Karnataka High Court

J S W Steels vs The State Of Karnataka on 29 November, 2023

                                                -1-
                                                      NC: 2023:KHC-D:13993
                                                      CRL.RP No. 100082 of 2017




                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

                         DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

                                             BEFORE
                     THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
                   CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100082 OF 2017 (397)


                    BETWEEN:

                    J.S.W. STEELS,
                    A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER
                    THE COMPANIES ACT 1956
                    BY ITS AUTHORIZED PERSON
                    SRI K.N. SWAROOP S/O. K.V. NAGABHUSHAN,
                    AGE: 43 YEARS, DEPUTY MANAGER,
                    LEGAL DEPARTMENT, J.S.W. STEELS LIMITED,
                    R/O: J.S.W. QUARTERS,
                    TORANGALLU, BALLARI DISTRICT.
                                                                   ...PETITIONER

                    (BY SRI. S.H. MITTALKOD, ADVOCATE)

                    AND:
SHIVAKUMAR
HIREMATH
                    1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
                         BY RANGE FOREST OFFICER,
Digitally signed
by
                         DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, HOSAPETE,
SHIVAKUMAR
HIREMATH
                         REPRESENTED BY SPP. HIGH COURT
Date: 2023.12.02         OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD.
10:40:27 +0530

                    2.   V.P. MURUGAN,
                         VICE PRESIDENT, J.S.W. STEELS,
                         TORANGALLU, BALLARI.
                                                                ...RESPONDENTS

                    (BY SRI. ASHOK T. KATTIMANI, AGA FOR R1;
                    NOTICE SERVED TO R2)
                               -2-
                                    NC: 2023:KHC-D:13993
                                    CRL.RP No. 100082 of 2017




     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 READ WITH 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYOING TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 8.6.2016 PASSED BY THE III
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT BALLARI IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 5028 OF 2015 AND THE JUDGEMENT
PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, HOSAPETE IN CRIMINAL CASE NO.
839 OF 2014 DATED 9.12.2014 AND ORDER TO RELEASE IRON
ORE TO THE PETITIONER.

     THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                            ORDER

The revision petitioner/applicant has filed this revision

petition challenging the orders passed in C.C.No.839/2014

dated 09.12.2014 by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC,

Hosapete (for short "the Trial Court") ordering the confiscation

of the Iron ore weighing 212.14 tonnes and said order of

confiscation is being confirmed in Criminal Appeal

No.5028/2015 by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge,

Ballari, Sitting at Hosapete, (for short "the First Appellate

Court") dated 08.06.2016.

2. It is stated by the revision petitioner/applicant that,

a complaint was filed by respondent No.1 against respondent

No.2 in F.O.C.No.23/2014-15 alleging the offences under

Sections 62 and 80 of Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 (hereinafter

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13993

referred to as "the Act" for short) and under Rules 144 and 165

of Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as "the

Rules" for short). Based upon the said complaint, respondent

No.1 seized 16 lorries alleging that in the said lorries, there was

transportation of Iron ore illegally. In all 212.14 metric tonnes

of Iron ore was seized. Lorries so seized were released as per

the orders of the Court.

3. It is stated that respondent No.1 filed the charge

sheet against respondent No.2 for the aforesaid offences. The

Trial Court after taking cognizance of the offences against the

accused, secured the presence of the accused by issuing

summons. The respondent No.2 appeared before the Trial

Court and pleaded guilty of committing the offence. Thus, the

learned Magistrate imposed sentence to pay fine of Rs.500/-

and it has ordered to confiscate the Iron ore so seized. The said

order of confiscation was challenged by the revision petitioner

before the First Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal

No.5028/2015. The First appellate Court has dismissed the

appeal and confirmed the order passed by the Trial Court. This

is how the revision petitioner is before this Court challenging

the said order of confiscation of the Iron ore.

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13993

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the

petitioner Shri.S.H.Mittalkod that, as per the charge sheet so

filed by respondent No.1, the said Iron ore seized was

purchased by the petitioner-company under E-tender. The

allegation was that, there was a violation of permit condition.

So also, more than the permissible limit the accused was found

transporting the Iron ore. On that ground all the 16 lorries

were seized by the respondent No.1 and accordingly, charge

sheet was filed against respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 is

the Vice President of petitioner's company. He further submits

that merely accused/respondent No.2 has pleaded guilty that

will not be a ground for confiscation of the Iron ore owned by

the petitioner-company.

