(Uday Umesh Lalit and Ajay Rastogi, JJ.)
State of Karnataka __________________________________ Appellant;
v.
Dr. M. Basappa Reddy _____________________________ Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 692 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2983 of 2018), decided on July 27, 2021
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 05.04.2017 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru allowing Criminal Petition No. 6753 of 2016 filed by the respondent herein.
3. The aforesaid petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code” for short) prayed for quashing of the First Information Report and the complaint insofar as the respondent was concerned in Crime No. 33/2015 dated 30.11.2015, registered with Police Station Special Investigation Team, KLA Bengaluru, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 409, 420, 447 read with 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; and Sections 21 and 23 read with 4(1) & 4(1)(A) of the Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 on the file of 23rd Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
4. The complaint filed by the Lokayukta Police dealt with issues of serious encroachments by one B.R. Amar Singh. The complaint recited that on being aware that rich iron ore deposits were lying in the area adjacent but outside the leased area of said B.R. Amar Singh, he initiated certain proceedings and the respondent in his capacity as the Director, Mines and Geology, dealt with those applications.
5. The basic allegations in the First Information Report are as under:
“While processing this application, Shri M. Basappa Reddy, the then Director, Mines and Geology, in his report dated 18.07.2000, mentioned that Shri B.R. Amar Singh, lessee of ML No. 1975 was already authorizedly mining in the adjacent area from the beginning since mineral deposits were available only in that area. Thereby he wrongfully recommended to the Government to consider confirmation of the unauthorized mining area and revised the initially sanctioned area of 320 acres to include the adjacent encroached area that was rich in the iron ore deposit. While doing so, Shri M. Basappa Reddy did not recommend to the Government to seek approval of Government of India u/s 5 of MMDR Act 1957 even though mining lease area was altered. His proposal was accepted by Shri R. Suresh, the then Secretary, Commerce and Industries Department, in spite of the above mentioned illegalities and a favourable recommendation was made to Shri V. Muniyappa, the then Minister, Mines and Geology, Shri V. Muniyappa gave his approval on 16.10.2000 without raising any objection and without referring to Government of India. Thereafter, a modified sketch was issued after including the new area.
Subsequently, Shri M. Basappa Reddy, Director, Mines and Geology, vide his letter no. Dmg/13/TRM/2002/2298 dated 23-10-2002 recommended transfer of mining lease to M/s. Matha Minerals Pvt. Ltd. represented by its Director, Shri B.S. Naveen. This recommendation was approved by the Government and an order was issued for transfer of lease vide GO No. CI:93:MMM2012: Bangalore, dated 29.01.2003 and a new schedule was later issued including Sy. No. 9 of Mudalapalya village. It is revealed that the process of lease transfer was undertaken by Shri B.S. Puttaraju, who was a GPA holder for Shri B.R. Amar Singh. Even though the lease transfer indenture mentioned Shri B.R. Amar Singh as transferor, it was indeed Shri B.S. Puttaraju who signed on the transfer indenture. Shri M. Basappa Reddy, the then DMG, who signed on the indenture on behalf of the Government failed to notice this discrepancy. The transfer indenture i.e. Form ‘O’ (as per Rule 37(A) of MCR 1960) was wrongfully registered by the then Sub-Registrar, Gubbi, in spite of the same discrepancy. Thus the area transferred in favour of M/s. Matha Minerals Pvt. Ltd. (MMPL) was different from the area for which the lease was initially granted to Shri B.R. Amar Singh. In order to include the adjacent area in Sy. No. 9 of Mudalapalya village, which was rich in iron ore, the sketch of the leased area was modified without obtaining prior approval of the Central Government thereby causing pecuniary benefit to the original lease holder, Shri B.R. Amar Singh as well as the new lessee M/s. MMPL.
On expiry of the lease period on 06.05.2005, the lease was renewed in favour of M/s. MMPL represented by its Managing Director, Shri B.S. Arun vide Notification No. CI:217:MMM:2006 dated 06.10.2007 on the recommendation made by the then Director, Mines and Geology in pursuance of the same conspiracy. This Notification again wrongfully showed the revised area by including Sy. No. 9 of Mudalapalya village which was not part of the original lease deed and without obtaining prior approval of Government of India. The then Director, Mines and Geology, while processing the lease renewal, failed to notice this discrepancy and wrongfully recommended the same.
Further, from this mine from the year 2004-05 to 2009-10, 10,00,796 MT of iron one was extracted out of which 8,21,577 MT was dispatched after obtaining permits. Thus 1,79,219 MT iron ore should have been available in the mining lease area. However, when the mine was physically inspected by the Deputy Director, Mines and Geology, Tumkur, and the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Tumkur, on 29-05-2011, it was found that the available ore in the mining lease area was much less. Thus it is revealed that substantial portion of iron ore of 1,79,219 MT was removed from this mine without obtaining necessary permits.
