Dr. V.D. Rajagopal vs The State Of Telangana
2023 Latest Caselaw 1117 Tel

     THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN


         CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.721 of 2022


ORDER:

Heard Dr. Susheel Kumar Gupta, learned counsel

representing Ms. Jyothi Eswar Gogineni, learned counsel

for the petitioner and Mr. N.Nagendran, learned Special

Public Prosecutor (PP) for Central Bureau of

Investigation (CBI) representing the respondent.

2. This revision case has been filed under Section 397 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C) read with

Section 401 thereof assailing the order dated 17.10.2022

passed by the learned Principal Special Judge for CBI cases

at Hyderabad ('CBI Court', for short) in Crl.M.P.No.1524 of

2020 in C.C.No.1 of 2012 as well as the consequential

order dated 28.10.2022 passed by the CBI Court.

3. Be it stated that by the order dated 17.10.2022, CBI

Court has dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner

under Section 239 Cr.P.C to discharge him in C.C.No.1 of

2012. On the other hand, by the consequential order dated

28.10.2022, the CBI Court has framed charges against the

petitioner under Section 120B read with Section 420 of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 120B, 409,

420, 468 and 471 IPC as well as under Section 13(2) read

with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,

1988 (briefly, 'the PC Act' hereinafter).

4. The then Government of Andhra Pradesh had issued

a notification under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police

Establishment Act, 1946, vide G.O.Ms.No.467 dated

17.11.2009, extending the powers and jurisdiction of the

members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (CBI)

for registration and investigation of a criminal case relating

to illegal mining activities of M/s. Obulapuram Mining

Company and M/s. Bellary Iron Ore Private Limited in the

Bellary Reserve Forest of Ananthapur District in the State

of Andhra Pradesh, including in the disputed boundary

region and other related matters. Department of Personnel,

Public Grievances and Pensions, Government of India, New

Delhi, had also issued a notification dated 01.12.2009

under Section 5 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment

Act, 1946, extending the powers and jurisdiction of the

members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (CBI)

for registration and investigation of the said case.

5. It may be mentioned that thereafter CBI, Anti

Corruption Bureau (ACB), Hyderabad Branch, had

registered Crime No.RC.17(A)/2009 on 07.12.2009 under

Sections 120B, 420, 379, 411, 427 and 447 IPC as well as

under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC

Act as well as under Section 26 of the Indian Forest Act,

1927, and Section 21 read with Sections 4(1), 4(1)(A) and

23 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and

Regulations) Act, 1957 (briefly, 'the Act' hereinafter), to

investigate boundary disputes and illegal mining by M/s.

Obulapuram Mining Company Private Limited (hereinafter

referred to as, 'Obulapuram') and M/s. Bellary Iron Ores

Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as, 'Bellary') in

Bellary Reserve Forest of Ananthapur District, Andhra

Pradesh.

6. Obulapuram filed a writ petition before the then

combined High Court of Andhra Pradesh, being

W.P.No.27120 of 2009, challenging issuance of

G.O.Ms.No.467, dated 17.11.2009. A Single Judge of the

then High Court of Andhra Pradesh had initially granted

interim stay of investigation on 14.12.2009 which order

was made absolute on 14.06.2010. Against such stay

order, CBI filed W.A.No.532 of 2010. A Division Bench of

the Andhra Pradesh High Court vacated the aforesaid stay

on 16.12.2010. In the said order, the High Court directed

the CBI to limit investigation only to the illegal mining

activity of the two firms and not to probe the boundary

disputes till the same was decided by the Committee so

constituted on orders of the Supreme Court.

7. In view of the aforesaid order, investigation was

limited to the allegation of illegal mining activity. In the

course of investigation, it was found that Obulapuram was

granted three leases which are as follows:

i) Area of 25.98 hectares covered by lease period from

19.02.2002 to 25.04.2017.

ii) Area of 39.50 hectares covered by lease period from

05.10.2006 to 04.10.2026; and

iii) Area of 68.50 hectares covered by lease period from

18.06.2007 to 17.06.2027.

