SC ordered probe cannot be interfered with lightly: HC

NT Correspondent

Bengaluru: Dismissing a batch of eight petitions filed by retired Deputy Conservator of Forests, Ballari, S Muthaiah, the High Court of Karnataka has said that the FIRs were registered against him after the directions of the Supreme Court and they cannot be interfered with lightly.

“It must be noted that the present FIRs having been registered pursuant to the order of the Apex Court in Samaj Parivartana Samudaya (case) cannot be interfered with lightly without permitting the trial to conclude,” Justice Sunil Dutt Yadava said in his judgement on August 4.

Muthaiah had approached the HC challenging the sanction granted to prosecute him in the illegal iron ore mining and transportation scam.

He was a Forest Officer of I.F.S. Cadre was discharging duty as Deputy Conservator of Forests, Bellary Division at the relevant point of time.

The directions by the Apex Court in its order of 07.09.2012 was to investigate cases relating to alleged illegal extraction of 50.79 lakh Metric Tons of Iron Ore from the forest areas between 01.01.2009 to 31.05.2010 and its illegal transportation to the Belekere Port.

Subsequent to the Order of the Apex Court dated 07.09.20122 , investigation was conducted, charge sheet was filed and cognizance was taken by the learned Special Judge.

Thereafter the petitioner/accused has sought for quashing of proceedings and the charge sheet and also called in question the validity of the orders on validity of sanction for prosecution.

The Special Judge in an order dated 05.05.2020 upheld the State Government and Central Government according Sanction under Code of Criminal Procedure, Karnataka Forest Act and Prevention of Corruption Act respectively to prosecute Muthaiah.

He approached the HC with the contention that Sanction has not been granted by the Competent Authority.

The HC in its judgement noted that an Officer of I.F.S. Cadre being appointed by the Central Government, his removal would also be by the same Authority and accordingly, sanction for prosecution under the P.C. Act would be of the Central Government.

“In the present case, the order of sanction have been passed by the Joint Secretary to Government of India and Chief Vigilance Officer. Accordingly, the sanction has been granted by the Competent Authority in terms of the Rules and statutory provisions,” the HC held.

With regard to the sanction for offences under the Karnataka Forest Act, the sanction has to be granted by the State Government.

The sanction for this was granted by the Deputy Secretary to Government, DP & AR (Services) Dr Bagadi Gautham in the name of the Governor of Karnataka.

Therefore the HC said, that “The sanction granted in the aforementioned manner is in accordance with the requirements of the applicable law.”

Dismissing the eight petitions filed by Muthaiah in a common order, the HC said, “In the present case, it must also be kept in mind that any finding regarding mining operations in a forest area or in non-forest area would have implication as regards other criminal cases also pending and accordingly, it may not be appropriate to jeopardize the cases against other accused by recording a finding as against the petitioner alone.

Accordingly, this Court does not find any scope for interference and the Writ Petitions are dismissed.” (WP 16605/2018)