{"id":245868,"date":"2010-11-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-11-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ilc-industries-ltd-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-2-november-2010"},"modified":"2018-10-27T20:28:03","modified_gmt":"2018-10-27T14:58:03","slug":"ilc-industries-ltd-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-2-november-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ilc-industries-ltd-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-2-november-2010","title":{"rendered":"Ilc Industries Ltd. vs State Of Karnataka on 2 November, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Ilc Industries Ltd. vs State Of Karnataka on 2 November, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Jawad Rahim<\/div>\n
 \n\nI\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,\nCIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD\n\nDATED THIS THE 2\"\" DAY OF NOVEMBER 2010,.-.__\nBEFORE II\n\nTHE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE JAWAD RA.H'I--M  \nCRL.P. NO.7645\/2010, 7646\/2010 AND '7BV7,3,\/V29,:0,_\n\nIN CRL.P NO.7645\/2010\n\nBETWEEN:\n\n1. ILC INDUSTRIES LTD.,  A ~\nA COMPANY INCORPORATED_.LJNDER_\nTHE COMPANIES ACT',~._  TU, \nHAVING ITS BRANCHOFFICE   I\n\nNO.sF35\/64,.}S_HO'P'NO'.~E52, , \n4\" BLOCK, ,R'A.3'AJIN_AGA'R,. -\nBANGALOE -- --.5V60'jj0.1'0I=..  \nREPRESENTED 'BY  RI MAHDEV\n\n 2. ASHAPURAV MINECHEM LIMITED\n\nACOMPANV INC'G*-RPORATED\n\n ALJNDE\"R*,THE..._COMPANIES ACT\n\n' V'VHAv_I'N.G'TIfTS, OFFICE AT 405, SOUTH BLOCK\n\n _ M'A%NITPA:,.,TO'IrII'ERS, BANGALOE ~-- 560 001\n\nREPRESENTED BY ITS COMMERCIAL EXECUTIVE\nMR.VAIZE\"AHMED.K\n\nE' \"   DODDANAVAR BROTHERS\n _A PARTNERSHIP FIRM INCORPORATED\n UNDER THE PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932\n\n{HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT\nDODDANAVAR COMPOUND, NEAR FORT,\nBELGAUM -- 590 016\n\n \n5\/; X' 4\/\nI' f\n1;'\n\n\n\n2\n\nREPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY\nMR.AMAR SARNOBAT \n\n4. PJS OVERSEAS LIMITED\n\nA COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER\n\nTHE COMPANIES ACT\n\nHAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT\n\nNO.501 &601, ST\" FLOOR,  L_ M   \nD--MALL PITAMPLJRA, NETAJI SUBH.AS_H P_LA_CE_,   j\nDISTRICT CENTER, wAzIRPuR,'2  \"  '  .  \nDELHI ~-- 110 088 I \n\nALSO HAVING ITS BRANCHVQFFICE AT.  -- \nNO.161, MLA LAYOUT,    \nR.T.NAGAR,      , \nBANGALORE -- 560 032- =  L   \nREPRESENTED BY ITS 'CO--ORDINATOTR,._ \nMR.MANGAL,_D'.-XS I<A'MATg .'  _ I  \n   I '  PETITIONERS\n\n(BY SR1  A ::'E$T|"IA1'KA--?SR\u00bb,  COUNSEL FOR SRI\nB.C.LT.H.I_RUTVEi\\\u00a7\u00a73AD--A.W|.,_ A \nAND:V"-_ _ S V.  