# SAMAJ PARIVARTAN SAMUDAYA & ORS v. STATE OF KARNATAKA &ORS

- **Citation:** [2012] 5 S.C.R. 1074
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2012-05-11
- **Bench:** S.H. Kapadia, Aftab Alam, Swatanter Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/samaj-parivartan-samudaya-ors-v-state-of-karnataka-ors-28432
- **Pages:** 34

## Headnote

Mines and Minerals:
Minerals - Pilferage and illegal mining of - Case
registered by CBI against erring company - Charge-sheet
0 filed in court - Petition filed before Supreme Court regarding
illegal mining still going on - Central Empowered Committee
(CEC) constituted by Supreme Court - CEC submitted reports
dated 20.4.2012 and 27.4.2012 to Supreme Court pointing
out large illegalities and irregularities coupled with criminality
E - Held: In the instant case, all the acts and transactions may
be so inter-connected that they would ultimately form one
composite transaction making it imperative for the Court to
direct complete and comprehensive investigation by a single
investigating agency - Directions given to CBI to investigate
into the issues specified in CEC Report dated 20.4.2012 -
F Meanwhile proceedings in relation to the items concerned as
mentioned in the judgment, if pending before any court, to
remain stayed -
Matter adjourned to 3.8.2012 for
consideration of report dated 27.4.2012 - Environmental law.
G
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
s. 173(8), 202 and 210 - Held: Further investigation by the
investigating agency, after presentation of c;i cha/Ian (charge
sheet in terms of s. 173) is permissible in any case impliedly
H
1074
SAMAJ PARIVARTAN SAMU DAYA v. STATE OF
1075
KARNATAKA &ORS.
but in no event is impermissible - Even assuming that the
A
illegalities, irregularities and offences alleged to have been
committed by the affected parties are the subject matter, even
in their entirety, of previous investigation cases, sub-judice
before various courts including the writ jurisdiction of the High
Court, an investigating agency is empowered to conduct 8
further investigation after institution of a charge-sheet before
the court of competent jurisdiction - A Magistrate is competent
to direct further investigation in terms of s. 173(8) in the case
instituted on a police report - Similarly, the Magistrate has
powers u/s 202 to direct police investigation while keeping the
C
trial pending before him instituted on the basis of a private
complaint in terms of that Section - The provisions of s. 210
use the expression 'shall' requiring the Magistrate to stay the
proceedings of inquiry and trial before him in the event in a
similar subject matter, an investigation is found to be in
progress - All these provisions clearly indicate the legislative
D
scheme under the Cr.P. C. that initiation of an investigation
and filing of a chargesheet do not completely debar further
or wide investigation by the investigating agency or police, or
even by a specialized investigation agency - There does not
seem to be any element of prejudice being caused to the
E
affected parties if the CBI is permitted to investigate the entire
matter - There does not seem to be any prejudice to parties
if further or wider investigation is directed by the Court - The
direction of further investigation is based upon documents and
facts brought to light by the CEC as a result of examination
F
conducted in the course of its primary function relating to
inquiry into environmental violations and illegal mining
activity - The criminal offences are primarily offences against
the State and secondarily against the victim - In the instant
case, if the investigation by specialized agency finds that the
G
suspects have committed offences with or without involvement
of persons in power, still such violation undoubtedly would
have been a great loss to the environmental and natural
resources and would hurt both the State and national economy
H
1076
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 5 S.C.R.
A - An ordinary complainant cannot be expected to carry the
burden of proving such complex offences before the court of
competent jurisdiction by himself and at his own cost - Doing
so would be a travesty of the criminal justice system.
B
Constitution of India, 1950:
Arts. 32 and 136 read with Art. 21 - Pilferage and illegal
mining of minerals - Investigation by CBI - Charge-sheet
submitted bef

## Text

_Characters 0–39,952 of 68,738. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39952 for what follows._

[2012] 5 S.C.R. 1074
A
SAMAJ PARIVARTAN SAMUDAYA & ORS.
B
c
v.
STATE OF KARNATAKA &ORS.
IA NO. OF 2012
in
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 562 of 2009)
MAY 11, 2012
[S.H. KAPADIA, CJI, AFTAB ALAM AND
SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.)
Mines and Minerals:
Minerals - Pilferage and illegal mining of - Case
registered by CBI against erring company - Charge-sheet
0 filed in court - Petition filed before Supreme Court regarding
illegal mining still going on - Central Empowered Committee
(CEC) constituted by Supreme Court - CEC submitted reports
dated 20.4.2012 and 27.4.2012 to Supreme Court pointing
out large illegalities and irregularities coupled with criminality
E - Held: In the instant case, all the acts and transactions may
be so inter-connected that they would ultimately form one
composite transaction making it imperative for the Court to
direct complete and comprehensive investigation by a single
investigating agency - Directions given to CBI to investigate
into the issues specified in CEC Report dated 20.4.2012 -
F Meanwhile proceedings in relation to the items concerned as
mentioned in the judgment, if pending before any court, to
remain stayed -
Matter adjourned to 3.8.2012 for
consideration of report dated 27.4.2012 - Environmental law.