7.1. In case of Bellari, it was granted a lease of 27.12

hectares covered by the lease period from 19.05.1998 to

18.05.2018.

8. Investigation revealed that Obulapuram in its leased

area of 68.50 hectares in Antargangamma Konda area had

shifted permanent boundary pillars of Station No.8 towards

the western direction by about 40 metres and had

constructed a permanent pillar in order to criminally

encroach upon un-allotted area for commission of offence

i.e., illegal mining. Similarly, permanent pillar of Station

No.10 was also removed. This enabled construction of

illegal roads for transportation of ore to Station No.7

instead of Station No.8. Besides, illegal roads were

constructed near Station No.1 in the reserve forest outside

the lease area at a distance of 2.95 kms. Obulapuram at

their site of 68.50 hectares had claimed to have dispatched

29.32 lakh metric tones of iron ore. However, from the

physical appearance of the site it appeared that not even

40% of the aforesaid quantity could have been extracted

from the said place. There was also an allegation that in

the lease areas of 39.50 hectares and 25.98 hectares there

was illegal dumping of iron ore in the adjacent reserve

forest area. There was improper fixation of the location of

the mining area in criminal conspiracy with unknown

public servants and in the process there was encroachment

into adjoining mining leases.

9. Bellary had shown dispatch of 2.5 lakh metric tones

of iron ore from its lease area whereafter no active mining

activity was found in the said mining area. It was further

alleged that Bellary had utilized 1.8 hectare of reserve

forest land outside the leased boundary for dumping the

mining waste without approval from the competent

authority. In this process, one temple located in the

reserve forest near the mining leases was destroyed by the

accused persons with the intention to carryout mining as

the said area was having rich iron ore content.

10. On completion of investigation, CBI filed charge sheet

being charge sheet No.10/2011 on 03.12.2011 under

Section 173 Cr.P.C. Five persons were named as accused.

Petitioner was arrayed as accused No.3. It appears that by

way of supplementary charge sheet, in all, nine persons

were arrayed as accused.

11. At this stage we may mention that at the relevant

point of time petitioner was serving as Director of Mines

and Geology in the Government of Andhra Pradesh.

12. Petitioner filed an application before the CBI Court for

his discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. It was contended

that petitioner had merely followed the procedure

prescribed under the Act and the Mineral Concession

Rules, 1960 (briefly, 'the Rules' hereinafter). No ingredient

of any criminal offence could be traceable to the conduct of

the petitioner. Petitioner, who had joined the Mines and

Minerals Department on 20.01.1977, had retired on

attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2011 after an

unblemished service career. All the ingredients of IPC

related offences like Sections 405, 409 and 420 are clearly

absent in the present case. There is also no evidence

whatsoever to attract Section 120B IPC. Insofar Section

13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act is concerned,

it was contended that Section 13(1)(d) of the Act was

omitted from the statute with effect from 26.07.2018.

There being no dereliction of duty by the petitioner, not to

speak of committing any criminal offence, petitioner sought

for his discharge.

13. The said application was registered as Crl.M.P.

No.1524 of 2020. By the order dated 17.10.2022 CBI

Court dismissed the discharge application holding that

there is a prima facie triable case against the petitioner as

accused No.3.

14. Thereafter CBI Court passed an order dated

28.10.2022 framing charges against the accused persons.

Thus, petitioner has been charged with committing an

offence under Section 120B read with Section 420 IPC,

Sections 409, 468 and 471 IPC and under Section 13(2)

read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act.

15. Aggrieved, the present criminal revision case has

been filed seeking the relief as indicated above.

16. Dr. Susheel Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the

petitioner has elaborately taken the Court to various

provisions of the Act and the Rules. Thereafter, he has

taken the Court to the various charges framed by the CBI

Court. He submits that, on facts, no case of even

administrative misconduct is made out against the

petitioner, not to speak of any criminal culpability. It is not

even a case of mala fide exercise of power by the petitioner.

