circle Inspector, Sandur Circle; Shri
B.Nagendra (A-10), Partner, M/s. Eagle Traders and
Logistics; Shri B.P.Anand Kumar @ Anand Singh (A-
11), Proprietor, M/s. Vyshnavi Minerals; Shri Shyam
Raj Singh (A-12), Partner, M/s. SVK Minerals; Shri
Praveen Singh, (A-13) Director, M/s. Sai Krishna
Minerals Pvt. Ltd., Shri.K.V.N Govindraj (A-14), Shri
Jakeer Sharief (A-15) Shri Kuruba Nagaraj (A-16),
Partner M/s. Eagle Traders and Logistics, Shri
K.Janardhana Reddy (A-17) Parnter, M/s. SB
Logistics and M/s. Shree Mallikarjun Shipping Pvt.
Ltd., (A-18), (represented by its Managing Director
Shri Satish Krishna Sail) caused the wrongful loss of
more than Rs.90.72 crore to the Govt. exchequer
and wrongful gain for themselves.
21) By the above acts, Sri.S.Muthaiah, the
then Deputy Conservator of Forests, Bellay in
collusion with others has committed the offences
punishable under sections 120-B r/w 409, 420, 434,
447, 468, 471 of IPC; under section 13(2) r/w
13(1)(c) and (d) of PC Act 1988.
22) AND, WHEREAS, the Chief Minister on
behalf of the Government of Karnataka, the
competent authority to accord sanction against the
said Sri.S.Muthaiah, the then Dy.Conservator of
Forests, Bellary Circle, Bellary and present under
suspension, after fully and carefully examining all the
material placed before me, such as, copy of the FIR,
copies of the statements of witnesses and other
documents collected during the course of
investigation in RC 16(A)/2012/CBI/ACB/Bangalore,
which were placed before the Chief Minister for his
consideration in regard to the said allegations,
consider that a prima-facie case has been made out
against Sri. S.Muthaiah, the then Dy. Conservator of
Forests, Bellary District, Bellary, Karnataka,
presently under suspension and that he should be
prosecuted for the above said offences.
23) Now, therefore, Government of Karnataka,
do hereby accord sanction under section 197 of
Cr.P.C for the prosecution of Sri.S.Muthaiah, IFS in a
court of law for the said offences and for taking
cognizance of the said offences by the court of
competent jurisdiction.
EX.P106 - ORDER OF SANCTION BY STATE GOVERNMENT UNDER
SECTION 114A OF KARNATAKA FOREST ACT.25
"13) That in pursuance of the said conspiracy the
iron ore supplied by M/s. Eagle Traders and Logistics,
M/s. Arshad Exports, M/s. Sree Lakshmi Venkateswara
Minerals etc., to M/s.SMSPL (A-18) were transported
to Belekeri Port by using fake and forged permits
purportedly issued by Department of Mines and
Geology, Andhra Pradesh.
14) That in pursuance of the said conspiracy, Sri.
S.P.Raju (A-3) the then Deputy director, Department
of Mines and Geology, Hospet during the period 2009-
10 had not taken any action regarding the violation of
mining activities at the lease area of SB Minerals,
Vyasanakere Mines (ML.2515) and instructed his
subordinate official to file a wrong report stating that
no mining activity was being undertaken at
Vyasanakere mines. That he had also submitted false
reports mentioning that no mining activity was being
carried out in the decreed area between SB Minerals
G.O. No.DPAR SFP 2014(1) Bangalore Dated 18-02-2014
(SVK Vyasanakere ML.2515) and M/s. MSPL at
Vyasanakere (ML.2416), whereas in reality rampant
illegal mining was going on in the said area which was
well within his knowledge. That in furtherance to the
said conspiracy, Sri.S.P.Raju (A-3) had not inspected
any of the mines despite several complaints lodged by
the mine owner M/s. Ramgad Minerals and Mining Pvt.
Ltd., also known as Dalmia Mines (ML.No.2010)
regarding the illegal encroachment by the
neighbouring lessees into said Dalmia mines
(ML.2010).
15) That in pursuance of the said conspiracy
Sri.Ramakanth Yallappa Hullar (A-9), the then Circle
Inspector, Sandur Circle in conspiracy with other
accused persons facilitated Sri.Karapudi Mahesh (A-6),
Sri. Swastik Nagaraj (A-7) and other accused persons
to transport illegal iron ore without permits from his
jurisdiction during the period 2009-10. That despite
reporting the said illegal transportation by his
subordinates, he did not take any action, instead
instructed his subordinates not to touch the vehicles
belonging to the said accused persons thereby
enabling the accused persons to transport the illegal
iron ore without permits to Belekeri Port and in return
he had accepted illegal gratifications from the said
accused persons.