G
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
s. 173(8), 202 and 210 - Held: Further investigation by the
investigating agency, after presentation of c;i cha/Ian (charge
sheet in terms of s. 173) is permissible in any case impliedly
H
1074
SAMAJ PARIVARTAN SAMU DAYA v. STATE OF
1075
KARNATAKA &ORS.
but in no event is impermissible - Even assuming that the
A
illegalities, irregularities and offences alleged to have been
committed by the affected parties are the subject matter, even
in their entirety, of previous investigation cases, sub-judice
before various courts including the writ jurisdiction of the High
Court, an investigating agency is empowered to conduct 8
further investigation after institution of a charge-sheet before
the court of competent jurisdiction - A Magistrate is competent
to direct further investigation in terms of s. 173(8) in the case
instituted on a police report - Similarly, the Magistrate has
powers u/s 202 to direct police investigation while keeping the
C
trial pending before him instituted on the basis of a private
complaint in terms of that Section - The provisions of s. 210
use the expression 'shall' requiring the Magistrate to stay the
proceedings of inquiry and trial before him in the event in a
similar subject matter, an investigation is found to be in
progress - All these provisions clearly indicate the legislative
D
scheme under the Cr.P. C. that initiation of an investigation
and filing of a chargesheet do not completely debar further
or wide investigation by the investigating agency or police, or
even by a specialized investigation agency - There does not
seem to be any element of prejudice being caused to the
E
affected parties if the CBI is permitted to investigate the entire
matter - There does not seem to be any prejudice to parties
if further or wider investigation is directed by the Court - The
direction of further investigation is based upon documents and
facts brought to light by the CEC as a result of examination
F
conducted in the course of its primary function relating to
inquiry into environmental violations and illegal mining
activity - The criminal offences are primarily offences against
the State and secondarily against the victim - In the instant
case, if the investigation by specialized agency finds that the
G
suspects have committed offences with or without involvement
of persons in power, still such violation undoubtedly would
have been a great loss to the environmental and natural
resources and would hurt both the State and national economy
H
1076
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 5 S.C.R.
A - An ordinary complainant cannot be expected to carry the
burden of proving such complex offences before the court of
competent jurisdiction by himself and at his own cost - Doing
so would be a travesty of the criminal justice system.
B
Constitution of India, 1950:
Arts. 32 and 136 read with Art. 21 - Pilferage and illegal
mining of minerals - Investigation by CBI - Charge-sheet
submitted before court - Petitions filed before Supreme Court
regarding illegal mining still continuing - Supreme Court
C constituting Central Empowered Committee (CEC) to report
on the matter - Status of CEC - Held: The CEC is not
discharging quasi-judicial or even administrative functions,
with a view to determine any rights of the parties - It had made
different recommendations with regard to prevention and
o prosecution of environmentally harmful and illegal activities
carried on in collusion with government officers or otherwise
- No prejudice has been caused to the intervenor/affected
parties by non-grant of opportunity of hearing by the CEC -
In any case, the Court has heard them and is considering the
E issues independently - As far as the challenge to the
enlargement of jurisdiction by the CEC beyond the reference
made by the Court, is concerned, the ambit and scope of
proceedings before the Court, pending in the writ petition and
civil appeal, clearly show that the Court is exercising a very
F wide jurisdiction in the national interest, to ensure that there
is no further degradation of the environment or damage to the
forests and the illegal mining and exports are stopped - The
orders are comprehensive enough not only to give leverage
to the CEC to examine any ancillary matters, but in fact, place
an obligation on the CEC to report to the Court without
G exception and correctly, all matters that can have a bearing
on the issues involved in all these petitions in both the States
of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh - The facts of the case
reveal an unfortunate state of affairs which has prevailed for
a considerable time in particular districts of both the States
H
SAMAJ PARIVARTAN SAMU DAYA v. STATE OF
1077
KARNATAKA &ORS.
of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka - The CEC has A
recommended, and the complainant and petitioners have
also highlighted, a complete failure of the State machinery
in relation to controlling and protecting the environment,
forests and minerals from being illegally mined and exploited
- Wherever and whenever the State fails to perform its duties,
the Courl shall step in to ensure that Rule of Law prevails over
the abuse of process of law - Such abuse may result from
inaction or even arbitrary action of protecting the true offenders
B
or failure by different authorities in discharging statutory or
legal obligations in consonance with the procedural and penal c
statutes - The Courl expressed its concern about the rampant
pilferage and illegal extraction of natural wealth and resources,
parlicular/y, iron ore, as also the environmental degradation
and disaster that may result from unchecked intrusion into the
forest areas.