He contends that in a criminal case it is hard facts and

evidence which are relevant; perception does not matter.

Relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Union

of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal1, he submits that

findings arrived at by the CBI Court are wholly erroneous,

arrived at on wrong inferences. Learned counsel for the

(1979) 3 SCC 4

petitioner submits that CBI Court did not sift and weigh

the evidence on record even for the limited purpose of

finding out whether or not a prima facie case has been

made out against the petitioner. As held in Prafulla

Kumar Samal (supra), the CBI Court acted merely as the

mouthpiece of the prosecution by restating whatever was

said by the CBI.

16.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits

that finding recorded by the CBI Court that petitioner being

the Director of Mines and Geology had inducted his

brother-in-law in A4-company is wholly incorrect. His

brother-in-law D.Rajashekar was appointed as Director in

A4-company on 11.07.2005, whereas petitioner became

Director of Mines and Geology on 01.08.2005.

D.Rajashekar, being a lawyer, was being regularly

consulted by A4-company since 2004 onwards.

16.2. Referring to the Act and the Rules in great details,

learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that

allegations in the charge sheet and findings recorded by

the CBI Court that petitioner had misused his position to

eliminate other applicants from getting mining licences are

wholly incorrect. Even if there was any procedural

omission, the same cannot be considered or construed to

be a criminal offence. Some of the applications for mining

licences were rejected because those were filed

prematurely. Mining licence was granted to A4-company

following the laid down procedure and examination of the

proposal by a number of officers who had processed the

file, including the Joint Director of Mines and Geology.

Accused No.6 - Smt. Y.Srilakshmi, had submitted the

proposal before the Government of India on 18.01.2007.

Only after approval of Government of India vide letter dated

25.05.2007, mining lease was granted to A4-company on

18.06.2007. Though the unsuccessful applicants had

either filed revision petitions before Government of India

under Rule 54 of the Rules or filed writ petitions before this

Court, none of those applicants were successful.

Dr. Susheel Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the

petitioner has placed reliance on Section 11 of the Act,

more particularly to sub-section (4) thereof as well as to the

provisions of Rules 59 and 60 of the Rules.

16.3. All the allegations against the petitioner are factually

incorrect, submits learned counsel for the petitioner.

16.4. That apart, learned counsel for the petitioner has

meticulously adverted to the charge sheet and submits that

charges have been framed without application of mind. He

has elaborately referred to Sections 120B, 409, 420, 468

and 471 of IPC and submits that the aforesaid sections are

not at all attracted vis-à-vis the petitioner.

16.5. Additionally, learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that criminal revision case of accused No.6, being

Crl.R.C.No.693 of 2022, was allowed by this Court vide the

order dated 08.11.2022 discharging the petitioner from

C.C.No.1 of 2012. A coordinate Bench of this Court has

held that there are no grounds for framing charges against

her for offences punishable under Section 120B read with

Section 409 IPC as well as Section 13(2) read with Section

13(1)(d) of the PC Act. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid

decision of a coordinate Bench, similar finding is required

to be rendered by this Court in the present criminal

revision case.

16.6. In support of his contentions, Dr. Susheel Kumar

Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before

the Court a compilation of judgments.

17. Mr. N.Nagendran, learned Special Public Prosecutor

for CBI, however, submits that there is no error or infirmity

in the view taken by the CBI Court. Referring to the charge

sheet and statements made by various witnesses, he

submits that the entire proceedings are at a nascent stage.

At this stage, it cannot be said from the materials on record

that petitioner is innocent or that no offence of criminal

culpability is made out against the petitioner. Rather, from

the allegations made in the charge sheet and after framing

of charges by the CBI Court, it is a fit case for trial. If the

petitioner is innocent, the criminal trial will say so. He,

therefore, submits that there is no merit in the revision

petition which should be dismissed.

18. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties

have received the due consideration of the Court.

