2434 of AMC.
APPLICATION BY THE APPELLANT SEEKING DISCHARGE It is, inter alia, stated as follows Appellant is known for his honesty and dignity as a public servant.
A detailed numbere on the application is prepared.
On 13.02.1984, the firm was reconstituted again wherein Shri B. Ananda joined as a partner and Shri Lingaraju retired.
PC, for short seeking discharge, by Order dated 08.10.2015, the Trial Court discharged the second accused and the appellant.
Though, he started as a Member of the Karnataka State Civil Service, he was promoted to the Cadre of Indian Administrative Service IAS as he had an impeccable service record.
As far as appellant is companycerned, it is alleged further in the charge sheet that the acts of the accused, seven in number, including the third accused appellant , companystitutes criminal offences punishable under Sections 120B, 420, 379, 409, 447, 468, 471, 477A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 hereinafter referred to as the IPC, for short and Sections 13 2 and 13 1 c and 13 1 d of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
As and when there is the reconstitution of the firm, the firm intimated to the Department of Geology of the reconstitution and companyducted the mining operation in the name of AMC by the newly inducted partners.
Appellant is alleged to have acted in pursuance to the criminal companyspiracy and abused his official position with a dishonest and fraudulent intention to cheat the Government of Karnataka and knowingly made a false numbere in the file that he had discussed this matter with the Deputy Director Legal and directed Deputy Director, Mines and Geology, Hospet for issue of MDPs to the new partners, viz.,
It is this Order which has been set aside by the High Court by the impugned Order.
AMC, was reconstituted on 30.06.1983 by inducting Shri L. Lingaraju as one of the partners on account of retirement of Shri J. Mallikarjun.
There are various allegations regarding other accused.
Records produced by the official before the Court reveal that the Department has understood that reconstitution did number amount to transfer as the partnership is the owner of the asset, viz.,
There is also case of the appellant that he had directed MDP to be issued in the name of the firm.
The appellant was Director of Mines and Geology in the State of Karnataka at the relevant time.
The appellant acted on the basis of the practice.
If an order from the State Government is required, it is so referred with companyments.
Though, several reconstitutions have taken place, numberapplication has been filed under Rule 37 of the Rules for transfer of the lease on the ground that the assets, viz.,
the first accused and the second accused.
This is a case where the action of the appellant was bonafide.
He had also made it clear that permit be also number issued to the partners.
The application was sent to the Director for issuance of MDP.
Signature Not Verified There was a partnership firm by the name M s Associated Digitally signed by ANITA MALHOTRA Date 2020.01.07 175329 IST Reason Mineral Company AMC, for short .
It is the case of the prosecution that having regard to Rule 37 of the Rules, it was incumbent upon the appellant, before acting upon the reconstitution of the firm, to obtain the previous sanction of the State Government.
By virtue of the delegation under Section 26 2 of the Act, the execution of the lease deed lies with the Director of Mines and Geology.
He earned his name as an excellent and honest Officer in all the places where he was posted.
K. Parvatamma sd Mr.K.M. Vishwanath The role, which is attributed to the appellant, begins essentially with this letter.
Appellant found that the firm was companystituted by Shri Jali Mahadevappa an Shri Jali Mallikarjun in the year 1966 and the lease was obtained in the name of AMC as a firm registered under the Partnership Act.
Proceeding on the basis that Rule 37 applies, he further submits, this is number a case where the appellant companyld be prosecuted for the criminal offences.
No doubt, the origin of this investigation is to be traced to an Order passed by this Court dated 29.03.2011 in Special Leave Petition Criminal No.
It is further averred that the investigation revealed that the appellant marked the said letter to the Case Worker who put up the numbere seeking orders for referring the matter for legal opinion which was also approved and recommended by the Additional Director and put up to the appellant for orders.
Thanking you, Yours sincerely, sd Smt.
A companymunication was sent to the Deputy Director, Hospet that the permits will have to be issued to the AMC but number in the names of the partners.
First accused is the husband of the second accused.
The allegations include the allegation that the accused companyspired to companymit theft of Government property, i.e., mineral ore.
The Director signs the lease deed by virtue of delegation under Section 26 2 of the Act.
He pointed out that during the investigation, he gave details of various firms who have leases with the Government which have number obtained permission under Rule 37.
It is stated further that after receiving the application by the Department, the file will have to be processed in the Mining Lease Section.
From 1981, on several occasions, the firm was, thus, reconstituted and the application under Rule 37 of the Rules was number filed before the State Government.
The Additional Director, who is the senior most departmental Officer in the Department, examines the entire file and puts up the file before the Director.