D
Investigation:
Duty of State - Opporlunity of hearing - Held: A suspect
has no indefeasible right of being heard prior to initiation of
the investigation, parlicularly, by the investigating agency -
E
Even the scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure does
not admit of grant of any such opportunity - There is no
provision in the CrPC where an investigating agency must
provide a hearing to the affected parly before registering an
FIR or even before carrying on investigation prior to
F
registration of case against the suspect - The CBI may even
conduct pre-registration inquiry for which notice is not
contemplated under the provisions of the Code, the Police
Manual or even as per the precedents laid down by the Court
- It was ever and shall always remain the statutory obligation
G
of State to prove offences against the violators of Jaw - If a
private citizen has initiated the proceedings before the
competent court, it will not absolve the State of discharging
its obligation under the provisions of the CrPC and the
obligations of Rule of Law - The Court cannot countenance
H
1078
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 5 S.C.R.
A an approach of this kind where the State can be permitted to
escape its liability only on the ground that multifarious
complaints or investigations have been initiated by private
persons or bodies other than the State - In the considered view
of the Court, it enhances the primary and legal duty of the
B State to ensure proper, fair and unbiased investigation.
T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad v. Union of India & Ors.
2009 (17) SCC 755; Gopal Das Sindhi & Ors. v. State of
Assam & Anr. AIR 1961 SC 986; Mohd. Yusuf v. Smt. Afaq
Jahan & Anr. 2006 (1 ) SCR 1 = AIR 2006 SC 705; and
C Mona Panwar v. High Court of Judicature of Allahabad
Through its Registrar & Ors. 2011 (2) SCR 413 = (2011) 3
SCC 496; Hemant Dhasmana v. Central Bureau of
Investigation & Anr. 2001 (1) Suppl. SCR 646 = (2001) 7 SCC
536; Shri Bhagwan Samardha Sreepada Val/abha Venkata
D Vishwandha Maharaj v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.
1999 ( 3 ) SCR 870 = JT 1999 (4) SC 537; Sasi Thomas v.
State & Ors. 2006 (9 ) Suppl. SCR 450 = (2006) 12 SCC
421; Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. 2007 (12)
SCR 1100 = (2008) 2 SCC 409; Nirmal Singh Kah/on v. State
E of Punjab & Ors. 2008 (14) SCR 1049 = (2009) 1 SCC 441 ;
Narmada Bai v. State of Gujarat & Ors. 2011 (5 ) SCR 729 =
(2011) 5 SCC 79; Rubabbudin Sheikh vs. State of Gujarat
2010 (1 ) SCR 991 = (2010) 2 SCC 200; Rama Chaudhary
v. State of Bihar 2009 (5 ) SCR 482 = (2009) 6 SCC 346;
F M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (2009) 6 SCC 142 - referred
to
Case Law Reference:
2009 (17) sec 755
referred to
para 3
G
1961 AIR 986
referred to
para 17
2006 (1) SCR 1
referred to
para 17
2011 (2) SCR 413
referred to
para 17
H
2001 (1) Suppl. SCR 646 referred to
para 18
SAMAJ PARIVARTAN SAMUDAYA v. STATE OF
1079
KARNATAKA &ORS.
1999 (3) SCR 870
referred to
para18
2006 (9) Suppl. SCR 450 referred to
para 19
2007 (12) SCR 1100
referred to
para 19
2008 (14) SCR 1049
referred to
para 26
2011 (5) SCR 729
referred to
para 33
2010 (1) SCR 991
referred to
para 33
2009 (5) SCR 482
referred to
para 37
2009 (6) sec 142
referred to
para 38
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : I.A of 2012.
IN
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 562 of 2009.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
Shyam Divan, (A.C.), A.D.N. Rao (A.C.), Siddharth
Chaudhary (A.C.), Prashant Bhushan, Anitha Shenoy, G.N.
Reddy, Ankur S. Kulkarni, S.N. Terdal, Kiran Suri, Gopal Jain,
Rajat Jariwal (for Khaitan & Co.), Dr. Sushil Balwada, Anil
Kumar Mishra-I, Dinesh Kumar Garg, Meera Mathur, AP & J
Chambers, Balaji Srinivasan, Lawyer's Knit & Co., Rajesh
Mahale, Munawwar Naseem, Rakesh K. Sharma, S. Narain &
Co. Bhargava V. Desai, Avijit Bhushan, Aniruddha P. Mayee,
E.C. Agrawala, Naveen R. Nath (for Parekh & Co.), Shailesh
Madiyal, Uttara Babbar, Snehasish Mukherjee for the appearing
parties.
The order of the Court was delivered by
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
SWATANTER KUMAR, J. 1. By this order we will deal
with and dispose of, the recommendations made by the Central
Empowered Committee (for short, 'CEC') in its report dated
20th April, 2012. Since we have heard the affected parties, the
petitioners and the learned Amicus Curiae, we shall summarize
H
1080
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012) 5 S.C.R.