19. At the outset, brief facts of the case as summed up by

CBI at the end of the investigation may be referred to. The

same are as follows:

Government of Andhra Pradesh issued a notification under section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 vide G.O.Ms.No.467 dated 17.11.2009 extending the powers and jurisdiction of the members of DSPE (CBI) for registration and investigation of criminal case related to the boundary disputes and illegal mining activities of M/s Obulapuram Mining Company & M/s Bellary Iron Ore Pvt. Ltd. in the Bellary Reserve Forest of Ananthapur, AP and other related matters.

Further, the Department of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Government of India, New Delhi has also issued a notification vide No.228/61/2009-AVD.II dated 01.12.2009 under Section 5 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 extending the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (CBI) for the registration and investigation of the said case.

This case was registered by CBI, ACB, Hyderabad Branch vide Crime No. RC.17(A)/2009 on 07.12.2009 U/s 120-B, 420, 379, 411, 427, 447 IPC, Sec.13(2) r/w Sec.13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988, Sec.26 of Indian Forest Act, 1927; Sec.21 r/w Sec.4(1) & 4(1)(A) and Sec.23 of Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulations) Act, 1957, to investigate boundary related disputes and illegal mining by M/s Obulapuram Mining Company Pvt. Ltd (M/s OMCPL) and M/s Bellary Iron Ores Pvt. Ltd (M/S BIOPL) in Bellary Reserve Forest of Ananthapur District of Andhra Pradesh.

Subsequent to the registration of the case, M/s Obulapuram Mining Company Pvt. Ltd (hereinafter referred as M/s OMCPL) filed a Writ Petition in the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh vide WP No. 27120/2009 challenging the issuance of GO Ms No. 467 dt.17.11.2009 of Government of AP authorizing CBI for investigation of the aforesaid matter. The learned Single Judge of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh granted an interim stay to the investigation on 14.12.2009 and finally the order was made absolute on 14.06.2010. Aggrieved by the stay order, CBI filed a Writ Appeal No. 532/2010 and the Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of AP vacated the aforesaid stay on 16.12.2010. However, in the said order, the Hon'ble High Court ordered the CBI to limit the investigation only to the illegal mining activity of the said firms and not to probe into the boundary disputes till the same is decided by the committee so constituted on the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.

In view of the orders of the Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, the investigation in this case is limited to the allegation of illegal mining activity. The investigation of boundary disputes would be continued subject to the final outcome of the Writ.

It is alleged that M/s OMCPL (A-4) has been granted three leases on areas of 25.98 Ha (lease period from 19.02.2002 to 25.04.2017); 39.50 Ha (lease period from 05.10.2006 to 04.10.2026) and 68.50 Ha (lease period from 18.06.2007 to 17.06.2027). M/s BIOPL has been granted a lease of 27.12 Ha (lease period from 19.05.1998 to 18.05.2018).

It is alleged that M/s OMCPL (A-4) in its lease area of 68.50 Ha in Antargangamma Konda area had shifted permanent boundary pillars of Station No. 8 to western direction about 40 meters and constructed a permanent pillar in order to criminally encroach upon un-allotted area for commission of offence i.e., illegal mining. Similarly, permanent pillar of Station No. 10 is also mischievously removed. They also formed illegal roads for transportation of ore to join Station No.7 instead of Station No.8. They also formed illegal roads near Station No.1 in the reserve forest area out side the lease area over a distance of 2.95 Kms. It is also alleged that M/s OMCPL (A-5) at their site of 68.50 Ha. lease in Antargangamma Konda area dispatched 29.32 Lakh MTs of iron ore, however, from the physical appearance of the site, it appears that not even 40% of the aforesaid quantity could have been extracted from the said place. There is also an allegation that near the lease area of 39.50 Ha. and 25.98 Ha., there has been illegal dumping

of iron ore in the adjacent reserve forest area. It is also alleged that there is improper fixation of location of the mining area in criminal conspiracy with unknown public servants by M/S OMCPL (A-5) at its site of 25.98 Ha and that it has encroached into the adjoining mining leases.