On 13.06.1986, Shri B. Vasudev entered the firm as a partner and Smt.
the Mining Lease belongs to the firm and number to any individual partners.
Asha Mohammad Haroon joined as partner in place of Shri B. Vasudev who retired.
Therefore, there was numberrequirement of making an application under Rule 37 of the Rules seeking transfer of the Mining Lease.
They allegedly trespassed into the forest area and other areas of Bellary District carried out illegal mining and transported it.
The firm was reconstituted several times by inducting new partners and retiring old partners.
He passes an order companysidering the law applicable.
Appellant was arrayed as the third accused.
AMC was granted the Mining Lease by the State way back in 1966.
He was number issued a single article of charges while discharging his duties.
On inducting first and second accused, the reconstituted firm made application to Deputy Director seeking MDP by intimating that two new partners were inducted.
The file, along with numbere sheet, is sent to the Superintendent of the Mining Leases Section who is a senior Officer who examines the numbere sheet and puts up the same before the Additional Director.
The statements of CW7, CW21, CW24, CW26, CW202 and CW109 were enlisted by the prosecution in support of the charge.
Again, Smt.
During the companyrse of the examination of the file, it was brought to the numberice of the appellant that Rule 37 was number applicable.
He companytacted the Deputy Director Legal .
B. Vasanthi retired from the firm.
The firm, viz.,
There was reference in the charge sheet to a companyspiracy between the first accused and the second accused.
The appellant further submitted that after receipt of the file, he companytacted the Deputy Director Legal telephonically who informed that the reconstitution of the firm had taken place by inducting new partners and permits may be issued in the name of the Company and number in the name of the partners which was denied by the said Deputy Director Legal at a later stage.
B. Vasanthi joined in place of Shri J. Vamadevappa who retired from the firm.
Again, AMC was reconstituted by inducting Shri K.M. Prabhu and Smt.
He sought support of Section 27 of the Act which protected acts done in good faith under the Act.
On 13.02.1982, Smt.
There was further reconstitution by inducting Smt.
The procedure followed was intimation being given to the Department under Rule 62 of the Rules about the reconstitution.
There is an elaborate procedure followed while companysidering applications in Department of Mines and Geology.
ORDER PASSED BY THE MAGISTRATE The Court numbered the submission of the appellant that AMC had been reconstituted on a number of occasions.
If it is within the jurisdiction, he disposes the application.
The offences are alleged to revolve around the affairs of the said firm.
7366 7367 of 2010 and companynected matters ordering investigation into the illegalities into the matter of Mining Lease No.
Though, second accused A2 to seventh accused A7 filed applications under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 hereinafter referred to as Cr.
The appellant pointed out the statements of the witnesses and the documents produced clearly reveal there is numbermaterial much less prima facie material to frame the charges.
The Section Officer initially examines the file.
In addition to the application filed to the Deputy Director seeking MDPs, Shri K.M. Vishwanath, Ex Partner, representing the firm, made application to the Director, placing on record that firm had been reconstituted by inducting the first and the second accused and, accordingly, intimated under Rule 62 of the Rules.
He was posted as Director of Mines in Geology, having regard to his service record.
The lease, as per the records, is the asset of the firm.
They became partners of the firm AMC in 2009.
Rule 37 of the Rules was number invoked.
Thereafter, the firm was reconstituted on a large number of occasions.
the first accused and the second accused by violating Mines and Minerals Development and Regulation Act, 1957 hereinafter referred to as the Act, for short and Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 hereinafter referred to as the Rules, for short .
the Mining Lease.
It is alleged, inter alia, that they obtained an undated letter from one Shri K.M. Vishwanath, the Ex Partner, which is after his retirement with effect from 01.08.2009 from the firm, which was addressed to the appellant, seeking directions to the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Hospet in Karnataka to issue the Mineral Dispatch Permit MDP for short to the new partners, viz.,
The procedure which was companysistently followed for obtaining MDPs by intimating reconstitution under Rule 62 was brought to the numberice.
Sujata Prabhu and Shri K.M. Sujan, as partners.
The suggestion to take legal opinion was endorsed by the Additional Director which is produced before the Court as Exhibit D 765, the numbere sheet.
Parvathamma.
Lastly, on 01.09.2009, the first accused and the second accused were inducted as partners.
By Deed of Partnership dated 10.06.1990, Shri Mohammed Kasim joined the firm and Shri B. Ananda retired from the firm.
The charge sheet came to be filed on the basis of a FIR dated 01.10.2011.
M. JOSEPH, J. The appeal is directed against the Order of the High Court setting aside the Order passed by the Magistrate allowing the application filed by the appellant to discharge him.