A the contentions of the learned counsel for the respective parties.
B
c
D
The learned counsel appearing for the affected parties
contended:
a.
CEC has submitted its report without providing
them an opportunity of being heard ..
h.
CEC has exceeded its jurisdiction and enlarged the
scope of the enquiry beyond the reference made
by the Court. Thus, the Court should not accept any
of the recommendations made by the CEC.
c.
In relation to the alleged irregularities and illegalities
pointed out in the report of the CEC, even where
criminality is involved or criminal offences are
suspected, the matters are sub judice before the
Court of competent jurisdiction. Thus, this Court
should not pass any orders for transferring the
investigation of such offences to the Central Bureau
of Investigation (for short 'CBI') as it would seriously
prejudice their interests.
E
2. In order to deal with these contentions, it is necessary
F
for this Court to briefly refer to the background of these cases,
which has resulted in the filing of the unnumbered IA in Writ
Petition No. 562/2009 and the peculiar facts and circumstances
in which the CEC has made its recommendations.
3. Concerned with the rampant pilferage and illegal
extraction of natural wealth and resources, particularly iron ore,
and the environmental degradation and disaster that may result
from unchecked intrusion into the forest areas, this Court felt
G compelled to intervene. Vide its order dated 9th September,
2002 in T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad v. Union of India & Ors.
[W.P.(C) No. 202 of 1995), this Court constituted the CEC to
examine and monitor the various activities infringing the laws
protecting the environment and also the preventive or punitive
H steps that may be required to be taken to protect the
SAMAJ PARIVARTAN SAMUDAYA v. STATE OF
1081
KARNATAKA &ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
environment. In addition to this general concern for the
A
environment, the order of this Court dated 9th September,
2002, this Court noted violations of its Orders and directed that
the CEC shall monitor implementation of all orders of the Court
and shall place before it any unresolved cases of noncompliance, including in respect of the encroachments,
B
removals, implementations of working plans, compensatory
afforestation, plantations and other conservation issues. In
furtherance to the said order, the Government framed a
notification in terms of Section 33 of the Environment Protection
Act, 1996. The CEC constituted by this Court was proposed c
to be converted into a Statutory Committee. The draft
notification for the same was also placed before this Court on
9th September, 2002. After approval, the Court directed that a
formal notification will be issued within a week and the functions
and responsibilities given to the CEC were to be exercised by
D
the said Statutory Committee. In fact, this Notification was
issued on 17th September, 2002.
4. It may be noticed here that, it was in furtherance to the
order of the Government of Andhra Pradesh vide G.O.M No.
467, Home (SCA) Dept. dated 17th November, 2009,
E
supplemented by Notification No. 228/61/2009-AVD-11 dated
1st December, 2009 issued by the Central Government, that
the CBI was directed to register a case against the
Obulapuram Mining Company (OMC). Earlier the CBI had
registered a case against the OMC on 7th December, 2009
F
and started the probe. This probably came to be stayed by the
High Court vide its order dated 12th December, 2009 which
stay was vacated by another order of that Court on 16th
December, 2010 paving the way for a full-fledged probe. As a
result of vacation of the stay, the CBI continued its investigation.
G
5. The CBI also filed a charge-sheet in a special court
against the OMC, in an illegal mining case falling within the
State of Karnataka, charging the accused under Sections
1208, 409, 420, 468 and Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code,
H
1082
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 5 S.C.R.
A 1860 (for short 'IPC') read with the provisions of the Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988. The case against the OMC for illegal
mining was under investigation in respect of the areas of
Obulapuram and Malangapudi villages of Anantpur district in
the State of Andhra Pradesh and in the rest of the State of
B Andhra Pradesh.
6. Further, the State of Andhra Pradesh vide its G.O. Rt.
No. 723 dated 25th November, 2009, issued by the Industrial
and Commercial Department, suspended the mining
C operations and also the transportation of mineral material by
OMC and even other implicated companies, on the basis of
the findings of a High Level Committee, headed by the Principal
Chief Conservator of Forests, Hyderabad and the Report of the
CEC submitted to this Court in I.A. No. 2/2009 in Writ Petition
(Civil) No. 201 of 200~. a copy of which was forwarded to the
D State Government. This was challenged before the High Court
of Andhra Pradesh which, vide judgment dated 26th February,
2010, set aside the notification and allowed the writ petitions,
while holding that the G.O. issued by the Government suffered
from a jurisdictional error and was in violation of the principles
E of natural justice. Against the said judgment of the High Court,
the Government of Andhra Pradesh filed a Special Leave
Petition, SLP{C) No. 7366-7367 of 2010 on different grounds.