It is further alleged that M/S BIOP had shown dispatch of 2.5 Lakh MTs of Iron Ore from its lease area whereas no active mining activity was found in the said mining area. It is also alleged that M/s BIOP at its area of 27.12 Ha has utilised 1.8 Ha of reserve forest area outside the leased boundary for dumping the overburden/mining waste without approval thereby committing criminal trespass and causing wrongful loss to the Government.

It is alleged that Sugalamma Devi temple located in the reserve forest near their mining leases was destroyed by the accused persons with an intention to carryout illegal mining in that area as the said area is having rich iron ore content.

Investigation is completed in respect of Sri B.V.Sreenivasa Reddy (A-1), Sri Gali Janardhan Reddy (A-2), Sri V.D. Raja Gopal (A-3). M/s Obulapuram Mining Company Pvt. Ltd. (A-4) and Late Sri R. Linga Reddy (since deceased) and hence, this charge sheet is being filed against them.

Investigation in respect of Smt. Y. Srilakshmi and other unknown accused is in progress and supplementary report will be filed against them.

20. Insofar grant of mining lease to accused No.4 over an

extent of 68.50 hectares in Survey Nos.1 and 2 of

Siddapuram and Malapanagudi villages, which is the main

allegation, CBI after due analysis and appreciation of the

relevant materials concluded as follows:

a. Sri B.V. Sreenivasa Reddy (A-1), Sri Gali Janardhan Reddy (A-2) and M/s OMCPL (A-4) in furtherance of the conspiracy with the then ADMG Late Sri R. Linga Reddy (A-5) ensured that they were the first applicants along with M/s Vinayaka Mining Company to claim priority for consideration of allotment of mining lease.

b. Late Sri R. Linga Reddy (A-5), the then ADMG Sri V.D. Raja Gopal (A-3) and Smt. Y. Srilakshmi, in furtherance of the said conspiracy, abused their official position as public servants to extend pecuniary advantage and projected M/S OMCPL (A-4) as the only meritorious applicant and ensured that no one else would get the aforesaid mining-lease in violation of the established procedures and law.

c. The statements of various mining applicants establish that there was denial of justice to them and the public policy was defeated.

d. M/s SJK Steel, M/s SR Minerals and M/s Satavahana Ispat Ltd confirmed that gross illegalities were committed by the officials while taking the decision of allotting the mining lease to M/s OMCPL (A-4).

Further, M/s RS Minerals confirmed that pressure was got exerted on them to withdraw the application.

e. Sri V.D. Raja Gopal (A-3) in furtherance of criminal conspiracy and by abusing his official position as a public servant, had taken special interest in filing a mining lease application of M/s APMDC with a malafide intention to stall the claim of M/s SR Minerals who had by then obtained forest clearance for a particular area in the notified area.

f. Sri B.V. Sreenivasa Reddy (A-1) and Sri Gali Janardhan Reddy (A-2) in conspiracy with Sri V.D. Raja Gopal (A-3) had ensured that the mining lease would not be granted to any other company, since such allotment would expose their illegal activities.

21. Thus, insofar petitioner is concerned, according to

CBI, petitioner had abused his official position as a public

servant to extend pecuniary advantage to accused No.4 by

projecting accused No.4 as the only applicant deserving

mining lease. It is alleged that petitioner in furtherance of

criminal conspiracy and by abusing his official position as

a public servant had taken a special interest in filing

mining lease application of M/s. APMDC with a mala fide

intention to stall the claim of another applicant - M/s. SR

Minerals who had by then obtained forest clearance for a

particular area. That apart, according to CBI, petitioner

along with two others i.e., accused No.1 and accused No.2

had ensured that the mining lease would not be granted to

any other company since such allotment would expose

their illegal activities.

