# PRADEEP S. WODEYAR v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

- **Citation:** [2021] 11 S.C.R. 985
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2021-11-29
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 1288 of 2021
- **Bench:** Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Vikram Nath, B.V. Nagarathna
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/pradeep-s-wodeyar-v-the-state-of-karnataka-34786
- **Pages:** 74

## Headnote

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss. 193, 209 and 465 -
Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 -
Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969 - Special Court's power to take
cognizance - Allegations of purchasing and selling extracted iron
ore illegally without mining dispatch permits and the payments of
charges to the Mining and Geological Departments and the Forest
Department - FIR registered and a final report u/s. 173 of Cr.P.C.
submitted - Additional City and Civil Sessions Judge and Special
Judge took cognizance after perusing the final report - Petitions
filed before the High Court u/s.482 Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal
proceedings were dismissed - Before the Supreme Court, the
appellant-accused contended that the Special Court (which is a
Sessions Court) is not empowered to take cognizance of offences
without the case being committed to it, in view of s.193 CrPC -
Since the Magistrate did not commit the case to the Special Court
before it took cognizance of the offences in the instant case, it has
been contended that the order taking cognizance is vitiated as it is
without jurisdiction and it has led to failure of justice - Held : The
Special Court does not have, in the absence of a specific provision
to that effect, the power to take cognizance of an offence under the
MMDR Act without the case being committed to it by the Magistrate
u/s. 209 CrPC - The order of the Special Judge dated 30.12.2015
taking cognizance is therefore irregular - However, the objective
of s.465 is to prevent the delay in the commencement and completion
of trial - S.465 CrPC is applicable to interlocutory orders such as
an order taking cognizance and summons order as well - Therefore,
even if the order taking cognizance is irregular, it would not vitiate
the proceedings in view of s.465 CrPC - As fas as failure of justice
is concerned, the cardinal principle that guides s.465(2) CrPC is
that the challenge to an irregular order must be urged at the earliest
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
986
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 11 S.C.R.
- In the instant case, the cognizance order was challenged by the
appellant two years after cognizance was taken - No reason was
given to explain the inordinate delay - Moreover, in view of the
diminished role of the committal court u/s. 209 of the Code of 1973
as compared to the role of the committal court under the erstwhile
Code of 1898, the gradation of irregularity in a cognizance order
made in Sections 460 and 461 and the seriousness of the offence,
no failure of justice has been demonstrated.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 193 - Mines and
Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 - Karnataka
Forest Rules, 1969 - Cognizance of the offence and not the offender
- The Special Judge by an order mentions that cognizance is taken
against the accused - Whether merely because the cognizance order
mentions that cognizance is taken against the 'accused', the entire
proceedings would be vitiated - Held : 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 - The order taking cognizance inadvertently
mentioned that the Special Judge has taken cognizance against the
accused instead of the offence - This would not vitiate the entire
proceedings.
Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957
- Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969 - Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 - ss. 193, 220 - Penal Code, 1860 - Cognizance by the Special
Court of the offences under IPC - It was contended that even if the
Special Judge had the power to take cognizance of the offence, he
could only have taken cognizance of offences under the MMDR
Act and could not have taken cognizance (and conduct trial) of the
offences under the provisions of IPC - Held : Since offences under
IPC are alleged to have b

## Text

_Characters 0–39,987 of 168,367. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39987 for what follows._

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
985
[2021] 11 S.C.R. 985
985
PRADEEP S. WODEYAR
v.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
(Criminal Appeal No. 1288 of 2021
NOVEMBER 29, 2021
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, VIKRAM NATH
AND B.V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss. 193, 209 and 465 -
Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 -
Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969 - Special Court's power to take
cognizance - Allegations of purchasing and selling extracted iron
ore illegally without mining dispatch permits and the payments of
charges to the Mining and Geological Departments and the Forest
Department - FIR registered and a final report u/s. 173 of Cr.P.C.