7. Samaj Parivartan Samuday, a registered society, filed
F petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India stating that
the illegal mining in the States of Andhra Pradesh and
Karnataka was still going on in full swing. Such illegal mining
and transportation of illegally mined minerals were being done
in connivance with the officials, politicians and even Ministers
G of State. There was a complete lack of action on the part of
the Ministry of Environment and Forests on the one hand and
the States of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka, on the other. It
was averred that there was complete breakdown of the official
machinery, thereby allowing such blatant illegalities to take
H place. This inaction and callousness on the part of the Central
SAMAJ PARIVARTAN SAMUDAYA v. STATE OF
1083
KARNATAKA &ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
and the State Governments and failure on their part to control
A
the illegal mining has allowed large-scale destruction, both of
forest and non-forest lands and has adversely affected the
livelihood of the people. It thus, has filed WP (C) 562 of 2009
and has prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus or any
other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respective State
Governments and to the Union of India, to stop all mining and
related activities in the forest areas of these two States. It
further sought that the orders passed by this Court in the
B
. W.P.(C) No. 202 of 1995 be carried out and the provisions of
the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 be implemented. It also c
prayed for cancelling of the 'raising contracts' or sub-lease
executed by the Government of Karnataka in favour of the
various private individuals and allowing back-door entry into the
mining activity in those areas. The most significant prayer in
this petition was that after stopping of the mining activity, a
0
systematic survey of both the inter-state border between the
States of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka and mine lease areas
along the border be conducted and proper Relief and
Rehabilitation Programmes (for short 'RR Programmes') be
implemented.
E
8. All the above cases, i.e., W.P.(C) No. 202/1995, 562/
2009 and SLP(C) No. 7366-7367/2010, relate to protection of
environment, forest areas, stoppage of illegal mining and
cancellation of illegal sub-leasing and contracts executed by any
State Government in favour of the third parties, to the extent
F
such contracts are invalid and improper. The latter cases, Writ
Petition (Civil) No. 562 of 2009 and SLP(C) Nos. 7366-7367
of 201 O concern the Bellary Forest Reserve. Further, there were
_ serious allegations raised in these petitions as to how and the
manner in which the leases were executed and mining permits
G
were granted or renewed for carrying out the mining activities
stated in the petition.
·
9. The CEC was required to submit quarterly reports, which
it has been submitting and with the passage of time, large
H
1084
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 5 S.C.R.
A irregularities and illegalities coupled with criminality were
brought to the notice of this Court. The CEC, in discharge of
its functions and responsibilities, was examining the matters,
in both the States of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka. These
violations have come to the surface as a result of enquiries
B conducted by the CEC, regarding illegal mining and mining
beyond their leased areas by these companies. It was pointed
by the CEC with specific reference to these companies that
there was not only illegal extraction of iron ore but the minerals
was being also extracted beyond the leased area specified in
C the lease deeds. Further, there was unchecked export of iron
ore from the border areas of the two States, Andhra Pradesh
and Karnataka. This related to the quantum, quality and
transportation of ore as well.
10. While passing an order of complete ban on mining
D activity in these areas vide order dated 29th July, 2011 this
Court sought submissions on the market requirement for mined
ore and vide order dated 5th August, 2011 permitted only M/s.
National Minerals Development Corporation Ltd. (for short
"NMDC") to carry out very limited mining activity, so that the
E economic interest of the country and of the states does not
suffer irretrievably. This Court has also directed the CEC to
examine all aspects of the mining activity and report on various
measures that are required to be taken for RR Programmes.
Limited mining activity, thus, was permitted to be carried on in
F the area with the clear direction that the RR Programmes shall
be simultaneously commenced arid it is only after such RR
Programmes are satisfactorily put into motion and the CEC
makes a suggestion in this regard, that the mining activity would
be permitted. Vide order dated 23rd September, 2011, this
G Court accepted various recommendations of the CEC and
noticed that prima facie it appears that at the relevant time,
there existed linkage between the alleged illegal mining in the
Bellary Reserve Forest, falling in the District Anantpur in Andhra
Pradesh and the illegalities in respect of grant/renewal of
H mining leases and deviations from sanctioned mine sketch in
SAMAJ PARIVARTAN SAMUDAYA v. STATE OF
1085
KARNATAKA &ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
the Bellary District in Karnataka. The Court also noted that
A
illegally extracted iron ore belonging to one M/s. Associated
Mining Company (for short "AMC") was apparently routed
through the nearest Port in Vishakhapatnam, through district
Anantpur in Andhra Pradesh. Thus, the Court felt that the CBI
should examine the alleged illegalities. Vide the same order,
B
this Court required the CBI to additiona!ly present a status report
of investigations which the CBI had undertaken in respect of
OMC in Andhra Pradesh under FIR No. 17 A/2009CBl(Hyderabad). It was also reported that there was massive
illegal mining by third parties in the mining lease No. 1111 of c
one M/s. National Minerals Development Corporation (NMDC).
It was suspected that one Mis. Deccan Mining Syndicate (for
short "OMS") was involved in such activities and no action had
been taken on the complaints of NMDC. Some other directions
were also issued including directions for further inquiry by the
0
CEC and the CEC was required to put up a comprehensive
report before this Court.