16) That investigation has also disclosed that vide
letter No.Est./deputation/CR.23/2005.06/362 dated
23-03-2009, Sri.S.Muthaiah, the then Deputy
Conservator of Forests, Bellary had written a letter to
the conservator of Forests, Bellary intimating that at
the monthly meeting of RFOs and ACFs of Bellary
Division held at the office of DCF, Bellary on 02-03-
2009, it was decided to withdraw the services of the
Foresters and Forest Guards deployed at Halkundi
Check-post and recommended for withdrawing the
staff deployed at Halkundi Check-post and to transfer
them to their respective parent places. Accordingly,
Sri .Manoj Kumar Shukla, the then Conservator of
Forests, Bellary Circle vide his order No.17/2009.10
dated 24-06-2009 transferred the forest staff
deployed at Halkundi check-post in connivance with
other accused persons. When the staff deployed in the
said Halkundi Check-post (Andhra-Karnataka Border
Check-post) were transferred without replacement,
the check-post automatically closed.
17) That investigation has also disclosed that Sri. S.
Muthaiah had intimated to Dr.U.V.Singh Vide his letter
No. Compt/Lok/BCD/89/2007/ ARE-2(F) dated 17-03-
2009 that he had not obtained any order from
competent authority to stop issuance of exchange
permits at Halkundi Andhra-Karnataka border check-
posts. That Sri.Biswajit Mishra, who was posted as
Deputy Conservator of Forests, Bellary in October-
November 2009, had written a D.O.letter vide letter to
Sri.Manoj Kumar Shukla, conservator of forests,
expressing concern regarding the stoppage of issuance
of Form 29 at Halkundi Check-post and had clearly
stated that as per Rule 145(4) of KFR 1969, a pass ie.,
Form 29 is mandated for transport or removal of
forest produce from outside the State. Moreover Rule
152(1) also clearly stipulates that no forest produce
brought into the State by road or water shall be
conveyed within the limits of the State beyond the
first check-post after its entry into the State without a
pass in Form 29 issued under Rule 145 after the
surrender of the "Import Pass". Thus, it is clear that
any forest produce entering into the State of
Karnataka would require a pass in Form 29 for
transportation of forest produce with the State.
Sri.Biswajit Mishra had expressed concern, that if this
matter was not sorted then it would become difficult
to regulate the transportation of iron ore in Karnataka
and he had also expressed concern that exempting
from issuing Form-29 would result in the loss of
revenue to the State Government. He had also
brought to the notice that even the Hon'ble
Lokayuktha had mentioned that stoppage of issuance
of Form-29 would result in an annual revenue loss of
Rs.14 lakhs.
18) That Investigation has also disclosed that a
direction was also issued from the office of the
Additional Principal Chief conservator of Forests,
Bangalore vide letter No.B4/Departmental passes/CR-
7, 09-10 dated 19/20-11-2009 addressed to the
Conservator of Forests, Bellary ie., and also to DCF,
Bellary vide the directions was issued to issue Form
No.29 as scheduled at Halkundi Check-post. That,
despite clear instruction for the resumption of issuing
Form-29 no coercive action/decision was taken by Sri
S.Muthaiah and also by Sri M.K.Shukla for the
resumption of the issuance of Form 29 clearly
revealing that both had actively colluded with other
accused persons in the illegal
excavation/transportation of iron ore. Thus, the
checking of vehicles carrying illegal iron ore and
issuance of Form No.29 and collection of Forest Tax
(Government Revenue) were stopped with dishonest
intention to facilitate Sri.G.Janardhana Reddy and his
associates in transportation of illegal iron ore through
the said border road/check-post. In this manner,
Sri.S.Muthaiah, the then Deputy Conservator of
Forest, Bellary and Sri.manoj Kumar Shukla, the then
CF, Bellary have colluded with Sri.G.Janardhana
Reddy, the then minister with the Government of
Karnataka.