submitted - Additional City and Civil Sessions Judge and Special
Judge took cognizance after perusing the final report - Petitions
filed before the High Court u/s.482 Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal
proceedings were dismissed - Before the Supreme Court, the
appellant-accused contended that the Special Court (which is a
Sessions Court) is not empowered to take cognizance of offences
without the case being committed to it, in view of s.193 CrPC -
Since the Magistrate did not commit the case to the Special Court
before it took cognizance of the offences in the instant case, it has
been contended that the order taking cognizance is vitiated as it is
without jurisdiction and it has led to failure of justice - Held : The
Special Court does not have, in the absence of a specific provision
to that effect, the power to take cognizance of an offence under the
MMDR Act without the case being committed to it by the Magistrate
u/s. 209 CrPC - The order of the Special Judge dated 30.12.2015
taking cognizance is therefore irregular - However, the objective
of s.465 is to prevent the delay in the commencement and completion
of trial - S.465 CrPC is applicable to interlocutory orders such as
an order taking cognizance and summons order as well - Therefore,
even if the order taking cognizance is irregular, it would not vitiate
the proceedings in view of s.465 CrPC - As fas as failure of justice
is concerned, the cardinal principle that guides s.465(2) CrPC is
that the challenge to an irregular order must be urged at the earliest
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
986
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 11 S.C.R.
- In the instant case, the cognizance order was challenged by the
appellant two years after cognizance was taken - No reason was
given to explain the inordinate delay - Moreover, in view of the
diminished role of the committal court u/s. 209 of the Code of 1973
as compared to the role of the committal court under the erstwhile
Code of 1898, the gradation of irregularity in a cognizance order
made in Sections 460 and 461 and the seriousness of the offence,
no failure of justice has been demonstrated.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 193 - Mines and
Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 - Karnataka
Forest Rules, 1969 - Cognizance of the offence and not the offender
- The Special Judge by an order mentions that cognizance is taken
against the accused - Whether merely because the cognizance order
mentions that cognizance is taken against the 'accused', the entire
proceedings would be vitiated - Held : 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 - The order taking cognizance inadvertently
mentioned that the Special Judge has taken cognizance against the
accused instead of the offence - This would not vitiate the entire
proceedings.
Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957
- Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969 - Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 - ss. 193, 220 - Penal Code, 1860 - Cognizance by the Special
Court of the offences under IPC - It was contended that even if the
Special Judge had the power to take cognizance of the offence, he
could only have taken cognizance of offences under the MMDR
Act and could not have taken cognizance (and conduct trial) of the
offences under the provisions of IPC - Held : Since offences under
IPC are alleged to have been committed in the course of the same
transaction as the offences under the MMDR Act, the situation is
squarely covered by sub-section (1) of s.220 of 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 u/s.
220 CrPC - There is no express provision in the MMDR Act which
indicates that s.220 CrPC does not apply to proceedings under the
MMDR Act.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
987
Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957
- Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969 - Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 - s. 193 - Cognizance order and non-application of mind -
Allegations of purchasing and selling extracted iron ore illegally
without mining dispatch permits and the payments of charges to the
Mining and Geological Departments and the Forest Department -
FIR registered and a final report u/s. 173 of Cr.P.C. submitted -
Additional City and Civil Sessions Judge and Special Judge took
cognizance after perusing the final report - It was contended that
the order of the Special Judge taking cognizance has not sufficiently
demonstrated application of mind to the material placed before him
- Held : The Special Judge, took cognizance on the basis of a
report submitted u/s. 173 CrPC and not on the basis of a private
complaint - The Special Judge took note of the FIR, the witness
statements, and connected documents before taking cognizance of
the offence - In this backdrop, 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.
Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957
- s.22 - Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969 - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Allegations of purchasing and selling extracted
iron ore illegally without mining dispatch permits and the payments
of charges to the Mining and Geological Departments and the Forest
Department - FIR registered and a final report u/s. 173 of Cr.P.C.
submitted - Additional City and Civil Sessions Judge and Special
Judge took cognizance after perusing the final report - Appellant
contended that before the Special Court (Sessions Court) took
cognizance of the offence, no complaint was filed by the authorised
person - Held : 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 s.22 of the
MMDR Act - The FIR that was filed to overcome the bar u/s. 22 has
been signed by the Sub-Inspector of Lokayukta Police and the
information was given by the SIT - Therefore, the respondent had
complied with s.22 MMDR Act.
Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957
- s.23 - Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969 - Code of Criminal
PRADEEP S. WODEYAR v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
988
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 11 S.C.R.
Procedure, 1973 - Vicarious liability - Allegations of purchasing
and selling extracted iron ore illegally without mining dispatch
permits and the payments of charges to the Mining and Geological
Departments and the Forest Department - FIR registered and a final
report u/s. 173 of Cr.P.C. submitted - Additional City and Civil
Sessions Judge and Special Judge took cognizance after perusing
the final report - It was contended that the charge- sheet does not
ascribe any role to A-1 and hence the process initiated against him
must be quashed - Held : The determination of whether the
conditions stipulated in s.23 of the MMDR Act have been fulfilled
is a matter of trial - Moreover, it is evident that the charge sheet, as
a matter of fact, ascribes a role to A-1 and A-2 for the payment of
transportation - Therefore, there is a prima facie case against A-1,
which is sufficient to arraign him as an accused at this stage.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD : Special Court's power to take cognizance
1. Section 193 CrPC states that the Sessions Court shall
not take cognizance of an offence as a Court of original jurisdiction
unless the Magistrate commits the case to it. The only exception
is if it is expressly provided otherwise by the Code or the statute.
