Author
VISMAYA SHAJI. B.A., LL.B Hon’s Student of CSI College For Legal Studies Kanakkary, Kottayam. Editor- ljrfvoice.com. Member of Law and Justice Research Foundation, Kottayam Chapter
On 29 th of November 2021 Case of Criminal Appeal No. 1288 of 2021 With Criminal Appeal No. 1289 of 2021 And with Criminal Appeal No. 1290 of 2021 Pradeep S. Wodeyar Versus The State Of Karnataka in the Supreme Court Of India
JUDGE : JUSTICE DR. D Y CHANDRACHUD
COUNSELS APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS: SENIOR ADVOCATES SIDDHARTH DAVE AND PRAVIN H PAREKH
COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE STATE: ADVOCATE NIKHIL GOEL
Accused persons of this case are : Mr. Pradeep S. Wodeyar, who is the Managing Director of Canara Overseas Limited and is arraigned as the first accused and is the Appellant in the appeal arising out of SLP (Criminal) No138/2021. Lakshminarayan Gubba,who is a director of the said company has been arraigned as the second accused and is the appellant in the appeal arising out of SLP (Criminal)1448/2021. Third Accused Mr. K. Ramappa. Accused number 4 Smt. Shanthalakshmi Jayaram and J. Mithileshwar asaccused number 5.
INTRODUCTION:
The Appellants of this cased are accused of being involved in“large-scale illegal mining and transportation of iron ore”, and also for “illegal encroachment in forest areas for the purpose of illegal mining”. The iron ore is alleged of this case were stocked in a stockyard without a bulk permit from the department of Mines and Geology and have transported without any permission through a forest pass way.
By this conspiracy of vanishing, the accused parties A1,A2,A3 n the other accused persons in this case were alleged of making a huge loss of 3,27,83,379/- INR to the state exchequer.Which added up more seriousness to this act of crime. Hence, they
were charged with offences that are punishable under the provisions of Sections 409 and 420 read with Section 120B IPC,Sections 21 and 23 read with Sections 4(1) and 4(1)(A) of the Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act 19571 and Rule 165read with Rule 144 of the Karnataka Forest Rules 1969.
After the Additional City Civil Sessions Judge and Special Judge for Prevention of Corruption Act at Bengaluru took cognizance after perusing the final report, it was contended that:
“The Special Judge did not the power to take cognizance of offences under the MMDR Act without a complaint by theauthorized officer in view of Section 22 of the MMDR Act”. Theorder did not mention the offences for which cognizance was taken, thereby, in this case reflecting the non-application of mind.
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE:
An FIR was registered in the first case, which is of Crime No.21/2014 on the 9 th of October 2014 against the followingaccused persons:
(i) Canara Overseas Private Limited represented by Mr.Pradeep S. Wodeyar- Accuse number 1- (A1)
(ii) G. Lakshminarayan Gubba, Managing Director, Canara Overseas Private Limited- Accuse number 2-(A2)
(iii) K. Ramappa, owner of M/s Mineral Miners and Traders-Accuse number 3- (A3) and
(iv) Some other unknown Government officials and unknown private persons.
Later, on 17 December 2015 a final report under Section 173 of the CrPC was submitted against: Canara Overseas Limited represented by Mr. Pradeep S. Wodeyar, Managing Director, Mr.Lakshminarayana Gubba, Mr. K. Ramappa, Smt. ShanthalakshmiJayaram (A-4) and J. Mithileshwar (A-5) as per the FIR of this case.
Thereafter on 29 December 2015, the Deputy Registrar, City Civil Court, Bengaluru passed the following order noting that the charge-sheet was submitted on 17 December 2015 in which it was stated that: “The charge sheet is submitted by the Inspector of Police, S.I.T. Karnataka Lokayukta, Bengaluru, on 17.12.2015. The offences alleged against the above named accused punishable U/s 409, 420 r/w 120B IPC 21, 23 r/w 4(1), 4(l)(A) of MMDR Act 1957 and Sec. 165 r/w 144 Karnataka Forest Rules 1969. Then in 2015 a Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka dismissed two petitions Instituted by the appellants for quashing the criminal proceedings initiated against them in Special CC No.599/2015 that were arising out of Crime No.21/2014; for offences which are punishable under the provisions of Sections 409 and 420 read with Section 120 IPC,Sections 21 and 23 read with Sections 4(1) and 4(1)(A) of the Mines and Mineral Development and Regulation Act 19571 and Rule 165 read with Rule 144 of the Karnataka Forest Rules 1969.On the March 20 th of 2017 proceedings were instituted before the High Court under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the criminal proceedings which were against the appellants. As the appellants moved the High Court in 2017 inorder to challenge the cognizance order of 2015. In the meantime,submissions on the framing of charges were addressed before the Special Judge. There is absolutely no material to indicate that a failure of justice has been occasioned due to the Magistrate not passing an order of committal. In this case, the cognizance order was challenged by the appellant two years after cognizance wastaken. No reason was given to explain the inordinate delay. Hence,it was held that no failure of justice has been demonstrated in the case at hand.