S' _\nSTATE OFKARNATARA \n\nBY RANGE FOREST OFFICER\nANNO LA OT\n\n'A V'  - UTTAR-A KANNADA """ " A\n\nI KARLNAWIA' 'A\n\nA T(E3T.SRI*A;R.'PATIL, ASPP)\n\n RESPONDENT\n\n .T'VHIS4'.VCR1MINAL PETITION IS FILED U\/S 482 CR.P.C\n\n~  SEEKING TO QUASH THE FCR No.17\/20O9--10 DATED 15-\n0391010 BY BELEKERE BEAT ANKOLA SECTION VIDE\n'ANNEXURE ~--B ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED JMFC,\n\n'ANKOLA AND STAY INVESTIGATION THEREON; AND QUASH\n\n WSEIZURE REPORT DATED 20--03--2010 VIDE ANNEXURE-C;\nAND QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED JMFC,\n\n\n\n3\n\nANKOLA IN FCR NO.17\/2009~10 ON 12.04.2010 VIDE\nANNEXURE K SUPRA AND DIRECT TO RELEASE THE\n97,549.080 MT OF IRON ORE BELO!\\EGINGMT.O'; THE\nPETITIONERS PURPORTEDLY SEIZED BY THE RE'SP'O"N,DENT\n\nTO THE RESPECTIVE STEVEDORES \/ HANDLINC\u00a7"'AG,,E--N:"FS_. \nIN CRL.P NOJ7646\/2010  *     \nBETWEEN:   \n\n1. ILC INDUSTRIES LTD., \n\nA COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER\nTHE COMPANIES ACT,  P" .\nHAVING ITS BRANCH OPE1CE_AT_\nNO.835\/64, SHOP i,\\\u00a3O.F~2',.------- _ 'I\n\n4"' BLOCK, RA3A3I:\\_I_A~:;AR, Z \nBANGALOE -~ 560 010,\u00bb *     _\nREPRESENTED BY SSRIIIAIIDEVV   I. \n\n2. ASHAPU RA 'I#I\u00abI.A!ECPI,,EM EIMITED."-- R. \n\nA CvOMP.AN,Y IN:COR~PORATEDRwR-- \n\nUNDER .THE--vVC,O'MSPA1\\EI\u00abES ACT\n\nHAVING ITS 'Q'F~EICE'A_T'4_05, SOUTH BLOCK\nMANIPA'L,,TOwE~R9',,_EIAINIGALOE -- 560 001\nREPRES-ENTED-_BY._ITS.5COMMERCIAL EXECUTIVE\niY'R.\\{AIZE V-A,HMED.I<\n\nA I  3."'I'DOE:\u00a7DA'I-IAVARBROTHERS\n\n A PARTNERSHIP FIRM INCORPORATED\n tJND'ER"THESI.PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932\n\nA  '\u00a7TlAVINTC3----If'i}"=S REGISTERED OFFICE AT\n\n"-.DOD'DA'N=AVAR COMPOUND, NEAR FORT,\nBELGAUM - 590 016\nREPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY\n\n" '*AaAR.AMAR SARNOBAT\n\n PJS OVERSEAS LIMITED\n\nA COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER\nTHE COMPANIES ACT\n\n\nU\n\n\n\n4\n\nHAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT\nNO.501 & 601, ST" FLOOR,\n\nD-MALL PITAMPURA, NETAJI SLJBHASH PLACE,\nDISTRICT CENTER, WAZIRPUR,\n\nDELHI -- 110 088\n\nALSO HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT  \nNO.l61, MLA LAYOUT,  - .. \nR.T.NAGAR,  \nBANGALORE - 560 032   '\nREPRESENTED BY ITS CO-'ORDINATOR,\nMR.MANGALDAS KAMAT  "   \n...I'P.E'rITIONERSI\n\n(BY SRI RAVI '-B;~NA1',K--$R;'~...,C0u_NSEL FOR SRI\nB.C.THIRuvENGADAM,_-_ADv.,,i),\u00bb' '' \n\nAND:\n\n1. STATE B1,ANP;OLA;PO~I.ICE 'STATION\nANKOLA'l..  ' I .  ._  \nuTTA..RAI,KA'N;N.AD,A \nI.(ARN,ATA_--F<A    . _'\n(REPRESENTEID I-BY -9.1 )5\n\n2. ASSISTANT CONSE.R'vATOR OF FORESTS\n; ANKOLA'-SUB DIVISION\n~  ANKQLA, UTTARA KARNATAKA\n,  f   RESPONDENTS\n  ,(B_Y*SjRI"A.._ R. PATIL, ASPP)\n\n TH'I'SL-CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U\/S 482 cR.P.C\n\n SEEKING-_TO QUASH THE FIR NO.189\/2010 DATED 08-06-\n\n'V-.,--{;?..0V,10 (VIDE ANNEXURE--D) REGISTERED BY THE ANKOLA\n\n--66f'-POLICE, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT, (PURSUANT TO\n\n . 