Neither the Code nor the MMDR Act provide that the Special
Court could directly take cognizance of the offences. Therefore,
the Sessions Court did not have the authority to take cognizance.
[Para 34][1018-A-B]
Section 465 CrPC
2. Section 465 stipulates that the order passed by a Court
of competent jurisdiction shall not be reversed or altered by a
Court of appeal on account of an irregularity of the proceedings
before trial or any inquiry. It is settled law that cognizance is pretrial or inquiry stage. Therefore, irregularity of a cognizance order
is covered by the provision. In order to determine if the provision
applies to pre-trial orders like an irregular cognizance order
or only applies to orders of conviction or acquittal, it is necessary
that the provision is interpreted contextually. [Para 37]
[1019-D-E]
3. It needs to be determined if condoning the irregularity
of the cognizance order under Section 465 would lead to a failure
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
989
of justice. In considered opinion of this Court, it would not lead
to a failure of justice for the following reasons :
(i) The diminished role of the committing Court under
Section 209 of the new Code while committing the case to the
Court of Session. Both the decision in Bhooraji as well as the
subsequent decision in Ratiram notice that under the Code of
1898, the Magistrate had a broad power at the stage of committal
which included the power to examine witnesses and to allow crossexamination. Such a power is noticeably absent in the provisions
of Section 209 of the CrPC. On the contrary, Section 209 makes
it abundantly clear that when a case is instituted on the basis of a
police report or otherwise and it appears to the Magistrate that
the offence is triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, the
Magistrate shall commit the case to the Court of Sessions after
complying with the provisions of Section 207 or Section 208, as
the case may be. The circumstance to which the Magistrate has
to apply their mind is solely whether the offence is triable
exclusively by the Court of Sessions. Since the committing
Magistrate does not have wide discretionary powers to exercise
at this stage not exercising it would not cause any injustice to the
parties; (ii) Gradation in irregularity of cognizance order under
Sections 460 and 461- Under Sections 460 and 461, the order
taking cognizance based on a police report has been given a
greater standing as compared to an order taking cognizance based
on information received from any person other than a police officer
or upon the own knowledge of the Magistrate, for the specific
purpose of deciding on the irregularity of the order. The reason
behind the gradation is because in the former case, the Magistrate
has material based on an investigation by the police to ground
his decision which may be absent when cognizance is taken based
on information by any other person. In this case, cognizance was
taken based on the SIT report. Therefore, the case squarely falls
under Section 190(b) of CrPC which under Section 460, even if
irregular would not vitiate the proceedings; (iii) Objective of the
MMDR Act : The appellants are accused of the commission of
offences under the MMDR Act involving the export and
transportation of minerals without permit. Offences under the
PRADEEP S. WODEYAR v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
990
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 11 S.C.R.
MMDR Act are environmental crimes. These crimes impact upon
society at large. These offences cause a detriment to and affect
the well-being of the entire community. Environmental crime is
not confined within geographical or state limits. The impact of
environmental crime transcends borders and time; (iv) The
Preamble of the Act at the time of its enactment indicated that it
is an Act for regulation of mines and the development of minerals.
The ultimate object of the provision is to ensure that violators
are punished by a speedy process of trial before a court duly
constituted in that behalf; and (v) The delay in the commencement
of trial : In the present case, there was considerable delay of two
years. [Para 44][1023-E-H; 1024-A-G; 1025-H; 1026-B-C]
Cognizance of the offence and not the offender
4. In the factual matrix before this Court, 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. The question that arises is whether
merely because the cognizance order mentions that cognizance
is taken against the accused, the entire proceedings would be
vitiated. The order taking cognizance inadvertently mentioned
that the Special Judge has taken cognizance against the accused
instead of the offence. 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. [Para 52] [1031-G-H;
1032-A-B]
Cognizance by the Special Court of offences under the IPC
5. Section 409 IPC deals with the offence of Criminal breach
of trust by a public servant, banker, or agent, while Section 420
IPC deals with cheating. Since both these offences are alleged to
have been committed in the course of the same transaction as
the offences under the MMDR Act, the situation is squarely
covered by sub-section (1) of Section 220 of CrPC. It now needs
to be determined if Section 220 CrPC can be applied to
proceedings before the Special Court constituted under the
MMDR Act. [Para 58][1036-A-B]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
991
6. Section 4(1) CrPC states that all offences under the IPC
shall be investigated and tried according to the provisions
contained in the CrPC. Section 4(2) states that all offences under
any other law shall be investigated and tried according to the
same provisions, subject to any other enactment that regulates
the manner of investigation and trial. Section 5 states that nothing
in the Code shall affect any special law that confers power, and
jurisdiction, unless there is a specific provision to the contrary.
