MR. NARENDRA HITTALAMAKKI Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners in these two petitions who are arrayed as A5 and A6 respectively in R.C.17(A)/2012 -CBI/ACB/BLR registered for the offences u/ss. 120B, 409, 420 of IPC and u/ss. 7, 12, 13(1)(c)(d) r/w. S. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 are before this Court praying for releasing them on bail. The respondent -CBI in pursuance of the order dated 7.9.2012 passed by the Apex Court on I.A. Nos. 68 and 103 OF 2012 in W.P. (C) No. 562/2009 have registered the above case and have taken up investigation. The order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is as under: - -

(2.) IT is the case of the prosecution on 15.03.2010, A6 - C.N. Naik, RFO, Ankola visited Belekeri Port and found huge quantity of iron ore stacked inside the port. He prepared a panchanama recording the proceeding and on the basis of the same registered a case in FOC No. 17/2009 -10 for the offences u/ss. 2(7)(b)(iv), 62 & 80 of Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 and under Rules 143 & 162 of Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969 against Shri Mahesh Biliye, Port Conservator Belekeri port as he failed to produce the valid permit/passes required for the purposes of transportation of the iron ore stored in Belekeri Port. FIR was also sent to the JMFC, Ankola. Thereafter, on an application filed A6 -RFO was permitted to investigate the case on 18.03.2010.

(3.) THE respondent -CBI have opposed the applications filed by filing detailed objections. In their objections inter alia among other things it is stated they have taken up investigation of the case in pursuance of the order dated 7.9.2010 passed by the Apex Court. It is contended the present petitioners have been included as an accused vide order dated 20.8.2013 of the learned Trial Judge for his role in the illegal removal/export of iron ore seized from Belekeri Port. On 19.8.2013 the petitioners were arrested and they had been given to police custody till 3.9.2013. However, he was produced well before that time on 31.8.2013 and since then they are in judicial custody. It is submitted Accused No. 5 was working as ACF Ankola Sub Division on 30.10.2008 and he worked there till 30.10.2010 As ACF he was to look after three ranges vis. Ankola, Mastikatti and Ramangudi ranges. On his direction FOC No. 17/2010 was registered on 15.3.2010 by Sri. G.N. Naik, Section Forester Ankola and thereafter it was investigated by A6 -RFO, Ankola. It is further contended this Hon'ble Court in its order/dated 31.3.2010 passed in W.P. No. 10349/2010 filed by M/s. Greentex Mining Industries Ltd. directed the iron ore belonging to M/s. Greentex Mining Industries Ltd. be permitted for export subject to verification of the documents by port and forest authorities and no iron ore shall be permitted for export without endorsement of the forest authorities as required under Rule 162 of the Karnataka Forest Rules 1969 and the exporter has to file an indemnity bond. In the present case Sri. C.G. Naik (A6) the then RFO gave clearance on the instruction of Accused No. 5 in violation of the order of this Court. They have further contended there is material to establish Accused No. 5 had received Rs. 15 Lakh as bribe from the owner M/s. Greentex Mining Industries and instructed M/s. Govind Naik (A6) to release the iron ore belonging to M/s. Green Tex Mining Industries Ltd. The materials collected by the respondent would clearly establish the role of both the petitioners. The statements of the witnesses by name Sri. R.N. Naik, Mayura Naik, Govindraju R, Gokul, Mohan Shanker and Vidyasagar clearly establishes accused No. 5 who was working as ACF in conspiracy and connivance of the other accused has ordered for release of iron ore after obtaining illegal gratification of Rs. 15 lakh from the principal accused Sri. Ajay Kharbande of M/s. Greentex Mining Industries Ltd. It is further contended that the witness Sri. Mayur Naik has filed a complaint before the respondent alleging that he was threatened by the wife and relatives of accused No. 5 when he had gone to the office of the respondent/office of CBI to give his statement. Accused No. 5 and his family members have indulged in the process of interfering and threatening the witnesses which does not entitle him to be released on bail. It is further contended by referring to 120(b) of the Karnataka Forest Code 1976 that accused No. 5 as ACF was entrusted with the duty of supervising the functions discharged by the RFO's coming within his Sub -Division and also to inspect timber depots, Check posts and Licencing Stations, apart from looking into the accounts, registration and books maintained at the said places. He has also the power to compound and to deal with the Forest offences booked by RFO's coming within his jurisdiction by virtue of the powers delegated to him as per the Rules contained in Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969. The claim of accused No. 5 that he had taken up investigation of the forest cases from A6 only on 6.4.2010 and he has no role in the case prior to that is contrary to the material on record wherein it discloses he is involved in the matter relating to FOC 17/2009 -10 right from its registration till the filing of the complaint before the JMFC, Ankola on 7.8.2010.