'P.C--.N'O.S4\/10 DATED 03-06-2010 BEFORE JMFC, ANKOLA\n  v}IDE ANNEXURE-B)\n\n;\/ \\\n1\/\n\n\n\n \n\nIN CRL.P f\\iO.76-43\/2010\nBETWEEN:\n\nM\/S ADANI ENTERPRISES LTD.,\n\nADANI HOUSE,\n\nNEAR MITHAKALI CIRCLE \n\nNAvRANGPuRA,AHMEDABAD, " ._ . -1'  .\n\nREPRESENTED BY ITS VICE P_RESID'EN*T._  \n\nCAPT. SAMUEL M.DA\\fID    *\n* I ...'-PETITIO_NE.R~--..,\n\n(BY SRI RAVI B.NAIK~SRAVIICOUNSE-!,_FORSR1 MURTHYVV\n\nD.NAYAK, ADv.,)\nAND:\n\n1. THE STATE Ore"..I<ARjNA'rAi<A" 9 " \nBY ANN-OLA PS PQLICE-.  \n\n2. ASSSTFANT?CC)'!'iiSEuR\\,!}\u00a7iTC\u00ab:R OF FOREST\nAVNi<,OaL;A1I\u00a7vL}BwDB\/I--SIQ_I\u00a7i \n\n ANI<oLA H X\n  I  I_  RESPONDENTS\n(av SRI A;R_.P..l.i'TIL;---._ASP'P)\n\nTHISL4CRI'MI.N.AL'*PE'i:ITION IS FILED U\/S 482 CR.P.C\n\n To  THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN\n P.jCI,NO,'c54S\/%2.o'I.oM_ ON THE FILE OF JMFC, ANKOLA AND\n*Q'uI,A%SH4:'TIfiE.i',j-..--I=IR NO.189\/2010 AT ANNEXURE~The,\n\nRi5_G_i'$TEVP..E:l3:--.V.BiN' THE AN KOLA POLICE.\n\n'FheSe petitions having been heard together and\n\n iifreiseirxred at Circuit Bench, Dharwad, and at Principal Bench\n" _ a.t_'Ba.nga|ore, this day the court pronounced the following\n\nJ\n\n \n\n\n\n9\nbought by traders and exported to China and in Karnataka\n\nis shipped from Mangalore, Karwar and Belekere po_r,tv..s.V_.f-.._,_f'~._V\n\ne) Belekere Port is situate in Uttara Kannacia"a'r'idfi-t  .\n\nnotified under Section 7(a) of the,_Custo'n\ufb01s"<::'\u00a35ct"'~ a_\n\nCustoms Notified Port. A copy7.Aof:'_'_'thie1in_o'tifi'ca:tiofndais.i\n\nproduced at Annexure--A. Kar__VviI'a.r and E3e!.ekeirfei-;po\u00bbrts5are = f'\n\nnot 'aII--weather ports' and before,'~the.._,adyent,,.of_rrionsoon\nand during monsoon,  and in this\nYear, Le. 2010, the port,w'as* for export\nactivity from_,  was effected on\n\n28.5.2010. "  Q\nf)  appointed various stevedores\n\nor approved'ha%ndli,ng_ agerits of customs and port authorities\n\n~"'~w_hiCh,.:'3iia\u00a7z,e t,heirAAown..--stocking yard within the precincts of\n\nhf'B,ei.ekere"Po'i't'.'-~ :TSM.SPL is one such handling agent and other\n\nhandiifiig  are Adani Enterprises Limited, Salgaocar\n\n\u00b0a~i._\u00bb__Mining I~ndustries Pvt. Limited and Raj Mahal Silks. These\n  afgenfts'~\u00ab_.act as facilitators for the purpose of import and\n\nff'-..__'"'exp,ort and provide infrastructure like jetties, shelter, road\n\n\n\n10\nand other basic amenities at their cost, for stacking or\nstoring cargo for inspection and verification of Customs\n\nauthorities.