Thus it is revealed that Shri M. Basappa Reddy, the then Director, Mines and Geology, Shri R. Suresh, the then Secretary, Commerce and Industries Department, Government of Karnataka, Shri V. Muniyappa, the then Minister, Mines and Geology, Government of Karnataka, conspired with Shri B.R. Amar Singh, original lessee of ML No. 1975, and Shri B.S. Naveen, Director, M/s Matha Minerals Pvt. Ltd. (MMPL) to which the lease was subsequently transferred, wrongfully permitted alteration of the initially sanctioned mining lease area in the year 2000 leading to unauthorized inclusion of additional extent which was part of Sy. No. 9 of Mudalapalya village, Gubbi Taluk, Tumkur district, without obtaining prior approval of Government of India u/s 5 of MMDR Act, 1957, thereby causing undue benefit to the two private persons. Further in pursuance of the same conspiracy, on the recommendation made by the then Director, Mines and Geology, a Notification was issued on 06-10-2007 by the Under Secretary, Commerce and Industries Department, Government of Karnataka renewing the mining lease in favour of M/s. MMPL, represented by Shri B.S. Arun, Managing Director, with effect from 07-05-2005 on the basis of the same revised sketch of the leased area without obtaining prior approval of Government of India, thereby causing undue benefit to M/s. MMPL. Further it is also revealed that, during the period from 2005-05 to 2009-10, substantial portion of 1,79,219 MT of iron ore (that was supposed to be available at the mine head after extraction and dispatch) was removed by M/s. MMPL without obtaining necessary permits, thus causing huge loss to Government of Karnataka.”
6. While dealing with Criminal Petition No. 6214 of 2016 filed by R. Suresh, on 11.01.2017 the High Court allowed said petition and quashed the proceedings pending against him in aforesaid Crime No. 33/2015. Similar relief was granted to one Linganagouda by order dated 28.03.2017 passed by the High Court in CRLP No. 5684 of 2015.
7. Relying on the order passed by the High Court in the matter of R. Suresh v. State of Karnataka, the instant petition filed by the respondent under Section 482 of the Code was allowed by the High Court vide order dated 05.04.2017 and the proceedings were quashed.
8. The order passed in an appeal arising from the quashing of the proceedings at the instance of Linganagouda was subject matter of Criminal Appeal Nos. 1777-1784 of 2017 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 6244-6251 of 2017 in this Court. Said appeals were allowed by this Court vide order dated 12.10.2017. The operative direction was to the effect that the concerned police would be at liberty to carry out the investigation and proceed in accordance with law.
9. It must be noted that the order passed by the High Court in R. Suresh’s case, was also subject matter of challenge in SLP (Criminal) No. 8780 of 2017 (arising out of Diary No. 32167 of 2017) and said appeal was disposed of by this Court in same terms vide order dated 03.11.2017.
10. In this appeal, we have heard Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, learned Advocate for the State and Mr. Niraj Kishan Kaul, learned Senior Advocate for the respondent.
11. Mr. Raghupathy relied on the orders referred to hereinabove and submitted that on principles of parity, the instant appeal also required to be allowed and the police must be given liberty to proceed in accordance with law.
12. Mr. Niraj Kishan Kaul, learned Senior Advocate on the other hand submitted that the correspondence on record would show that as Director, Mines & Geology, the respondent had made certain recommendations which were for the relevant authorities to consider and act upon in accordance with law.
13. Our attention was invited to communication dated 16.07.2000, paragraphs 7 and 8 whereof show that the respondent had clearly stated that B.R. Amar Singh was found to be working in the area outside the lease granted to him. In paragraph 8, it was then stated that the Government may consider confirming the area in which B.R. Amar Singh was operating beyond the area allotted to him. Finally, it was recommended that the Government may take suitable decision as per Rules etc.
14. Whatever be the submissions of the respondent and whether he had acted bona fide or not are matters of defence which will be gone into at the appropriate stage. At this stage, we are concerned with the allegations set out in the First Information Report/complaint and the scope is limited to consider whether those allegations, if accepted on their face value, do or do not make out any offence.
15. The allegations made in the First Information Report clearly set out certain acts of commission and omission on part of the respondent. Considering the allegations, in our view, the High Court was not justified in entertaining application under Section 482 of the Code.
16. The similar exercise undertaken by the High Court was set at naught in the cases of Linganagouda and R. Suresh. We follow the same course.
17. We therefore allow the appeal; set-aside the impugned judgment and order; and, direct that the Police shall be at liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance with law.
18. The appeal stands allowed in the aforesaid terms.
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 2983/2018
State of Karnataka ___________________________________ Petitioner
v.
Dr. M. Basappa Reddy ______________________________ Respondent
Date: 27-07-2021 This petition was called on for hearing today.
(Before Uday Umesh Lalit and Ajay Rastogi, JJ.)
For Petitioner(s) Mr. V.N. Raghupathy, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr. Adv.
Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Adv.
Ms. Bina Madhavan, Adv.
Mr. L.M. Chidanandayya, Adv.
Ms. Akanksha Mehra, Adv.
Ms. Namisha Chadha, Adv.
M/s. Lawyer S Knit & Co, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
19. Leave granted.
20. The appeal is allowed, in terms of the Signed Order placed on the file.
21. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
———