Section 30C of the MMDR Act stipulates that unless otherwise
provided by the Act, the CrPC shall apply to the proceedings
before the Special Court. Therefore, on a combined reading of
Sections 4 and 5 of CrPC along with Section 30C of the MMDR
Act, it is apparent that the procedure prescribed under the Code
shall be applicable to proceedings before the Special Court unless
the MMDR Act provides anything to the contrary. These
provisions incorporate the principle of express repeal - i.e.,
unless any provision of the CrPC is expressly repealed by the
provisions of the MMDR Act, the procedure prescribed under
the CrPC would apply to the proceedings before the Special Court.
Since there is no express provision that excludes the application
of Section 220 CrPC, it needs to be examined if the MMDR Act
has by necessary implication excluded the application of Section
220 CrPC. [Paras 59, 60 and 62][1036-C-D, F-H; 1037-C-D]
7. The Judicial Magistrate First Class is invested with the
authority to try offences under Sections 409 and 420 IPC. On the
other hand, the Sessions Judge is appointed as a Special Judge
for the purposes of the MMDR Act. If the offences under the
MMDR Act and the IPC are tried together by the Special Judge,
there arises no anomaly, for it is not a case where a judge placed
lower in the hierarchy has been artificially vested with the power
to try the offences under both the MMDR Act and the Code.
Additionally, if the offences are tried separately by different fora
though they arise out of the same transaction, there would be a
multiplicity of proceedings and wastage of judicial time, and may
result in contradictory judgments. It is a settled principle of law
that a construction that permits hardship, inconvenience,
injustice, absurdity and anomaly must be avoided. Section 30B of
PRADEEP S. WODEYAR v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
992
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 11 S.C.R.
the MMDR Act and Section 220 CrPC can be harmoniously
construed and such a construction furthers justice. Therefore,
Section 30B cannot be held to impliedly repeal the application of
Section 220 CrPC to the proceedings before the Special Court.
[Para 67][1040-G-H; 1041-A-B]
Cognizance order and non-application of mind
8. The Special Judge, it must be noted, took cognizance on
the basis of a report submitted under Section 173 CrPC and not
on the basis of a private complaint. Therefore, the case is squarely
covered by the decision in Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta. The
Special Judge took note of the FIR, the witness statements, and
connected documents before taking cognizance of the offence.
In this backdrop, 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. [Para 75][1047-E-G]
'Authorised person' and Section 22 of MMDR Act
9. 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. [Para 76]
[1047-G-H; 1048-A]
10. The Government of Karnataka issued a notification on
29 May 2014 declaring that the Office of the Inspector General
of Police, Special Investigation Team, Karnataka Lokayukta shall
be a police station for the purpose of Section 2(s) and shall have
jurisdiction throughout the State of Karnataka for offences related
to the illegal mining of minerals. The FIR was filed by the SIT,
Lokayukta pursuant to the Order of this Court dated 16
September 2013 and was signed by the Sub-inspector of Police,
Karnataka Lokayukta. On a reading of the notification dated 29
May 2014, it is evident that the SIT has the jurisdiction throughout
Karnataka in relation to mining offences. S.No. 13 of the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
993
Notification dated 21 January 2014 authorizes the Sub- inspector
of Police' within its jurisdiction for the purpose of Section 22 of
the MMDR Act. Therefore, on a combined reading of both the
notifications, it is clear as day light that the complaint filed by SIT
and signed by the Sub-Inspector of Police has complied with
Section 22 of the MMDR Act. [Para 80][1052-H; 1053-A-C]
Vicarious liability and Section 23 of MMDR Act
11. A-1 submitted that the charge-sheet does not ascribe
any role to A-1 and hence the process initiated against him must
be quashed. Section 23(1) of the MMDR Act stipulates that where
the offence has been committed by a company, every person who
at the time of the commission of the offence was in-charge of and
responsible for the conduct of business shall be deemed to be
guilty of the offence. The proviso stipulates that nothing contained
in sub-section (1) shall render such a person liable to punishment,
if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge
or that he exercised all due diligence of preventing the
commission of the offence. [Para 82][1054-E-F]
12. The test to determine if the Managing Director must
be charged for the offence committed by the Company is to
determine if the conditions in Section 23 of the MMDR Act have
been fulfilled i.e., whether the individual was in-charge of and
responsible for the affairs of the company during the commission
of the offence. In view of the above decisions, the submissions
which has been urged on behalf of the appellant cannot be acceded
to. The determination of whether the conditions stipulated in
Section 23 of the MMDR Act have been fulfilled is a matter of
trial. Moreover, it is evident that the charge sheet, as a matter of
fact, ascribes a role to A-1 and A-2 for the payment of
transportation. Therefore, there is a prima facie case against A1, which is sufficient to arraign him as an accused at this stage.