5. He submits that, because of seizure of the said iron

ore belonging to the petitioner-company, now the petitioner-

company is deprived of its regular income etc., He further

submits that the very order of confiscation of iron ore by the

Trial, which is confirmed by the First Appellate Court has done

injustice to the petitioner. The petitioner-company is lawful

owner of the said iron ore. Hence, in view of illegality

committed by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13993

Court, it is prayed to allow this revision petition and order for

release of the said iron ore to the petitioner-company. He

further submits that any conditions may be imposed for release

of the said iron ore.

6. As against this submission, the learned AGA,

Sri.Ashok T Kattimani submits that, the said iron ore was

seized by respondent No.1 under the provisions of Karnataka

Forest Act, that too under Section 62 and 80 of the Act and

Rule 144 and 165 of the Rules. Respondent No.2 was found

transporting the said iron ore in 16 lorries by violating the

permit condition as well as more than permissible limit.

Therefore, the Trial Court has rightly passed the order of

confiscation of iron ore to the State, which is rightly confirmed

by the First Appellate Court. There is no scope for allowing this

revision petition and for setting aside the said order of

confiscation. Therefore, he seeks for dismissal of the revision

petition.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the

arguments advanced by both sides and meticulously perused

the records.

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13993

8. In view of rival submissions of both the sides, the

following point would arise for consideration of this petition:

"Whether the orders being passed by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court for confiscation of iron ore seized by respondent No.1 require interference by this Court?"

9. My answer to the above point is in the affirmative

for the following:

REASONS

10. So far as seizure of iron ore in Crime No.10/2014-

15 dated 22.08.2014 is concerned, it is admitted. Based upon

FIR No.31588/2014 dated 29.04.2014 came to be registered by

respondent No.1. After completion of investigation, respondent

No.1 filed charge sheet before the Trial Court, which was

registered in C.C.No.839/2014.

11. The charges leveled against the accused i.e.

respondent No.2 are as under:

"¸ÀAqÀÆgÀÄ ªÀ®AiÀÄzÀ ªÉÄ|| J.J.£ï.J¸ï. UÀtÂ UÀÄwÛUÉ (JA.J¯ï.¸ÀASÉå E.J.2531) ¥ÀæzÉÃ±À¢AzÀ ªÉÄÃ|| eÉ.J¸ï.qÀ§Æèöå ¸ÀA¸ÉÜ vÉÆÃgÀtUÀ®Äè EªÀgÀÄ E-mÉAqÀgï ¥ÀQæAiÉÄAiÀÄ°è RjÃ¢¹zÀ

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13993

PÀ©âtzÀ C¢gÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÁUÁtÂPÉ ªÀiÁqÀÄªÁUÀ CªÀ¢ü «ÄÃjzÀ gÀºÀzÁj ºÁUÀÆ C£ÀÄªÀÄwVAvÀ C¢üPÀ vÀÆPÀzÀ PÀ©âtzÀ C¢gÀ£ÀÄß PÀ®èºÀ½î vÀ°SÁ oÁuÉAiÀÄ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¸ÁUÁtÂPÉ ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ, PÀ£ÁðlPÀ CgÀtå PÁAiÉÄÝ 1963 ¸ÉPÀë£ï 62 ºÁUÀÆ 80 ºÁUÀÆ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ CgÀtå C¢ü¤AiÀÄªÀÄ-1969 ¤AiÀÄªÀÄ 144 & 165'gÀ ¸ÀàµÀ× G®èAWÀ£ÉAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ªÉÄ|| eÉ.J¸ï.qÀ§Æèöå ¸ÀA¸ÉÜ vÉÆÃgÀtUÀ®Äè EªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ £ÉÃgÀ ºÉÆÃuÉUÁgÀgÁVzÀÄÝ, ¯Áj ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¯Áj ZÁ®PÀgÀÄ ¤gÀ¥ÀgÁ¢üUÀ¼ÁVgÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯ÉÆßÃlPÉÌ PÀAqÀÄ§A¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ."

12. On scrupulous reading of the charges, so stated in

column No.8 of the charge sheet, it shows that, seized iron ore

belongs to M/s.JSW Steels Company, Torangal and it was

purchased under E-tender by the said company. That means, it

is within the knowledge of respondent No.1 that, the said iron

ore so seized belongs to the petitioner-company.