11. In the meanwhile, an application was filed by the
petitioners of writ petition No.562 of 2009 which remained unnumbered. The prayer in this application was to extend the
E
scope of investigation by the CBI relating to illegal mining and
other allied activities which the politicians and major corporate
groups including M/s. Jindal Group and M/s. Adanis were
indulging in, within the State of Karnataka. They also prayed
that both the States should also be directed demarcate the
F
inter-state boundaries, particularly, in the mining area.
12. After examining the issues raised in the IA, the earlier
orders of this Court and based on the meetings held by the
CEC on 20th March, 2012 and 11th April, 2012, respectively,
G
the CEC identified the issues as follows:-
i)
The alleged serious illegalities/ irregularities and
undue favour in respect of (a) the land purchased
by the close relatives of the then Chief Minister,
Karnataka for 0.40 crore in the year 2006 and
H
A
B
c
1086
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 5 S.C.R.
subsequently sold to M/s South West Mining
Limited in the year 2010 for Rs.20.00 crores and
(b) donation of Rs.20.00 crore received by Prerna
Education Society from M/s South West Mining
Limited.
ii)
the alleged illegal export of iron ore from Belekeri
Port and associated issues;
iii)
alleged export from Krishapatr1afl) and Chennai
Port after exports were banned by the State of
Karnataka; and
iv)
transfer of senior police officers on deputation to
Lokayukta, Karnataka."
13. The CEC filed two comprehensive reports before this
D Court, one dated 20th April, 2012 and other dated 27th April,
2012, both in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 562 of 2009 .
. 14. Out of the above issues indicated, the CEC dealt with
issue No. 1 in the Report dated 20th April, 2012, while issue
E Nos. 2 to 4 were dealt with in the Report dated 27th April,
2012. On issue No. 1, after summarizing the facts and its
observations during its enquiry, the CEC pointed out illegalities,
irregularities and instances of misuse of public office committed
for the benefit of the close relatives of the then Chief Minister,
F State of Karnataka. It made the following recommendations :-
G
H
"15. Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances
the CEC is of the considered view that the purchase of the
above said land notified for acquisition for public purpose,
its de-notification from acquisition, permission granted for
conversion from agriculture to non-agricultural (residential)
purpose and subsequent sale to M/s South West Mining
Limited prima facie involves serious violations of the
relevant Acts and procedural lapses and prima facie
misuse of office by the then Chief Minister, Karnataka
thereby enabling his close relatives to make windfall profits
SAMAJ PARIVARTAN SAMU DAYA v. STATE OF
1087
KARNATAKA &ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
'
and raises grave issues relating to undue favour, ethics
A
and morality. Considering the above and taking into
consideration the massive illegalities and illegal mining
which have been found to have taken place in Karnataka
and the allegations made against the Jindal Group as
being receipient of large quantities of illegally mined
B
material and undue favour being shown to them in respect
of the mining lease of M/s MML it is RECOMMENDED
that a detailed investigation may be directed to be carried
out in the matter by an independent investigating agency
such as the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and to c
take follow up action. This agency may be asked to delve
into the matter in depth and in a time bound manner. This
agency may also be directed to investigate into other
similar cases, if any, of lands de-notified from acquisition
by the Bangalore Development Authority and the illegalities
0
I irregularities I procedural lapses, if any, and to take follow
up action.
16. The Prerna Education Society set up by the close
relatives of the then Chief Minister, Karnataka has during
March, 2010 vide two cheques of Rs.5.0 crores each
E
received a donation of Rs.10 crores from M/s South West
Mining Limited, a Jindal Group Company. In this context,
it is of interest to note that during the year 2009-2010 the
net profit (after tax) of the said Company was only Rs.5,73
crores. Looking into the details of the other donations
F
made by the said Company or by the other Jindal Group
Companies to any other Trust I Society not owned,
managed or controlled by the Jindal Group. After
considering that a number of allegations, with supporting
documents, have been made in the Report dated 27th July,
G
2011 of Karnataka Lokayukta regarding the M/s. JSW
Steel Limited having received large quantities of illegal
mineral and alleged undue favour shown to it in respect of
the extraction I supply of iron ore by I to it from the mining
lease of M/s MML, it is RECOMMENDED that this Hon'ble
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
1088
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 5 S.C.R.
Court may consider directing the investigating agency such
as CBI to also look into the linkages, if any, between the
above said donation of Rs.10 crores made by M/s South
West Mining Limited and the alleged receipt of illegal
mineral by M/s JSW Steel Limited and the alleged undue
favour shown to it in respect of the mining lease of M/s
MML.