[Para 84][1056-C-E]
13. The findings of the Court are summarised as below:
(i) The Special Court does not have, in the absence of a
specific provision to that effect, the power to take cognizance of
an offence under the MMDR Act without the case being
PRADEEP S. WODEYAR v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
994
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 11 S.C.R.
committed to it by the Magistrate under Section 209 CrPC. The
order of the Special Judge dated 30 December 2015 taking
cognizance is therefore irregular; (ii) The objective of Section
465 is to prevent the delay in the commencement and completion
of trial. Section 465 CrPC is applicable to interlocutory orders
such as an order taking cognizance and summons order as well.
Therefore, even if the order taking cognizance is irregular, it
would not vitiate the proceedings in view of Section 465 CrPC;
(iii) The decision in Gangula Ashok was distinguished in Rattiram
based on the stage of trial. This differentiation based on the stage
of trial must be read with reference to Section 465(2) CrPC.
Section 465(2) does not indicate that it only covers challenges to
pre-trial orders after the conclusion of the trial. The cardinal
principle that guides Section 465(2) CrPC is that the challenge
to an irregular order must be urged at the earliest. While
determining if there was a failure of justice, the Courts ought to
address it with reference to the stage of challenge, the
seriousness of the offence and the apparent intention to prolong
proceedings, among others; In the instant case, the cognizance
order was challenged by the appellant two years after cognizance
was taken. No reason was given to explain the inordinate delay.
Moreover, in view of the diminished role of the committal court
under Section 209 of the Code of 1973 as compared to the role of
the committal court under the erstwhile Code of 1898, the
gradation of irregularity in a cognizance order made in Sections
460 and 461 and the seriousness of the offence, no failure of justice
has been demonstrated; (iv) 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. This irregularity would thus not vitiate the proceedings
in view of Section 465 CrPC; (v) 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; (vi) Section 30B of the MMDR Act does
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
995
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; (vii) 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
to the material; (viii) 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;
and (ix) The question of whether A-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 A-1, which is sufficient to arraign him
as an accused at this stage. [Para 85][1056-F-H; 1057-A-H;
1058-A-E]
Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana, a Constitution Bench
(2014) 3 SCC 306 : [2013] 13 SCR 1052 - followed.
Rattiram v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2012) 4 SCC 516
: [2012] 3 SCR 496; Kishun Singh v. State of Bihar
(1993) 2 SCC 16 : [1993] 1 SCR 31; Municipal
Council, Palai v. T.J Joseph AIR 1963 SC 1561 :
[1964] SCR 87; Harshad Mehta v. State of
Maharashtra (2010) 8 SCC 257; Pepsi Foods Ltd. v.
Special Judicial Magistrate (1998) 5 SCC 749 : [1997]
5 Suppl. SCR 12; State (NCT of Delhi) v. Sanjay (2014)
9 SCC 772 : [2014] 9 SCR 1063; SMS Pharmaceuticals
v. Neeta Bhalla (2005) 8 SCC 89 : [2005] 3 Suppl. SCR
371; Mainuddin Abdul Sattar Shaikh v. Vijay D Salvi
(2015) 9 SCC 622 : [2015] 6 SCR 1033 - relied on.
Gangula Ashok v. State of AP (2000) 2 SCC 504 : [2000]
1 SCR 468; State of MP v. Bhooraji (2001) 7 SCC 679
PRADEEP S. WODEYAR v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
996
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 11 S.C.R.