22. Insofar allotment of mining lease to accused No.4 in

39.50 hectares in Survey No.1/P of Obulapuram village is

concerned, at the end of investigation CBI concluded as

follows:

a. Late Sri R. Linga Reddy (A-5), the then ADMG, in conspiracy with the other accused persons viz. Sri B.V. Sreenivasa Reddy (A-1) and Sri Gali Janardhan Reddy (A-2) violated all the norms and laid down procedures and gave preferential treatment to M/s OMCPL (A-4) by sidelining the claims of the other individuals.

b. Smt. Y. Srilakshmi by abusing her official position projected that M/s OMCPL (A-4) requires the mining lease for captive purpose and that because of which it deserves preferential treatment when compared to the other applicants. However, in the Government Order, the word 'captive mining' was not mentioned deliberately / intentionally.

c. Pressure tactics were applied by M/s OMCPL (A-

4) in order to get the other applicants out of the race and ensured that their company gets the mining lease.

Apprehending exposure of their illegal mining activity, they ensured no other person gets into the vicinity of their area subsequent to the allotment of the mining lease to M/S OMCPL (A-4).

d. The various applications and correspondence made by the other applicants regarding illegal encroachments by M/s OMCPL (A-4) were not enquired into by the concerned officials including by Sri V.D. Rajgopal (A-3).

23. Thus, according to CBI, the accused persons by

violating all norms and laid down procedures gave

preferential treatment to accused No.4 by sidelining claims

of other claimants. Applications and correspondence made

by other applicants/claimants regarding illegal

encroachments by accused No.4 were not enquired into by

the concerned officials, including by the petitioner.

24. That apart, CBI investigated into the aspect of illegal

mining activity by accused No.4 and found severe

irregularities following which recommendations were made.

Further allegation against the petitioner is that he in

furtherance of criminal conspiracy with accused Nos.1

and 2 had verbally instructed and forced the then Assistant

Director of Mines and Geology, Ananthapur, to issue

permits to accused No.4 without conducting any

inspection. Details have been mentioned by the CBI about

the huge profits made by accused No.4 on account of illegal

mining.

25. It is not necessary for a detailed reference to the role

played by the petitioner in the entire operation of illegal

mining by accused No.4. Suffice it to say, from the

voluminous charge sheet, a reasonable view can certainly

be taken that petitioner, being accused No.3, had played a

crucial role in illegal mining carried out by accused No.4

and thereby making unlawful gain.

26. When the discharge petition was filed, CBI Court held

as follows:

125. In view of the above discussions and prudent principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the prosecution proved that the petitioner being the Director of Mines has inducted his brother-in-law in A4 company and the forest clearance and the documents were suitably got prepared framed and also mislead the forest officials in getting forest clearance in favour of A4. Apart from that by hook or crook eliminated the other applicants, who desire to get mining lease. Apart from

that the nomenclature of the village in which mining lease of the property was demarcated was also not properly corrected and the official record clearly shows that variance in nomenclature, survey number of land in various stages reveals that whether he has wantedly done it or it was a mistake cropped up, which can only be decided in a detailed trial.

126. The manner in which the grant of ML application to A4 to an extent of 39.50 Ha of land clearly shows that he has considered mining land covered under gazette publication in 2000 and 2004, but the said extent was figured as the outcome of the gazette publication made in 2004 in the knowledge of the Central Government. The discrepancies in the nomenclature village survey number, extent of land on par with the forest mapings clearly leads to illegal mining. Those facts relied by the prosecution clearly evident that there is a prima facie case.

127. It is also to be noted that the petitioner/A3 being incharge of APMDC, he applied for mining lease of 25 Ha of land. As per the prosecution, the said application is filed only to defeat the interest of M/s. SJK Steels Corporation Limited. The manner in which the non- processing of the said file in allotting the said extent to APMDC and processing the other files during that period clearly shows that clubbing of 25 Ha of land applied by APMDC with the other prospective lease applications. Later on A2 filed application for allotment of 25 Ha of land for APMDC already applied and the recommendations was made through the then Chief Minister's office for allotment of the said land clearly

support the contentions of the prosecution that there is a prima facie case against the petitioner/A3.