13. The learned AGA submits that, no document is

produced by the petitioner to show the ownership. Therefore,

unless an enquiry is conducted to ascertain the ownership, the

petitioner is not entitled for the custody of this iron ore.

14. In the charge sheet, the investigating officer has

collected some documents with regard to consignment being

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13993

transported through said lorries. The consignment copy was

seized when the said iron ore was being transported in

S.P.Logistics belongings to the petitioner-company. The only

allegation made by respondent No.1 is that, there is violation of

permit condition and more than permissible limit the said iron

ore was being transported. To that effect, evidence was

collected by the Investigating Officer during the course of

investigation. As per the remarks dated 06.06.2014 furnished

by the Ashwathnarayan Singh and company, evidently the said

iron ore so seized belongs to the petitioner-company. Since

respondent No.2 has pleaded guilty before the Trial Court on

09.12.2014, the learned Magistrate in a mechanical manner

has passed the order of confiscation of the said iron ore so

seized. This order was challenged by the petitioner-company by

preferring an appeal before the First Appellate Court in

Crl.A.No.5028/2015 before the First Appellate Court. The First

Appellate Court in page No.7 of the order has observed that "on

09.12.2014, respondent No.2-accused appeared and filed an

application under Section 252 of Cr.P.C. and sought permission

to plead guilty of the offence. Accordingly, after pleading guilty,

the learned Magistrate imposed fine of Rs.500/- on the accused

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13993

for the offence under Rule 144 and 165 of the Rules and

Section 62 and 80 of the Act. It has further observed that since

said iron ore ordered to be confiscated after completion of

appeal period, the bank guarantee furnished is also cancelled

and the custody of the vehicle was made absolute. It is

observed that moreover, to show that the purchase of ore by

paying royalty and Cess to the Government by the company,

no document is forthcoming. Even otherwise, respondent No.2

has pleaded guilty of committing the offence". On this count

the First Appellate Court has confirmed the order of the learned

Magistrate.

15. No doubt, though the respondent No.2 has pleaded

guilty before the Trial Court. The said iron ore, as per the

charge sheet, belongs to the petitioner-company purchased

under E-tender. Section 80 of the Karnataka Forest Act speaks

of presumption that forest produce belongs to the Government.

Section 80 of the Act reads as under:

"80. Presumption that forest produce belongs to Government.-- When in any proceedings taken under this Act or in consequence of anything done under this Act or under any other law for the time

- 10 -

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13993

being in force, a question arises as to whether any forest produce is the property of the State Government, such produce shall be presumed to be the property of the State Government until the contrary is proved, and in case of any prosecution the burden of proving the contrary shall lie on the accused."

2. On reading of the provision of Section 80 of the

Act, it is presumed that the forest produces if it is seized, the

wording used is "it belongs to the Government until contrary is

proved". Here in this case, charge sheet itself shows that the

petitioner-company has produced e-tender purchase document.

That means, petitioner-company is the owner of the said iron

ore. If it is so, as there is compliance of provisions of Rule 144

and 165 of the Rules, by pleading guilty by respondent No.2,

the owner of the said iron ore is entitled for custody of the said

iron ore as claimed in this petition. Therefore, the learned

Magistrate has mechanically passed the order for confiscation

of the iron ore seized and the First Appellate Court has not

applied its mind. Without going through the contents of the

charge sheet, in a casual manner, the First Appellate court has

confirmed the order of the Trial Court. Both the Courts have

erred in ordering for confiscation of the iron ore so seized. More

- 11 -

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13993

so, it is not the case of respondent No.1 that respondent No.2

was found transporting forest produces and therefore, the

Government of Karnataka is the owner of the said iron ore. No

such contention is taken. Therefore, in view of these factual

features, the petitioner is entitled for the custody of the said

iron ore.

3. It is submitted by the learned AGA that before

handing over the custody of the said iron ore, certain conditions

are to be imposed. His submission appears to be valid. In view

of the same, the petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be

allowed and the impugned orders passed by the Trial Court and

the First Appellate Court are liable to be set aside. Resultantly,

I pass the following:

ORDER

The criminal revision petition filed by the revision petitioner is hereby allowed.

The impugned order passed by the Trial Court for confiscating the iron ore seized, which is confirmed by the First Appellate Court, is hereby set aside.