SECTION 22 OF MMDR ACT AND AUTHORIZED PERSON :Section 22 of the MMDR Act stipulates that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act or Rules,except upon a complaint made in writing by a person authorised on that behalf by the Central or the State Government. It has been contended by the appellant that before the Special Court (Sessions Court) took cognizance of the offence, no complaint was filed by the authorised person.A combined reading of the notifications dated 29 May 2014 and 21 January 2014 indicate that the Sub-Inspector
of Lokayukta is an authorized person for the purpose of Section 22 of the MMDR Act. The FIR that was filed to overcome the bar under Section 22 has been signed by the Sub-Inspector of Lokayukta Police and the information was given by the SIT. Therefore, the respondent has complied with Section 22 CrPC.
THE SPECIAL JUDGE
Here cognizance was based on a report submitted under Section 173 CrPC and was not based on a private complaint. The Special Judge in this case, took note of the FIR, the witness statements and other connected documents before takingcognizance of the offence and In this, it would be far-fetched to fault the order of the Special Judge on the ground that it does not adduce detailed reasons for taking cognizance or that it does not indicate that an application of mind. In the facts of this case, therefore, the order taking cognizance is not erroneous.The Special Judge by an order dated 30 December 2015 referred to all the relevant material before him, including the FIR and witness statements, before taking cognizance. However, the cognizance order mentioned that cognizance was taken against the “accused” instead of the offence. However, the honourable court held that this would not vitiate the entire proceedings, particularly where material information on the commission of the offence had been brought to the notice of and had been perused by the Special
Judge.
CONCLUSION:
The Apex Court held that a special court, which is a court of sessions cannot take cognizance of an offence without the case being committed to it by the Magistrate under Section 209 Code of Criminal Procedure.“Even if the order taking cognizance is
irregular, it would not vitiate the proceedings unless such order has led to failure of justice, the Court ruled in this case”.The court was in an opinion that:“The cardinal principle that guides Section 465(2) CrPC is that the challenge to an irregular order must be urged at the earliest.” “Moreover, bearing in mind the objective behind prescribing that cognizance has to be taken of the offence and not the offender, a mere change in the form of the cognizance order would not alter the effect of the order for any injustice to be meted out.It is a settled principle of law that cognizance is taken of the offence and not the offender. However, the cognizance order indicates that the Special Judge has perused all the relevant material relating to the case before cognizance was taken. The change in the form of the order would not alter its effect.Therefore, no ‘failure of justice‘ under Section 465 CrPC is proved in this case hence, this irregularity would not vitiate the proceedings in view of Section 465 CrPC. The Special Court has the power to take cognizance of offences under MMDR Act and conduct a joint trial with other offences if permissible under Section 220 CrPC.There is no express provision in the MMDR Act which indicates that Section 220 CrPC does not apply to proceedings under the MMDR Act.
Section 30B of the MMDR Act does not impliedly repeal Section 220 CrPC. Both the provisions can be read harmoniously and such an interpretation furthers justice and prevents hardship since it prevents a multiplicity of proceedings. Since cognizance was taken by the Special Judge based on a police report and not a private complaint, it is not obligatory for the Special Judge to issue a fully reasoned order if it otherwise appears that the Special Judge has applied his mind tothe material and a reading of the notifications dated 29 May 2014 and 21 January 2014 indicate that the Sub-Inspector of Lokayukta is an authorized person for the purpose of Section 22 of the MMDR Act. The FIR that was filed to overcome the bar under Section 22 has been signed by the Sub-Inspector of Lokayukta Police and the information was given by the SIT. Therefore, the respondent has complied with Section 22 CrPC and the question here, that is whether the accused number-1 was in-charge of and responsible for the affairs of the company during the commission of the alleged offence as required under the proviso to Section 23(1) of the MMDR Act is a matter for trial. There appears to be a prima facie case against accused number-1, Mr. Wodeyar, which is sufficient to arraign him as an accused at this stage.
REFERENCE
1 https://www.barandbench.com/news/supreme-court-
explains-special-courts-powers-take-cognizance-offences-
judgment
2 Pradeep S. Wodeyar v. State of Karnataka, 2021
SC 1140
3 https://www.legitquest.com/case/pradeep-s-wodeyar-v-
the-state-of-karnataka/20735
