9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 1671X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts need mention which are stated infra. 4. The Supreme Court in W.P.No.562/2009 directed the Central Bureau of Investigation to conduct a preliminary enquiry in respect of 32.27 lakh tones of iron ore exported from Belekeri port from 01.01.2009 to 31.05.2010. The Supreme Court further directed that for conducting the aforesaid investigation, the reports dated 24.07.2012 and 05.09.2012 of Centrally Empowered Committee, filed before the Supreme Court may form the basic material for the purposes of investigation. In compliance of the order passed by the Supreme Court, the respondent conducted a preliminary enquiry. After completion of the enquiry, the respondent filed an interlocutory application seeking permission to register a criminal case. The Supreme Court allowed the aforesaid application filed by the respondent and permitted the Central Bureau of Investigation to register criminal cases against the exporters who had exported 50,000 metric tones of iron ore without valid permits. A complaint was filed on 13.09.2012 for offences under Sections 120-B, 420, 379, 411 and 447 of the IPC as well as 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and also under Section 21 read with Section 4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hennai, accepting the 'B' report. It is also urged that even though the application filed by the petitioner for discharge has been rejected by the Special Judge yet the petitioner can approach this Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code and seek quashment of the case on the ground that no case against him is made out. In support of his submissions, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in 'PEPSI FOODS LIMITED AND ANOTHER Vs. SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AND OTHERS' (1998) 5 SCC 749, 'STANDARD CHARTERED BANK AND OTHERS Vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT AND OTHERS' (2005) 4 SCC 530, 'ANEETA HADA Vs. GOD FATHER TRAVELS AND TOURS PRIVATE LIMITED' (2012) 5 SCC 661 AND 'SUNIL BHARTI MITTAL Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION' (2015) 4 SCC 609. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has invited the attention of this Court to Section 4 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 and has submitted that partnership is the relation between the persons who have agreed to share the profits of a business carried on by all or any of them acting for all. Attention of this Court has also been invited to Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dragged into second trial. It is also urged that an order under Section 239 of the Code against an accused is not a bar to exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. 9. I have considered the submissions made by both the sides and have perused the record. It is well settled law that once first information report is registered, the accused can always approach this Court by filing a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. A Two Judge Bench of this Court in the case of 'STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS VS CH. BHAJAN LAL AND ORS', AIR 1992 SC 604 after taking note of the decisions in the cases of 'HAZARI LAL GUPTA VS RAMESHWAR PRASHAD & ANR', 1972 (1) SCC 452, 'JEHAN SINGH VS DELHI ADMINISTRATION', AIR 1974 SC 1146, 'AMAR NATH VS. STATE OF HARYANA', AIR 1977 SC 2185, 'KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY VS. STATE OF HARYANA', AIR 1977 SC 2229, 'STATE OF BIHAR VS. J.A.C. SALDANHA', AIR 1980 SC 326, 'STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. SWAPAN KUMAR GUHA', AIR 1982 SC 949, 'SMT.NAGAWWA VS. VEERANNA SHIVALINGAPPA KONJALGI', AIR 1976 SC 1947 and 'MADHAVRAO JIWAJIRAO SCINDIA VS. SAMBHAJIRAO CHANDROJIRAO ANGRE', AIR 1988 SC 709, 'STATE OF BIHAR VS. MURAD ALI KHAN', AIR 1989 SC 1 dealt with t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rative. Nevertheless, it throws light on the circumstances and situations where courts inherent power can be exercised. 11. In the backdrop of the well settled legal position, facts of the case in hand may be examined. From the material available on record, it is evident that the petitioner herein being partner of M/s. S.B.Logistics in conspiracy with accused Nos.4, 5, 10, 11 and 16 supplied 20,000 metric tones of illegal iron ore to M/s SMSPL during the year 2009-10. The principal allegation against the petitioner is that he had supplied iron ore without possessing valid permits issued by authorized Government agency. The activities of the petitioner in conspiracy and connivance with the other accused persons have caused wrongful loss of more than 90 crores to the Government exchequer and corresponding wrongful gain to the accused persons including the petitioner. The prosecution has filed various documents in the charge sheet which show that a prima facie case has been made out against the petitioner. The petitioner admittedly has filed an application under Section 239 of the Code for his discharge, which has been rejected by an order dated 03.10.2018. However, in the instant ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ortation documents. He has not produced the fake transportation documents on the basis of which he has transported illegal iron ore to Belekeri port by his proprietorship firm, M/s S.B.Logistics (Transporters and Contractors). Shri K.Janardana Reddy is also involved in the illegal transportation of iron ore in other mining related cases filed before this Hon'ble Court on the orders of Supreme Court of India." 13. Thus, from perusal of aforesaid averments contained in the charge sheets, it is evident that the charges against the petitioner are not the same. Therefore, the contention that the second charge sheet has been filed for the same offence also does not deserve acceptance. 14. Insofar as the submission that selling the stolen article is not an offence under the IPC is concerned, the same is a plea which the petitioner can urge during the course of trial which has already commenced and about 25-30 witnesses have already been examined. 15. In view of the fact situation of the case, no case for exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code is made out as the case does not fall under any of the categories referred to supra. In the result, the petition fails and is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