19) It is also revealed that both Sri.S.Muthaiah and
Sri. M K Shukla did not initiate action against the
illegal mining activities carried out by
Sri.G.Janardhana Reddy and his associates either at
the surrendered area of LMC mines or at the mining
lease area of M/s.Ramgad Minerals and Mining Pvt,
Ltd., (Dalmia Mines) which also belonged to the State
Government as statutory clearances were yet to be
given for handing over the lease area (Dalmia Mines)
to M/s. Ramgad Minerals and Mining Pvt. Ltd.
Similarly, they had not taken any action regarding the
illegal encroachment or illegal mining carried out at
the lease area of M/s. MSPL at Vyasanakere ie., in ML
No.2416 by the lessees M/s S.B.Minerals, Vyasanakere
(ML.2515) etc.,
20) That the above acts of Sri.Satish Krishna Sail (A-
1), managing Director, M/s. Shree Mallikarjun
Shipping Pvt, Ltd., Sri.Muthaiah (A-2) the then Deputy
Conservator of Forests, Bellary, Shri S P Raju (A-3)
the then Dy.Director, Department of Mines and
Geology, Hospet, Shri G.Janardhana Reddy (A-4), the
then Bellary District incharge Minister, Shri M.Ali Khan
(A-5), partner, M/s. Devi Entrprises and PA to Shri
G.Janardhana Reddy; Shri Kenche Mahesh Kumar @
Karapudi Mahesh (A-6), partner, M/s. Shree
Lakshmivenkateswara Minerals; Shri KVN nagaraj @
Swastik Nagaraj (A-7), Director, M/s. Swastik Steels
Hospet Pvt. Ltd., Shri Manoj Kumar Shukla (A-8), the
then Conservator of Forests, Bellary; Shri Ramakanth
Yallappa Hullar (A-9), the then Circle Inspector,
Sandur Circle; Shri B.Nagendra (A-10), Partner, M/s.
Eagle Traders and Logistics; Shri B.P.Anand Kumar @
Anand Singh (A-11), Proprietor, M/s. Vyshnavi
Minerals; Shri Shyam Raj Singh (A-12), Partner, M/s.
SVK Minerals; Shri Praveen Singh, (A-13) Director,
M/s. Sai Krishna Minerals Pvt. Ltd., Shri.K.V.N
Govindraj (A-14), Shri Jakeer Sharief (A-15) Shri
Kuruba Nagaraj (A-16), Partner M/s. Eagle Traders
and Logistics, Shri K.Janardhana Reddy (A-17)
Parnter, M/s. SB Logistics and M/s. Shree Mallikarjun
Shipping Pvt. Ltd., (A-18), (represented by its
Managing Director Shri Satish Krishna Sail) caused the
wrongful loss of more than Rs.90.72 crore to the
Government exchequer and wrongful gain for
themselves.
21) By the above acts, Sri.S.Muthaiah, the then
Deputy Conservator of Forests, Bellary incollusion with
others has committed the offences punishable under
sections 120-B r/w 409, 420, 434, 447, 468, 471 of
IPC; under section 13(2) r/w 13(1) (c) and (d) of PC
Act 1988.
22) AND, WHEREAS, the Chief Minister on behalf of
the Government of Karnataka, the competent
authority to accord sanction against the said
Sri.S.Muthaiah, the then Dy.Conservator of Forests,
Bellary Circle, Bellary and present under suspension,
after fully and carefully examining all the material
placed before me, such as, copy of the FIR, copies of
the statements of witnesses and other documents
collected during the course of investigation in RC
16(A)/2012/CBI/ACB/Bangalore, which were placed
before the Chief Minister for his consideration in
regard to the said allegations, consider that a prima-
facie case has been made out against Sri. S.
Muthaiah, the then Dy. Conservator of Forests, Bellary
District, Bellary, Karnataka, presently under
suspension and that he should be prosecuted for the
above said offences.
23) Now, therefore, Government of Karnataka, do
hereby accord sanction under section 114-A of
Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 for the prosecution of
Sri.S.Muthaiah, IFS in a court of law for the said
offences and for taking cognizance of the said offences
by the court of competent jurisdiction."
135. A perusal of the said extracts clearly indicate
that the orders granting sanction are eloquent and contain
all necessary details and the order speaks for itself. The
Court, records the answer of PW.25 to the effect that all
materials were placed as was reflected in the charge sheet.
It is observed that though there were some admissions by
the witnesses, however, the same would not vitiate the
order granting sanction. The Court also records evidence
of PW.27 and PW.28 in support of the order of sanction
detailing the procedure followed for grant of sanction. The
Court records the law laid down by the Apex Court in CBI v.