: [2001] 2 Suppl. SCR 128; Moly v. State of Kerala
(2004) 4 SCC 584 : [2004] 3 SCR 346; Vidyadharan
v. State of Kerala (2004) 1 SCC 215 : [2003] 5 Suppl.
SCR 524; Shantaben Bhurabhai Bhuriya v. Anand
Athabhai Chaudhari, Criminal Appeal No. 967 of 2021;
Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92 :
[2014] 2 SCR 1; AR Antulay v. RR Nayak, 1988 AIR
1531 : [1988] 1 Suppl. SCR 1; Santhosh De v. Archana
Guha AIR 1994 SC 1229 : 1994 (3) Suppl. SCC 735;
Anna Reddy Sambvisa Reddy v. State of A.P, AIR 2009
SC 2661 : [2009] 6 SCR 755; Chief Enforcement
Officer v. Videocon International Ltd., (2008) 2 SCC
492 : [2008] 2 SCR 36; Fakhruddin Ahmad v. State of
Uttaranchal, (2008) 17 SCC 157 : [2008] 13 SCR 66;
State of W.B. v. Mohd. Khalid (1995) 1 SCC 684 : [1994]
6 Suppl. SCR 16; Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab (1998)
7 SCC 149 : [1998] 2 Suppl. SCR 8; RN Agarwal v. RC
BansaL (2015) 1 SCC 48 : [2014] 14 SCR 1124;
Harshad Mehta v. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 8 SCC
257; State of Orissa v. M/s M.A. Tulloch, AIR 1964 SC
1284 : [1964] SCR 461; Syndicate Bank v. Prabha D.
Naik, (2001) 4 SCC 713 : [2001] 2 SCR 714; State of
MP v. Kedia Leather & Liqour Limited, (2003) 7 SCC
389 : [2003] 2 Suppl. SCR 727; Lal Shah Baba Dargah
Trust v. Magnum Developers, (2015) 17 SCC 65 : [2015]
10 SCR 966; Deep Chand v. State of Uttar Pradesh
(1959) 2 SCR 8; Fakhruddin Ahmad v. State of
Uttaranchal (2008) 17 SCC 157 : [2008] 13 SCR 66;
Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda
(2015) 12 SCC 420 : [2015] 4 SCR 841; Sunil Bharti
Mittal v. CBI (2015) 4 SCC 609 : [2015] 1 SCR 377;
Ravindranatha Bajpe v. Bangalore Special Economic
Zone Ltd Criminal Appeal Nos. 1047-1048/2021;
Bhushan Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2012) 5 SCC
424 : [2012] 2 SCR 696; State of Gujarat v. Afroz
Mohammed Hasanafatta (2019) 20 SCC 539; Kanwar
Pal Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh (2020) 14 SCC
331 : 2019 (12 ) JT 420; Jayant v. The State of Madhya
Pradesh (2021) 2 SCC 670; 2020 (12 ) JT 52; Shiva
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
997
Kumar Jatia v. NCT of Delhi (2019) 17 SCC 193 : [2019]
11 SCR 210; Sunil Sethi v. State of Andhra Pradesh
(2020) 3 SCC 240; Ravindranatha Bajpe v. Mangalore
Special Economic Zone Ltd. 2021 SCC OnLine 806 -
referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2000] 1 SCR 468
referred to
Para 25
[2001] 2 Suppl. SCR 128
referred to
Para 26
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No.1288 of 2021.
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.11.2020 of the High Court
of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Criminal Petition No.2512 of 2017.
With
Criminal Appeal Nos.1289 and 1290 of 2021.
Pravin H. Parekh, Siddhartha Dave, Sr. Advs., S. Udaya Kumar
Sagar, Ms. Bina Madhavan, L. M. Chidanandayya, Ms. Akanksha Mehra,
M/s Lawyer S. Knit & Co., Naveen Kumar, Vinit Kumar, Shourajeet
Chakravarty, Siddharth Garg, Ms. Devanshi Singh, Himanshu Chaubey,
Advs. for the Appellant.
Nikhil Goel, AAG, V. N. Raghupathy, Ashutosh Ghade, Vinay
Mathew, Advs. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
Contents*
A. The Facts..........................................................................3
B. The Submissions.............................................................13
C. The Analysis..................................................................17
C.1 The power to take cognizance...............................17
C.2 Special Court's power to take cognizance..............19
C.2.1 Section 465 CrPC and interlocutory orders.....30
PRADEEP S. WODEYAR v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
*The Contents is as per the Original Judgment.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
998
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 11 S.C.R.
