Sri S. Muthaiah Vs State By CBI/ACB (Karnataka High Court)
Karnataka High Court dismissed the writ petition in case of illegal excavation/ transportation of iron ore as discretionary jurisdiction under section 482 of Cr. P.C. cannot be exercised.
Facts- The petitioner is the accused in relation to the various First Information Reports (FIR) registered separately relating to the offence of illegally exporting mined Iron Ore material from Belekere Port without valid permit which is alleged to have been facilitated by the accused-petitioner, who was the then Deputy Conservator of Forests of Bellary District.
The petitioner is stated to be a Forest Officer of I.F.S. Cadre and was discharging duty as Deputy Conservator of Forests, Bellary Division at the relevant point of time. The directions by the Apex Court in its order of 07.09.2012 was to investigate cases relating to alleged illegal extraction of 50.79 lakh Metric Tons of Iron Ore from the forest areas between 01.01.2009 to 31.05.2010 and its illegal transportation to the Belekere Port.
The petitioner has assailed the order passed by the Special Judge, the Sanction orders issued by the State Government and Central Government according Sanction under Code of Criminal Procedure, Karnataka Forest Act and Prevention of Corruption Act respectively to prosecute the petitioner/accused has been upheld.
The applications for discharge filed before the Special Court have been rejected and upon their rejection, the validity of proceedings have been called in question by invoking the jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
Conclusion- It is also to be noticed that the discretionary jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is to be exercised to prevent abuse of process or to secure ends of justice only in exceptional cases. Where interference in exercise of such jurisdiction requires appreciation of evidence, finding on facts, it would be best left for such matters to be decided during trial. In the present case, it must also be kept in mind that any finding regarding mining operations in a forest area or in non-forest area would have implication as regards other criminal cases also pending and accordingly, it may not be appropriate to jeopardize the cases against other accused by recording a finding as against the petitioner alone.
Held that this Court does not find any scope for interference and the Writ Petitions are dismissed.
