[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Mineral Enterprises Private Limited vs State By Superintent Of Police on 12 February, 2026
Author: S Sunil Dutt Yadav
Bench: S Sunil Dutt Yadav
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:8776
CRL.RP No. 188 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 188 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
1. MINERAL ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED
(PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS
MINERAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED)
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE
COMPANIES ACT 1956
NO.49 KHANIJA BHAVAN, R.C.ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001
REPRESENTED BY DIRECTOR
HUKUM RAJ JAIN
2. HUKUM RAJ JAIN
Digitally S/O OF LATE CHAMPALAL JAIN
signed by
VIDYA G R AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS
Location: DIRECTOR
HIGH COURT
OF M/S MINERAL
KARNATAKA
NO.49, KHANIJA BHAVAN
WEST WING III FLOOR
R.C ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. ADITYA NARAYAN., ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:8776
CRL.RP No. 188 of 2023
HC-KAR
AND:
1. STATE BY SUPERINTENT OF POLICE
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION TEAM
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA
BANGALORE
REP BY SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560 001
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. B.S. PRASAD., ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 (1) R/W SECTION 401 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER
DATED 11.01.2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED LXXXI ADDL.
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY (CCH-82)
IN SPL.C.C.NO.471/2016 (ANNEXURE-A) AND THEREBY
DISCHARGE THE PETITIONERS FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 379,
420, 471 R/W 120B OF IPC AND SECTION 4(1), 4(1A) R/W
SECTION 21 AND 23 OF MMDR ACT, 1957 AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners have sought for setting aside the
impugned order dated 11.01.2023 passed by the Special Court
whereby application filed seeking discharge of the petitioners
for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 420, 471 r/w
120B IPC and Section 4(1) and 4 (1A) r/w 21 and 23 of the
MMDR Act, 1957, has been dismissed.
NC: 2026:KHC:8776
HC-KAR
2. The petitioner no.1 which is a company has been
arrayed as accused no.1 and petitioner no.2 has been arrayed
as accused no.2.
3. The respondent authorities have completed their
investigation and filed the charge sheet. Subsequently, the
petitioners had filed an application seeking discharge.
4. It is to be noticed that the application filed under
Section 227 r/w 239 of Cr.P.C., filed by the petitioner herein
i.e., accused nos.1 and 2 was taken up for consideration along
with other applications for discharge filed by accused nos.10,
13, 14, 15, 16, 33, 42 and 43 and the court has rejected the
applications. It is clarified at the outset that though the
common order is passed as against other accused as well,
however, the present challenge is against the order of the
Special Court only insofar as it concerns accused nos.1 and 2.
5. The case made out by the learned counsel for
petitioners is that the trial court ought not to have clubbed
those applications along with the other applications as there are
certain facts that are particular to accused nos.1 and 2 and
ought to have been dealt with separately.
NC: 2026:KHC:8776
HC-KAR
6. Learned counsel for petitioners would submit that the
findings of the trial court insofar as conspiracy vis-à-vis
petitioners herein requires re-visit. Various other arguments
have been raised.
7. Learned counsel for petitioners has filed summary of
contentions raised in the discharge application filed by the
petitioners and has adverted as to whether such contentions
have been addressed in the impugned order. The same is
extracted as follows:
SUMMARY OF CONTENTIONS IN DISCHARGE APPLICATION
FILED BY PETITIONERS
CONTENTIONS NOT ADDRESSED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER
SL. NO. REFERENCE IN PETITIONERS' APPLICATION FOR DISCHARGE
(Ann. F. pp. 350-368)
1. While the charge is that a total quantity of 46,289 MT of iron
ore has been transported illegally, without permits, there are
several inconsistencies with respect to the quantities of ore
mentioned in the chargesheet itself.
2. An additional quantity of 12,607.86 MT of iron ore has been
clubbed into the amount of ore alleged to have been
transported by Petitioner No.1 even though it does not form
part of the quantity said to have been exported by it. (para 9
@p.354, Vol. II. Crl.RP PB)
3. Petitioner No.1 is alleged to have transported 31,529 MT of
iron ore using concocted documents, though the said
documents have been issued by officials of Department of
Mines and Geology, Andra Pradesh. (para 10 @p.355, Vol. II,
Crl.RP PB)
NC: 2026:KHC:8776
HC-KAR
4. Quantity of ore alleged to have been transported by
Petitioner No.1 under forged permits, i.e., 31, 529 MT
includes the quantum forming part of Crime No. 19/2014,
i.e., 1809 MT, wherein it is alleged that the said quantity was
transported without any permits. Hence, the chargesheet is
ex facie contradictory, (para 10 @p.355, Vol. II, Crl. RP PB)
5. In any event, Petitioner No.I was not engaged in purchasing
ore directly from the mining lessees (who are alleged to have
extracted the ore without permits/payment of royalties), and
was not engaged in transportation of iron ore from the
mining lease areas to Belekeri Port. (para 13 @p.356. Vol. II.