C 2.2 Section 465 CrPC and failure of Justice...........35
C.3 Cognizance of the offence and not the offender........41
C.4 Cognizance by the Special Court of offences under
the IPC...................................................................47
C.4.1 Joint trial and express repeal...........................51
C.4.2 Joint trial and implied repeal............................54
C.5 Cognizance order and non-application of mind....58
C.6 'Authorised person' and Section 22 of MMDR Act..67
C.7 Vicarious liability and Section 23 of MMDR Act.......74
D. The Conclusion...............................................................78
A. The Facts
1. 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 (arising out of Crime
No.21/2014) for offences 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 165 read with Rule 144 of the Karnataka
Forest Rules 1969.
2. Pradeep S. Wodeyar, who is the Managing Director of a
Companyby the name of Canara Overseas Limited is arraigned as the
first accused2 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 accused3 and is the
appellant in the appeal arising out of SLP (Criminal) No.1448/2021.
3. An overview of the criminal case needs to be noticed.
4. On 1 June 2009, Canara Overseas Limited, a Company dealing
in exports and imports is alleged to have entered into an agreement with
K. Ramappa, the third accused4, who is the owner of Mineral Miners
1 "MMDR Act"
2 "A-1"
3 "A-2"
4 "A-3"
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
999
and Traders, Bellary for the purpose of exporting iron ore. In pursuance
of the agreement, the company purchased 31,650.65 metric tons (MTs)
of iron ore from A-3, of which 20,000 metric tons were exported to
China between the period of 1 January 2009 to 31 May 2010, while the
remaining iron ore was sold to two other companies in India. These
transactions are alleged to have been carried out through, or at Belekere
Port in Karnataka. It has been alleged that the transportation and export
of iron ore was carried out in the absence of permits from the Forest
Department and the Department of Mines and Geology. The iron ore
involved in the transactions is alleged to have been removed from the
Mining Lease No.921/2553, Kallahari Village, Bellary. The fourth
Accused5 is allegedly the mine owner while the fifth accused6 is their
agent. The iron ore is alleged to have been stocked in an unauthorized
stockyard without bulk permits from the department of Mines and Geology
and to have been transported without an authorized forest way pass.
Acting in conspiracy, the accused are alleged to have caused a loss of
Rs.3,27,83,379/- to the state exchequer.
5. Persistent complaints were made on large-scale illegal mining
and transportation of iron ore, and illegal encroachment in forest areas
for the purpose of illegal mining. Samaj Parivartna Samudaya filed a
Petition7 under article 32 before this Court regarding illegal mining in the
forest areas in Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka. The Central Empowered
Committee8, pursuant to an order of this Court dated 19 November
2010submitted a report on 7 January, 2011 regarding six mining leases in
the Bellary Reserve Forests, Ananthapur, Andhra Pradesh. This Court
by an order dated 25 February 2011 directed the CEC to submit its
report in respect of the allegations of illegal mining in Karnataka. Pursuant
to the order, the CEC filed five reports on illegal mining. Following the
submission of the report of the CEC dated 3 February 2012 raising
concerns over illegal mining, transportation, sale and export of iron ore
in the districts of Bellary, Chitradurga and Tumkur, directions were issued
by this Court on 16 September 2013 for an investigation by the CBI. The
purport of the directions of this Court was as follows:
(i)
CBI was permitted to register criminal cases against those
exporters in respect of whom a preliminary enquiry had
5 "A-4"
6 "A-5"
7 Writ Petition (Civil) No. 562/2009
8 "CEC"
PRADEEP S. WODEYAR v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J. ]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1000
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 11 S.C.R.
been conducted, involving export of more than 50,000 MTs
of iron ore without valid permits;
(ii)
CBI was permitted to refer the cases of exporters who
had exported less than 50,000 MTs and had not been
enquired in the preliminary enquiry (PE), to the Government
of Karnataka for taking necessary action in accordance
with relevant laws;
(iii)
CBI was permitted to refer to the Government of Karnataka
for initiating action against exporters who had been enquired
into in the PE and had exported less than 50,000 MTs of
iron ore without valid permits; and
(iv)
The Government of Karnataka was directed to take action
under relevant law as recommended by the CEC in its report
dated 5 September 2012 with regard to those exporters who
had exported less than 50,000 MTs and report compliance.