Ashok Kumar Aggarwal26 and Mahesh G. Jain (supra)
and also observes that sanction orders being public
documents, in terms of Section 74 of the Indian Evidence
Act, the same can be proved in terms of Sections 76 and 78
of Indian Evidence Act and that the same are proved in the
present case. The Court records that the truth of
allegations need not be gone into by the sanctioning
authority and that on a perusal of Ex.P103 to Ex.P111, it is
clear that the Government has considered all materials
placed on record with regard to allegations made against
the accused persons.
136. The Special Court also records the detailed note
sheet prepared by the Department of Environment and
Forests, which shows that the sanctioning authority has
considered all aspects. The Special Court finally concludes
(2014) 14 SCC 295
that it is not for the sanctioning authority to judge the truth
of allegations made against the accused persons by calling
for records of the case. It is noted that the grant of
sanction is an administrative function, the presumption
under Section 114(e) of the Indian Evidence Act would
enable drawing of presumption that official acts have been
performed regularly. Eventually, the conclusion is that
there is no case made out for interference with the orders of
sanction.
137. Having perused Ex.D6 and Ex.D1, it is clear that
all necessary materials were before the Authorities
concerned, detailed note sheets have guided the Authorities
in granting approval to the orders of sanction, minor
contradictions in the evidence will not take away the written
evidence as contained in the records marked in Ex.D1 and
Ex.D6. The Courts do not sit as Appellate Authorities as
against the orders of sanction and in the absence of mala
fides and in light of the materials placed before the
sanctioning authority, there is no warrant to interfere with
the said orders and accordingly, this Court concurs with the
view of the learned Special Judge.
II QUASHING OF PROCEEDINGS:-
138. The petitioner has sought for quashing the
proceedings in Spl. CC. Nos.135/2013, 105/2014, 6/2014
and 21/2014 pending on the file of Special Judge for CBI
Cases and now pending before the Addl. City Civil and
Sessions Judge, Bangalore, registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 120-B read with Section 409,
420, 434, 447, 468, 471 of IPC and under Section 13(2)
read with Section 13(1)(c) and (d) of P.C. Act.
139. It must be noticed that the present petition has
been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and during the
pendency of the proceedings before the Special Court, the
discharge applications had been filed. The Special Court has
rejected the applications filed seeking discharge by its order
dated 17.04.2017 and the correctness of such order has not
been directly assailed in the present proceedings though the
petitioner resorts for quashing of proceedings while invoking
the jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
140. Sri Hashmath Pasha, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for Sri Nasir Ali for the petitioner has assailed the
validity of proceedings primarily on the ground that there
are multiple FIRs registered which have an overlap and such
FIRs are registered only on the ground that there are
different exporters who are involved. It is contended that
though there is only one offence and the other offences
stated to have been committed, the same are in the course
of same transaction and occurrence. It is also contended
that there is violation of the principle enshrined under
Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India and the provisions
under Section 300 of Cr.P.C.
141. It is contended that the lands were not forest
lands and there was only a proposal under Section 4 of the
Karnataka Forest Act and accordingly, no case could be
made out against the petitioner, who is a Forest Officer.
142. It is further contended that Iron Ore is a
non-forest produce and accordingly, no offence is made
under the provisions of the Karnataka Forest Act.
143. It is also contended that there is no clarity as to
whether the mining is in forest area or Patta lands or lands
after expiry of lease retained by the Government.
144. It is contended that there has to be a joint trial
as regards all offences and if it is not so done, the petitioner
would be put to serious prejudice.
145. Sri P. Prasanna Kumar, learned Special Public
Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent-CBI has
however contended that multiple FIRs can be registered for
distinct offences if the allegations in the subsequent FIRs
cover different allegations. It is contended that separate
FIRs have been registered in R.C.Nos.13(A)/2012,
14(A)/2012, 15(A)/2012 and No.16(A)/2012 and the Table
extracted in para-5 of the written arguments for the
purpose of convenience is extracted below:
R.C.No. Allegation
13(A)/2012 The said FIR was registered for the export of 9.16
Lac MT of Iron Ore by M/s.Dream Logistics Co.
India Ltd. between 01.01.2009 to 31.05.2010.
14(A)/2012 The said FIR was registered for the export of 9.86
Lac MT of Iron Ore by M/s.ILC Industries between
01.01.2009 to 31.05.2010.
