Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Arun B Ranka on 16 February, 2024
Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3738
CRL.RP No. 100238 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100238 OF 2019 (397)
BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE
SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
SANDUR PS,
THROUGH THE ADDITIONAL,
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP)
AND:
1. ARUN B RANKA S/O B.H.RENKA,
ANNAPURNA
CHINNAPPA AGE: 45 YEARS, DIRECTOR,
DANDAGAL M/S.RANKA INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LTD.,
Digitally signed by
31/1, SAMPANGI RAMASWAMI,
ANNAPURNA
CHINNAPPA TEMPLE ROAD, BENGALURU.
DANDAGAL
Date: 2024.02.22
11:31:25 +0530
2. B.G.SHIVAKUMAR S/O LATE BANANNA
AGE: 34 YEARS, GBS LOGISTICS,
PLOT NO.23, 2ND CROSS ROAD,
ANNAPURNA EXTENSION,
HOSAPETE, DISTRICT: BALLARI.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/SEC.397(3)
R/W SEC.401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORD IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.02/2017 ON THE FILE OF PRL. DISTRICT AND
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3738
CRL.RP No. 100238 of 2019
SESSIONS JUDGE, BALLARI AND ALSO IN C.C.NO.1096/2012 ON
THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SANDUR AND TO RE-
EXAMINE THE ENTIRE RECORDS OF PROCEEDINGS AND SET ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF BOTH THE COURTS PASSED IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.02/2017 DATED 07/02/2018 ON THE FILE OF
PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BALLARI AND ALSO IN
C.C.NO.1096/2012 DATED 10/07/2015 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC, SANDUR AND TO CONVICT THE RESPONDENTS /
ACCUSED 1 TO 2 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION
379, 201 AND 420 OF IPC AND U/SECTION 4(1) 21(1 TO 6) MMDR
ACT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. This criminal revision petition under Section
397(3) read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. is filed by the
State challenging the judgment and order of acquittal
passed by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Sandur in C.C.
No.1096/2012 dated 10.07.2015 confirmed in Crl.Appeal
No.2/2017 by the Court of the Principal Sessions Judge,
Bellary by its judgment and order dated 07.02.2018.
2. Heard the learned High Court Government
Pleader for the appellant.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3738
3. The prosecution had filed criminal case against
the respondents herein for the offences punishable under
Sections 378, 201 read with Section 420 of Cr.P.C. and
Section 4(1), 21(1 to 6) of MMDR Act.
4. Allegation against the respondents/accused is
that they being the directors and authorized persons
inchage of M/s.Renuka International Private Limited, had
indulged in illegal mining and lifting of iron ore in violation
of the provisions of MMDR Act. In the said case, the
respondents had appeared and pleaded not guilty.
5. The prosecution in order to prove its case
against the respondents had examined 6 witnesses as PW1
to PW6 and got marked 18 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P18.
In support of their defence, the respondents/accused
marked 2 documents as Ex.D1 and Ex.D2. It is the specific
defence of the accused that they had not lifted the
minerals as alleged and the minerals was lifted by them
only as per the terms of the permit letter Ex.D1 issued to
them. The accused in support of their defence had
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3738
produced Ex.D1, which is the permit letter issued by the
competent authority permitting them to lift the minerals.
6. Ex.D2 is the report issued by the Deputy
Commissioner. The said document was confronted to PW2-
the complainant and Senior Geologist in the Department of
Mines and Geology, Hosapete. The said witness after
perusing the documents Ex.D1 and Ex.D2, has admitted
that permit was given to M/s.Renuka International Private
Limited for lifting minerals. With reference to Ex.D2, which
is the report issued by the Deputy Commissioner, PW2 has
stated that if the said report was made available to him
prior to the filing of the complaint, he would not have
lodged the complaint. From the reading of Ex.D2, it is
evident that the Deputy Commissioner had held an enquiry
with regard to the complaint lodged against the accused
that they had lifted minerals illegally without permission
and after completing the enquiry, he had submitted a
report stating that accused have not done any illegal
mining activities and they have lifted the minerals which
was lying within their premises on the strength of the
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3738
permit issued to them. It is in this background the trial
Court had acquitted the accused of the offences alleged
against him. The said judgment and order of acquittal has
been confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge. Therefore,
I do not find any good reason to interfere with the
impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed in
favour of the accused/respondents. Accordingly, the
revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KGK
CT:GSM