17. The CEC has filed its Report dated 28th March, 2012
wherein the representation filed by the petitioner against
Mr. R. Parveen Chandra (ML 2661) has been dealt with
(refer para 6(ii), page 11-13 of the CEC Report dated 28th
March, 2012). In the said representation it has been
alleged that Mr. Parveen Chandra the lessee of ML
No.2661 has made two payments, one of Rs.2.50 crores
to Mis Bhagat Homes Private Limited an~ the other of
Rs.3.5 crores to M/s Dhavalagir Property Developers
Private Limited as a quid pro quo for allotment of the said
.mining lease. It is RECOMMENDED that this Hon'ble
Court may consider directing the investigating agency such
as CBI to investigate the payments made by the above
said lessee to these two companies whose Directions I
shareholders are the close relatives of the then Chief
Minister, Karnataka and whether there was any link
between such payments and grant of mining lease to Mr.
Parveen Chandra."
15. When we heard the parties to the lis and even
permitted the affected parties as interveners, the hearing had
been restricted to the Report of the CEC dated 20th April,
2012. Therefore, presently, we are passing directions only in
G relation to that Report, while postponing the hearing of the
second Report which is dated 27th April, 2012.
16. In the backdrop of the above events of the case,
reference to certain relevant provisions of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) can now be appropriately
H made, before we proceed to deal with the above noticed
SAMAJ PARIVARTAN SAMUDAYA v. STATE OF
1089
KARNATAKA &ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
contentions.
A
17. The machinery of criminal investigation is set into
motion by the registration of a First Information Report (FIR),
by the specified police officer of a jurisdictional police station
or otherwise. The CBI, in terms of its manual has adopted a
B
procedure of conducting limited pre-investigation inquiry as
well. In both the cases, the registration of the FIR is essential.
A police investigation may start with the registration of the FIR
while in other cases (CBI, etc.), an inquiry may lead to the
registration of an FIR and thereafter regular investigation may
C
begin in accordance with the provisions of the CrPC. Section
154 of the CrPC places an obligation upon the authorities to
register the FIR of the information received, relating to
commission of a cognizable offence, whether such information
is received orally or in writing by the officer in-charge of a police
station. A police officer is authorised to investigate such cases
D
without order of a Magistrate, though, in terms of Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C. the Magistrate empowered under Section 190 may
direct the registration of a case and order the police authorities
to conduct investigation, in accordance with the provisions of
the CrPC. Such an order of the Magistrate under Section
E
156(3) CrPC is in the nature of a pre-emptory reminder or
intimation to police, to exercise their plenary power of
investigation under that Section. This would result in a police
report under Section 173, whereafter the Magistrate may or
may not take cognizance of the offence and proceed under
F
Chapter XVI CrPC. The Magistrate has judicial discretion,
upon receipt of a complaint to take cognizance directly under
Section 200 CrPC, or to adopt the above procedure. [Ref.
Gopa/ Oas Sindhi & Ors. v. State of Assam & Anr. [AIR 1961
SC 986]; Mohd. Yusuf v. Smt. Afaq Jahan & Anr. (AIR 2006
G
SC 705]; and Mona Panwar v. High Court of Judicature of
Allahabad Through its Registrar & Ors. [(2011) 3 SCC 496].
18. Once the investigation is conducted in accordance with
the provisions of the CrPC, a police officer is bound to file a
H
1090
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 5 S.C.R.
A report before the Court of competent jurisdiction, as
contemplated under Section 173 CrPC, upon which the
Magistrate can proceed to try the offence, if the same were
triable by such Court or commit the case to the Court of
Sessions. It is significant to note that the provisions of Section
B 173(8) CrPC open with non-obstante language that nothing in
the provisions of Section 173(1) to 173(7) shall be deemed to
preclude further investigation in respect of an offence after a
report under sub-Section (2) has been forwarded to the
Magistrate. Thus, under Section 173(8), where charge-sheet
c has been filed, that Court also enjoys the jurisdiction to direct
further investigation into the offence. {Ref., Hemant Dhasmana
v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. [(2001) 7 SCC 536]}.
This power cannot have any inhibition including such
requirement as being obliged to hear the accused before any
0
such direction is made. It has been held in Shri Bhagwan
Samardha Sreepada Val/abha Venkata Vishwandha Maharaj
v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. [JT 1999 (4) SC 537) that
the casting of any such obligation on the Court would only result
in encumbering the Court with the burden of searching for all
E potential accused to be afforded with the opportunity of being
heard.
19. While the trial Court does not have inherent powers like
those of the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC or the
Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India,
F
such that it may order for complete reinvestigation or fresh
investigation of a case before it, however, it has substantial
powers in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Sections
311 and 391 of CrPC. In cases where cognizance has been
taken and where a substantial portion of investigation/trial have
G already been completed and where a direction for further
examination would have the effect of delaying the trial, if the trial
court is of the opinion that the case has been made out for
alteration of charge etc., it may exercise such powers without
directing further investigation. {Ref. Sasi Thomas v. State &
H Ors. [(2006) 12 sec 421]}. Still in another case, taking the aid
SAMAJ PARIVARTAN SAMUDAYA v. STATE OF
1091
KARNATAKA &ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
of the doctrine of implied power, this Court has also stated that
A
an express grant of statutory power carries with it, by necessary
implication, the authority to use all reasonable means to make
such statutory power effective. Therefore, absence of statutory
provision empowering Magistrate to direct registration of ari
FIR would not be of any consequence and the Magistrate would
B
nevertheless be competent to direct registration of an FIR. {Ref.
Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. [(2008) 2 SCC
409]}.
20. Thus, the CrPC leaves clear scope for conducting of
further inquiry and filing of a supplementary charge sheet, if C
necessary, with such additional facts and evidence as may be
collected by the investigating officer in terms of sub-Sections
(2) to (6) of Section 173 CrPC to the Court.
21. To put it aptly, further investigation by the investigating
D
agency, after presentation of a challan (charge sheet in terms
of Section 173 CrPC) is permissible in any case impliedly but
in no event is impermissible.
22. A person who complains of commission of a
E
cognizable offence has been provided with two options under
Indian Criminal jurisprudence. Firstly, he can lodge the police
report which would be proceeded upon as afore-noticed and
secondly, he could file a complaint under Section 200 CrPC,
whereupon the Magistrate shall follow the procedure provided
under Sections 200 to 203 or 204 to 210 under Chapter XV
and XVI of the CrPC.
F
23. In the former case, it is upon the police report that the
entire investigation is conducted by the investigating agency
and the onus to establish commission of the alleged offence
G
beyond reasonable doubt is entirely on the prosecution. In a
complaint case, the complainant is burdened with the onus of
establishing the offence and he has to lead evidence before
the Court to establish the guilt of the accused. The rule of
establishing the charges beyond reasonable doubt is
H
1092
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 5 S.C.R.
A applicable to a complaint case as well.
24. The important feature that we must notice for the
purpose of the present case is that even on a complaint case,
in terms of Section 202, the Magistrate can refer the complaint
8 to investigation by the police and call for the report first,
deferring the hearing of the complaint till then. Section 210
CrPC is another significant provision with regard to the powers
of the Court where investigation on the same subject matter is
pending. It provides that in a complaint case where any enquiry
or trial is pending before the Court and in relation to same
C offence and investigation by the Police is in progress which is
the subject matter of the enquiry or trial before the Court, the
Magistrate shall stay the proceedings and await the report of
the investigating agency. Upon presentation of the report, both
the cases on a Police report and case instituted on a complaint
D shall be tried as if both were instituted on a Police report and
if the report relates to none of the accused in the complaint it
shall proceed with the enquiry/trial which had been stayed by
it. The section proceeds on the basis that a complaint case and
case instituted on a police report for the commission of the
E same offence can proceed simultaneously and the Court would
await the Police report before it proceeds with the complaint
in such cases. The purpose again is to try these cases together,
if they are in relation to the same offence with the intent to
provide a fair and effective trial. The powers of the trial court
F are very wide and the legislative intent of providing a fair trial
and presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is the
essence of the criminal justice system.
25. The Court is vested with very wide powers in order to
G equip it adequately to be able to do complete justice. Where
the investigating agency has submitted the charge sheet before
the court of competent jurisdiction, but it has failed to bring all
the culprits to book, the Court is empowered under Section 319
Cr.P.C. to proceed against other persons who are not arrayed
as accused in the chargesheet itself. The Court can summon
H
SAMAJ PARIVARTAN SAMU DAYA v. STATE OF
1093
KARNATAKA &ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
such suspected persons and try them as accused in the case,
A
provided the Court is satisfied of involvement of such persons
in commission of the crime from the record and evidence
before it.
26. We have referred to these provisions and the scope
B
of the power of the criminal court, in view of the argument
extended that there are certain complaints filed by private
persons or that the matters are pending before the court and
resultantly this Court would be not competent in law to direct
the CBI to conduct investigation of those aspects. We may
C
notice that the investigation of a case or filing chargesheet in
a case does not by itself bring the absolute end to exercise of
power by the investigating agency or by the Court. Sometimes
and particularly in the matters of the present kind, the
investigating agency has to keep its options open to continue
with the investigation, as certain other relevant facts,
D
incriminating materials and even persons, other than the
persons stated in the FIR as accused, might be involved in the
commission of the crime. The basic purpose of an investigation
is to bring out the truth by conducting fair and proper
investigation, in accordance with law and ensure that the guilty
E
are punished. At this stage, we may appropriately refer to the
judgment of this Court in the case of Nirma/ Singh Kah/on v.
State of Punjab & Ors. [(2009) 1 SCC 441] wherein an
investigation was being conducted into wrongful appointments
to Panchayat and other posts by the Police Department of the
F
State. However, later on, these were converted into a public
interest litigation regarding larger corruption charges. The
matter was sought to be referred for investigation to a
specialised agency like CBI.