15(A)/2012 The said FIR was registered for the export of 7.74
Lac MT of Iron Ore by M/s.S.B. Logistics between
01.01.2009 to 31.05.2010.
16(A)/2012 The said FIR was registered for the export of 7.23
Lac MT of Iron Ore by M/s.Shree Mallikarjuna
Shipping Pvt. Ltd., between 01.01.2009 to
31.05.2010.
146. It is submitted that respondent-CBI has filed
separate charge sheets in light of separate transactions. It
is further submitted that four charge sheets have been filed
as regards four FIRs in light of each FIR constituting a
separate and distinct offence. It is submitted that though
the modus operandi in committing the offence is the same,
it cannot be construed that the distinct offences committed
on the basis of a common modus operandi is to be
construed as constituting a single offence.
147. It is also submitted that the question of violation
of Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India or Section 300 of
Cr.P.C. does not arise, as the petitioner has neither been
convicted or acquitted for the offence on the basis of same
set of facts on a prior occasion. Accordingly, it is submitted
that the contention of double jeopardy does not apply.
148. Insofar as the contention that the alleged
offence is in fact not an offence as the alleged mining is in
non-forest area, it is submitted that Section 17 of the
Karnataka Forest Act provides for defining the limits of a
forest which is intended to constitute a reserve forest and to
declare the same to be a reserved forest from the date fixed
by such notification. It is submitted that once a notification
is passed under Section 17(2) of Karnataka Forest Act, such
forest shall be deemed to be a reserved forest.
Accordingly, it is submitted that it is not the case of the
petitioner that the area in question where illegal mining has
occurred is a reserved forest, but it is the case of the
respondent-CBI that illegal mining has taken place in a
forest area. It is submitted that even if the leasehold rights
granted have expired, on expiry of such leasehold period,
the land held by the private mining companies would fall
back within the jurisdiction of the Forest Department.
149. It is further contended that the registration of
FIRs was pursuant to the direction of the Apex Court in
Samaj Parivartana Samudaya (supra), which directions
were issued pursuant to the acceptance of the report of the
CEC and the observations made in the order of CEC was to
the effect that FIRs are to be registered and investigation
carried out relating to illegal extraction of Iron Ore from the
forest areas of Karnataka.
150. The Special Court in Spl.CC.No.135/2013, while
dismissing the application for discharge has made a detailed
analysis of the contentions raised by the petitioner. The
Special Court has recorded a specific finding at para-121 of
the order that "...Under the given set of circumstances, at
this stage, it is not possible to say accusations made against
this accused No.2 in the case on hand and other accused in
Spl. C.C.Nos.116/2012 are one and the same...". It is also
to be noted that the learned Special Judge has recorded a
similar finding insofar as the contentions of the petitioner
are concerned in Spl.CC.Nos.105/2014, 06/2014 and
21/2014.
151. Insofar as the contention regarding forest area is
concerned and regarding forest produce, the learned Special
Judge has recorded a finding by relying on Section 80 of the
Karnataka Forest Act that there is a presumption that forest
area belongs to the Government until the contrary is
proved.
152. It must be seen that the question as to whether
Iron Ore which was subject matter of transportation and
alleged part of illegal export was forest produce, that the
land from which such Iron Ore was extracted was forest
land, is a finding that can be recorded only on the basis of
evidence and records, which aspect of appreciation is a
matter best to be left to the trial Court.
153. The question whether the area from which illegal
mining has been resorted to after expiry of lease would still
retain the character of forest land, whether mining was
from a part of the forest land, whether the Iron Ore itself
would come within the purview of 'forest produce', are
matters that need not be adjudicated at this stage so as to
close a prosecution which is being tested in trial.
154. It is also to be noticed that the finding as
regards forest land or non-forest land while interpreting the
notification ought not to be embarked upon wherein the
same question would arise as regards co-accused who are
not parties in the present proceedings and accordingly,
Court must refrain from recording a finding that may
jeopardize prosecution against other accused persons
against whom the trial is in progress.