Crl.RP PB)
6. Cheating is an essential ingredient for an offence under
Section 420 to be made out (as held in Prof. R. K.
Vijayasarathy v. Sudha Seetharam (2019) 16 SCC 739) but
no such case is made out against the Petitioners. (para 27 @
p.364, Vol. II. Crl.RP PB)
7. Petitioner No.1's sales have always been legally disclosed and
audited and all applicable taxes and statutory payments have
been made. (para 28 @p.365, Vol. II Crl.RP PB)
8. The prosecution has also not established that the permits
themselves are forged or are false documents in order to
attract Section 471, as mandated in A.S. Krishnan v. State of
Kerala and in Mohammed Ibrahim and Others v. State of
Bihar (2009) 8 SCC 751. (paras 29 and 30 @ p. 366, Vol. II.
Crl.RP PB)
9. Further, the other vendors from whom the Petitioner has
purchased the iron ore from have not been arrayed as
accused in the chargesheet. Hence, there is no rationale in
alleging that the Petitioners are guilty of offences under
Section 4(1) of MMDR when their vendors themselves have
not been accused in the chargesheet. (para 16 @p.359, Vol.
II. Crl.RP PB)
10. In fact, with respect to the ore extracted by it from its mining
lease, it is expressly stated in the chargesheet that all
necessary permits for extraction are available. (para 15
@p.358, Vol. II. Crl.RP PB)
NC: 2026:KHC:8776
HC-KAR
11. Petitioner No. 1 is a bona fide purchaser of iron ore from
various vendors who, in turn, purchased the ore from other
vendors. It is not a mining leaseholder within the meaning of
Section 4(1) of the MMDR Act, 1957, with respect to the
quantity of ore forming subject matter of the present case.
(paras 14 and 15, pp.356-357, Vol. II. Crl.RP PB)
8. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the
contentions referred to at Sl.No.1 to 11 have not been adverted
to by the trial court and no findings are recorded.
9. It is submitted that the contentions raised if are dealt
with, petitioners are hopeful that there would be findings in
their favour and would exculpate the petitioners. The
petitioners have also filed I.A.-2/2023 on 30.08.2023 raising
additional grounds.
10. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that some of
these contentions raised had not been adverted to in the
discharge application.
11. Perused the order passed by the learned Special
Judge.
12. While the learned counsel Sri.B.S.Prasad would
strenuously contend that if the court were to make any
NC: 2026:KHC:8776
HC-KAR
observation regarding validity of the order which is a common
order, the same would have the impact insofar as the order
passed against the other accused. It is submitted that the
court may bear in mind the order now passed must not lead to
fresh round of litigation by the other accused some of whom
have not challenged this order.
13. Insofar as the contention of learned counsel
Sri.Aditya Narayan appearing for the petitioners regarding the
trial court not having recorded a finding regarding some of the
contentions raised as extracted above, prima-facie such
contention requires acceptance. Further, the learned counsel
for petitioners has raised additional grounds as well.
14. Taking note that the order is a common order
vis-à-vis other accused, it may not be appropriate to pass any
observation that has the effect of other accused, who till date
have not challenged this order on 11.01.2023, to mount
another round of litigation.
15. Accordingly, without recording any finding, taking
note of the aspect of additional grounds raised as well as
contention of the petitioners that contentions raised in the
NC: 2026:KHC:8776
HC-KAR
application for discharge have not been adverted to and not
been recorded, it would be appropriate to set aside the
dismissal of order of discharge and insofar as accused nos.1
and 2 is concerned and remit the matter for fresh consideration
by the Special Judge.
16. The petitioners are at liberty to make out additional
grounds on same lines as raised in I.A.-2/2023 herein. The
Special Court may consider passing of orders on application for
discharge within a reasonable time.
17. Needless to state, it is made clear that upon remand,
the petitioners not to take unnecessary adjournments and
cooperate with the disposal of the application for discharge.
All other contentions are kept open.
18. In the peculiar facts of the case, we have noticed
that some of the contentions raised by the petitioner may
require separate adjudication and accordingly, the court
interferes with the order of the Special Judge only insofar as
petitioners are concerned.
NC: 2026:KHC:8776
HC-KAR
19. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. All
contentions on merits are however kept open.
Sd/-
(S SUNIL DUTT YADAV)
JUDGE
NP