6. On 22 November 2013, the Government of Karnataka entrusted
the above cases in terms of the orders of this Court for further investigation
and criminal proceedings to the Lokayukta Police. On 21January 2014,
the state government issued a notification authorizing several officers,
including the Inspector of Police, as 'authorized persons' for the purpose
of sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 21 and Section 22 of the MMDR
Act and Rules 43(3) and 46 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession
Rules, 1994. On 24 January 2014, the Government of Karnataka
constituted a Special Investigation Team9 in the Karnataka Lokayukta
for investigation of illegal mining among other purposes. The SIT included
the Inspector of Police. On 29 May 2014, the Home Department of the
Government of the Karnataka declared, in pursuance of Section 2(s) of
the Criminal Procedure Code,10 that the office of the Inspector General
of Police, SIT, Karnataka Lokayukta shall be a police station for the
purpose of the said clause and, power and jurisdiction in respect of the
offences of illegal mining of minerals/minor minerals as defined in Section3
of the MMDR Act was conferred. The text of the notification is extracted
below:
"In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (s) of Section 2 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974),
9 "SIT"
10 "CrPC"
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1001
the Government of Karnataka hereby declare that with effect
from the date of publication of this notification in the Official
Gazette, the office of Inspector General of Police, Special
Investigation Team, Karnataka Lokayuktha, Bangalore shall be a
Police Station for the purpose of the said clause with jurisdiction
throughout the State of Karnataka and shall have powers and
jurisdiction in respect of the offences of illegal mining of "minerals"
and "minor minerals" as defined under Section 3 of the Mines
and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (Central
Act 6 7 of 1957) committed under the provisions of the following
Acts and the corresponding rules, if any, made thereunder namely:-
1. Indian Penal Code, 1860
2. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
3. The Karnataka Forest Act, 1962
4. Any other offence under any other relevant Act committed
either in furtherance of or in violation of the above mentioned
Acts or to undertake illegal mining; and
5. Any other cases of illegal mining entrusted by State Government.
The Notification shall remain in force for period of two years, coterminus with the term of the Special Investigation Team (SIT)."
7. On 9 October 2014, an FIR was registered in the first case
(Crime No.21/2014) against the following accused:
(i)
G. Lakshminarayan Gubba, Managing Director, Canara
Overseas Private Limited;
(ii)
 Canara Overseas Private Limited;
(iii)
K. Ramappa, owner of M/s Mineral Miners and Traders;
and
(iv)
Unknown Government Officials and unknown private
persons.
8. A final report under Section 173 of the CrPC was submitted on
17 December 2015 against:
(i)
Canara Overseas Limited represented by Sri Pradeep S.
Wodeyar, Managing Director (A-1);
(ii)
Lakshminarayana Gubba (A-2);
PRADEEP S. WODEYAR v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J. ]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1002
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 11 S.C.R.
(iii)
K. Ramappa (A-3);
(iv)
Smt. Shanthalakshmi Jayaram (A-4); and
(v)
J. Mithileshwar (A-5).
9. 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:
"The charge sheet is submitted by the Inspector of Police, S.I.T.
Kamataka 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 Kamataka Forest Rules 1969. Prays that
for the reasons stated therein this Hon'ble Court may be pleased
to prosecute the above named accused for the aforesaid offences:
1. F.I.R. Complaint. Crime papers in Cr.No.21/2014 are enclosed.
2. Connected documents are produced.
3. Statements of witnesses are produced.
4. Accused copies are furnished.
5. Connected properties are not produced.
6. Al & A4 are not arrested as per charge sheet.
A2, A3 & A5 are on court bail.
Place it before the XXIII Addi. City Civil & Sessions Judge and
Special Judge for Prevention of Corruption Act for kind orders.
Sd/- 29/12/15
Deputy Registrar
City Civil Court
Bengaluru."
10. On 30 December 2015,the 23rd Additional City Civil Sessions
Judge and Special Judge for Prevention of Corruption Act at Bengaluru
City took cognizance after perusing the final report. A direction was also
issued for the registration of the case against the accused persons and
for issuance of summons. The order reads as follows:
"Perused the final report. Cognizance is taken against Accused
No. 1 to 5. Register the case against Accused No. 1 to 5. Register
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1003
the case against Accused No. 1 to 5. Register the case and issue
summons to accused No. 1 to 5 returnable by 16.01.2016.
Sd/-30.12.2015
Special Judge,
Prevention of Corruption Act
Bangalore Urban, Bangalore"
11. On 20 March 2017, proceedings were instituted before the
High Court under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the criminal proceedings
initiated against the appellants. The appellants sought the quashing of
the criminal proceedings on the following grounds:
(i)
A-1 was not involved in the alleged illegal transaction. He
was residing in Indonesia at the relevant point of time.