155. Insofar as the question of multiple FIRs is
concerned, taking into consideration the submission of
learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for CBI and
relying on the Table extracted supra, it is to be noticed that
R.C.No.13(A)/2012 was registered as regards export of Iron
Ore by M/s.Dream Logistics India Co., Ltd., for the period
between 01.01.2009 to 31.05.2010; as regards
R.C.No.14(A)/2012, FIR was registered for export of 9.86
lakhs of Metric Ton of Iron Ore by M/s.ILC Industries
between 1.1.2009 to 31.05.2010; as regards
R.C.No.15(A)/2012, FIR was registered for export of 7.74
lakh Metric Ton of Iron Ore by M/s. S.B.Logistics between
1.1.2009 to 31.05.2010; while R.C.No.16(A)/2012, FIR was
registered for export of of 7.23 lakh Metric Ton of Iron Ore
by M/s.Mallikarjuna Shipping Pvt. Ltd. between 1.1.2009 to
31.05.2010. Accordingly, the export of Iron Ore of
different quantities by different Companies have been
registered as a separate FIR as noticed from the Table
extracted supra and accordingly, there is a substance in the
contention that the subject matter of each of the FIRs are
distinct and accordingly, the question of accepting the
contention that there are multiple FIRs with respect to the
same offence prima facie cannot be accepted.
156. Though it is contended that there is an overlap
of FIRs, however, learned Special Public Prosecutor
appearing for CBI has rightly pointed out that though the
modus operandi is the same, however, there are separate
and distinct overt acts in course of separate transactions
which constitute different offences and accordingly, it
cannot be contended that there are no multiple sets of
offences that have been committed. Any finding after a
detailed analysis regarding overlapping of offences, is a
matter that could be arrived at only during trial and beyond
the limited scope of limited jurisdiction under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. to appreciate evidence and interfere with the
findings made in the order of discharge. Similarly, as to
whether offence made out in R.C.No.18(A)/2011 has an
overlap with R.C.Nos.13(A)/2012, 14(A)/2012, 15(A)/2012
and 16(A)/2012 are also factual findings to be arrived at
after appreciation of evidence which ought not to be made
in exercise of present jurisdiction invoked.
157. It must be noted that the present FIRs having
been registered pursuant to the order of the Apex Court in
Samaj Parivartana Samudaya (supra) cannot be
interfered with lightly without permitting the trial to
conclude. The legal effect of lands notified under Section 4
of the Karnataka Forest Act and as to whether it would
qualify to be forest land, whether the mining was in fact
carried out in forest land carrying out mining in lands where
leasehold rights have expired and whether such land if
earlier was forest land are again factually dense contentions
which are mixed questions of fact and law which can be
gone into only by the trial Court.
Insofar as the relief sought as regards forest offences
is concerned, it must be noticed that charges framed do not
pertain to forest offences and accordingly, the question of
adjudication sought for by the petitioner does not arise for
consideration.
158. Insofar as the contention of the petitioner that
R.C.No.18(A)/2011 which is the complaint that is
comprehensive may be permitted to proceeded with while
the other complaints could be stayed as noticed above,
prima facie, the subject matter of each of the FIRs
constitute a separate offence. The alternative contention
that there could be consolidation of FIRs in light of Section
219 and 223 of Cr.P.C., it must be observed that such
application ought to have been filed before the trial Court,
as it is the trial Court to decide as regards such request and
more importantly, such request must be made prior to
commencement of the trial. The trial being at an advanced
stage, it is not open for such consideration at the present
stage.
159. It must be noticed that as against the order
dismissing application for discharge, revision under Section
397(2) of Cr.P.C. would be maintainable. The petitioner not
having challenged the said orders in revision proceedings
and having invoked the present jurisdiction, which is
narrower than the jurisdiction in appeal/revision, the scope
of interference being limited in light of the discussion made
above, the Court has refused to interfere and intervene in
the proceedings before the trial Court, which ought to be
allowed to be proceeded.
160. It is also necessary to note that the proceedings
before the trial Court are at an advanced stage except in
R.C.No.18(A)/2011. The orders of sanction have been
upheld and a specific finding is being recorded as regards
the validity of such orders, the evidence of many of
witnesses have been recorded and their cross-examination
is complete and at this stage, no case is made out for
interference.
161. It is also to be noticed that the discretionary
jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is to be exercised
to prevent abuse of process or to secure ends of justice only
in exceptional cases. Where interference in exercise of such
jurisdiction requires appreciation of evidence, finding on
facts, it would be best left for such matters to be decided
during trial. In the present case, it must also be kept in
mind that any finding regarding mining operations in a
forest area or in non-forest area would have implication as
regards other criminal cases also pending and accordingly,
it may not be appropriate to jeopardize the cases against
other accused by recording a finding as against the
petitioner alone.
162. Accordingly, this Court does not find any scope
for interference and the Writ Petitions are dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
VGR
