JEER JAMBANNA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions are filed by Accused Nos.13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 respectively seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against them in Spl. Case No.534/2016 arising out of Crime No.5/2015 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 379, 409, 420, 471 read with 120(B) of IPC and Sections 21 and 23 read with 4(1)(A) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short, MMDR Act ) and Rules 165 read with 144 of the Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969 (for short, Forest Rules ). Accused No.13 is the Company by name ILC Industries Limited. Accused No.14 is the Managing Director of the company (A13).

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that Accused No.13-M/s. ILC Industries Limited between 01.01.2009 and 31.05.2010, sold 25000 Metric Tons of Iron Ore to M/s. Priyanka Agencies without valid permit and without proper invoice and out of the said quantity 11901 Metric Tons was stolen by Accused No.13 from somewhere and the same was sold to M/s. Frost International Limited through M/s. Priyanka Agencies without valid permit and without payment of royalty and thereby caused loss of Rs.1,41,36,139/- to the State Exchequer and thereby committed the above offences.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners Sri. Ravi L. Vaidya would submit that the allegations made in the charge sheet and the documents produced therewith do not prima facie make-out the ingredients of offences charged against the petitioners. Even though it is the case of the prosecution that, Accused No.13 had sold 25000 Metric Ton Iron Ore to M/s. Priyanka Agency and M/s. Priyanka Agency in turn sold a part of it to M/s Frost International Limited, yet M/s. Priyanka Agency or M/s. Frost International Limited are not arraigned as accused in the charge sheet. That apart, there are no allegations whatsoever in so far as Accused Nos. 15, 16 and 17 are concerned. They are sought to be prosecuted only on the ground that, they happened to be the Directors of Accused No.13 at the relevant time. There are no allegations to impute vicarious liability to Accused Nos. 13 to 17. Accused Nos.13 to 16 were neither in charge of the affairs of Accused No.13-Company at relevant time nor is there any material to show that they had knowledge of any transaction in question and therefore the prosecution of Accused Nos. 13 to 17 is wholly illegal and abuse of the process of the court. On these grounds, learned counsel for the petitioners has sought to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners and the order of taking cognizance by the learned Special Judge under the impugned order.