128. The documents filed by the prosecution vide Document No.157 clearly shows that the committee constituted by the Government of Andhra Pradesh submitted a report which shows the irregularities in allotting the mines and illegal mining, taking advantage of the nomenclature and survey number mentioned in the G.Os. The map annexed to the documents clearly shows that Siddapuram, Obulapuram and Malapanagudi villages are different and they are having adjacent boundaries to each other, which leads to illegal mining.

129. The petitioner contended that the survey number referred in the G.O. are according to the reports submitted by the forest officials, whereas in G.O.Ms.No.151, it is clearly mentioned that the survey No. 1 and 2 of Anthargangamma Konda of Siddapuram and Malapanagudi villages, D.Hirehal (M), Ananthapur District, to an extent of 68.50 Ha. Whereas in G.O.Ms.No.152, it is mentioned as survey No. 1/P, Obulapuram village (Compartment No.692 Bellary RF, Kalyandurg Range). D. Hirehal Mandal, Anantapur District to an extent of 39.481 Ha. Neither the gazette publication in 2000 or 2004 does not cover the mining lease of survey No. 1/P of Obulapuram Village. The map annexed to the document No.157 clearly shows that the G.Os are issued inconsistent with the survey number and village names with that of Gazette notification, which leads to illegal mining and those irregularities are

bonafide or wantonly cropped up will be decided in detailed trial only.

27. Thus, from the above, we find that according to the

CBI Court, a prima facie view is possible that petitioner by

misusing his official position and in conspiracy with the

other accused persons was instrumental in accused No.4

obtaining mining lease. Whether he acted bonafidely or

whether he acted with a deliberate intent to favour accused

No.4 for making wrongful gain can only be decided in the

course of the trial. Therefore, CBI Court dismissed the

discharge petition.

28. Section 11 of the Act deals with grant of prospecting

licence - cum - mining lease through auction in respect of

minerals other than notified minerals. However, with effect

from 28.03.2021, the expression "prospecting licence -

cum - mining lease" has been substituted by the

expression "composite licence". The procedure laid down

in Section 11 of the Act at the relevant point of time was

that at the first instance, the State Government shall notify

the areas in which such licence and lease can be granted

for any minerals other than notified minerals as well as the

terms and conditions of such grant. As per sub-section (5),

for the purpose of granting prospecting licence - cum -

mining lease, the State Government shall select through

auction by method of competitive bidding, including

e-auction, an applicant who fulfils the eligibility conditions

as specified in the Act. As per the first proviso, where the

State Government has not successfully completed auction

for the purpose of granting a prospecting licence - cum -

mining lease in respect of any mineral in such notified area

or upon completion of such auction, the prospecting

licence - cum - mining lease or letter of intent for grant of

such licence - cum - mining lease has been terminated or

lapsed for any reason, the Central Government may require

the State Government to conduct and complete the auction

or re-auction process within such period as may be fixed in

consultation with the State Government. Sub-section (6)

mandates the Central Government to prescribe the terms

and conditions as well as the procedure subject to which

the auction shall be conducted including the bidding

parameters. It is thereafter that the State Government

under sub-section (8) shall grant the licence - cum -

mining lease to an applicant selected in accordance with

the aforesaid procedure. Thus as per the statute, grant of

prospecting licence-cum-mining lease is preceded by an

auction process.

29. Heading of Rule 59 is 'availability of area for regrant

to be notified'. Sub-rule (1) says that no area which was

previously held or which is being held under a

reconnaissance permit or a prospecting licence or a mining

lease etc shall be available for grant unless the conditions

in (i) and (ii) are fulfilled. As per the first proviso, nothing in

Rule 59 shall apply to the renewal of a lease in favour of

the original lessee or his legal heirs notwithstanding the

fact that the lease has already expired. However, under

sub-rule (2), Central Government may for reasons to be

recorded in writing, relax the provisions of sub-rule (1).

29.1. Rule 60 of the Rules deals with premature

applications. It says that applications for grant of

prospecting licence or mining lease in respect of areas

whose availability for grant is required to be notified under

Rule 59 shall, if - a) no notification has been issued under

that rule; or b) where such notification has been issued,

the period specified in the notification has not expired,

shall be deemed to be premature and shall not be

entertained.

30. It is the contention of learned counsel for the

petitioner that petitioner had followed the procedure laid

down under Section 11 of the Act and had rejected certain

applications as premature by following provisions of Rule

60 of the Rules. In this connection, learned counsel for the

petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme

Court in Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Limited v.

State of Karnataka2 and submits that the Act and the

Rules contain a complete Code in respect of grant and

renewal of prospecting licences as well as mining leases in

lands belonging to the Government as well as lands

belonging to private persons. According to him, Supreme

Court on a conjoint analysis of Rules 59 and 60 of the

Rules read with Section 11 of the Act came to a definite

conclusion that a premature application should not be

(2010) 13 SCC 1

entertained and this is what the petitioner did while

rejecting the application of the other claimants. Whether

the petitioner had followed the procedure laid down in

Section 11 of the Act and whether in the event of any

infraction of the statutory provision can be traced to

criminal culpability of the petitioner is a matter of evidence

and trial. At the stage of submission of charge sheet or

framing of charge no definite conclusion can be reached

about the innocence of the petitioner.

31. Insofar the decision of the Supreme Court in Prafulla

Kumar Samal (supra) is concerned, there can be no

dispute to the proposition of law laid down therein. While

framing charge, the Judge has the undoubted power to sift

and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding

out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused

has been made out. Of course, the test to determine a

prima facie case would naturally depend on the facts of

each case. While doing so, the Judge has to consider the

broad probability of the case, the total effect of the evidence

and the documents produced before the Court. If the

materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion

against the accused which has not been properly

explained, the Court would be fully justified in framing a

charge and proceeding with the trial.

32. Insofar the present case is concerned, as already

noticed above, CBI Court has meticulously gone through

the charge sheet filed by the CBI and while rejecting the

discharge petition took the view that the materials on

record clearly disclose a triable case against the petitioner.

Therefore, it is not a case which can be nipped in the bud.

The allegations are serious and after investigation charge

sheet has been submitted. Therefore, at the threshold it

would be highly improper to conduct a mini trial and

analyse the materials on record and then come to a

conclusion that the petitioner is innocent. The materials

on record prima facie suggest otherwise. It may be so that

during the trial or at the end of the trial petitioner may be

acquitted or may not be acquitted. But, it would be too

presumptuous to arrive at a definite conclusion at this

stage that there are no ingredients of the various criminal

sections for which the petitioner has been charged or to say

that ingredients constituting such offences are completely

missing in the present case. To that extent, reliance placed

by learned counsel for the petitioner on the decision of the

Supreme Court in Common Cause v. Union of India3

more particularly on paragraphs 172 and 173 thereof

regarding the ingredients of Section 409 IPC is premature.

33. Though learned counsel for the petitioner has raised

the issue of Crl.R.C.No.693 of 2022 filed by accused No.6 -

Smt. Y.Srilakshmi, being allowed by this Court vide the

order dated 08.11.2022, without expressing any opinion on

the aforesaid decision all that can be said is that the said

decision was rendered in the facts of that case. No binding

ratio has been laid down by the Court to the effect that

following the discharge of Smt. Y.Srilakshmi (accused

No.6), petitioner should also be discharged.

34. Thus on a thorough consideration of all the aspects of

the matter, Court is of the considered view that impugned

(1999) 6 SCC 667

order passed by the CBI Court suffers from no infirmity or

irregularity to warrant interference.

35. Criminal revision case is devoid of merit and is

accordingly dismissed.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

______________________________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ

10.03.2023 vs