\n\ng) Petitioners urge that the respondent,__---ttigiyil\ufb01e'-nlqTe--.\u00ab_T'~-\n\nForest Officer, Ankoia, Uttara Kannada,y_regEste're'd:'_'\u00a2cas'_e.Vin_ fl"\n\nFCR.17\/09-10 on 15.3.2010 andV.'se_i'ze:d\n\nstacked by the petitioners (ofy_a'iies,.._1960.\"aggrieved by the seizure they filed an\n\n.\"apprii\u00e9c'_ati,o'n..:_:under\"-'Sections 451 and 457, Cr.P.C. in Crime\n\nNo.i*7_'\/\"09-1_0'vitifoi' release of iron ore seized as per seizure\n\n'report dated 20.3.2010. In support thereof, petitioners put\n\n   a:co_.mmon piea that on ciosure of the port, they were\n\n .._i'e'ntVii:ied to take possession of iron ore, but it was declined.\n\nV0\"'..,__4\":Referring to the order passed in the writ petition stated\n\n; \"x\n'i\n\n\"i\n'\ufb01g. c,\nif\n\n\n\n12.\n\nabove, it is urged though this court directed release of the\n\nIron ore, the Forest Officer failed to Comply uyith-.,,_:'th_e\n\ndirection. Instead, they fiied an application  .\n\nA dated 29.5.2010, seeking extensionmof timeto \"\n\nore. In the said application, the Deoarthr-.e.r}t did hot ireier \n\nthe alleged seizure of iron ore v-5n'\u00ab-.2_VO.3V.\"2-0'iO Vasii\\fy'a\u00bbS'.r.e,pVo_rted \n\nin FCR.17\/09-10.\nj) Despite effortsVo-t.V:i':he\"._pet'it'io'*nevvrs\"to impress upon\nthe authorities (including-i--vth:e eagmp:'a,na;i,i;i that despite\n\ncourt order to\u00e9ppr-e|eaiS'e., the s.ei2:u_roj-reiportiiwas iliegal and in\n\nterms offthe'rd.i'riectVi':o:ri1\"oftgh-is co_ur't,4 they were required to\nhand over.pinterimVVcustody_'i'ie.f:'iron Ore to them, the officers\n\nfailed. It isiassertiy'eIy~--._ur'ged by all the petitioners that in\n\n\"\"t.erm:;[iof;,,,'t:he.i.Adirection-s' issued by the High Court by its\n\n.\"rvri1tevr'ifm,o'r\u00bbo,,eii-fdateo 31.3.2010 in W.P.10347\/10, and their\n\nwiII.ing'1ness_\u00e9gtoirfuilrnish indemnity bond towards the value of\n\n owne_dt.by each of the petitioners, the officers of the\n\n  Fio_rest\"'*ii3epartment have faiied to release the quantity of\n\n -.._':ore.\u00a7\n\n\n\n13\nk) The petitioners have seriously questioned the\nlegality of initiation of prosecution as well as alleged seizure\n\non the ground that it is in contravention of the proviVsio.ns.of\n\nthe Code of Criminal Procedure relating to invest'igatj_io..n_V'7of\n\ncases relating to non--cognizable offences _avn\u00bbd_:f's.eiz.u:re   \n\nproperties. To substantiate illegaiity .0\n\nrespondent, they highlight the.r'in,_comp'e.te'nce orfithe_offi\u00a7:ers \n\nto initiate prosecution or seizure\ufb02elferrging to Section 155(2)\n\nof Cr.P.C.\nI) In this regard, they'con.tenid~.._th'at.on 13.4.2010, a\nmeetingfw'a's-..,i\u00a7i;gEd\ufb01:f\u00a5;iy~  or.%lice'rs1i of the State in the\n\nchambers] of ' .I5ri.n:ci,p'ai|..4r'\"Secretary to Government,\n\nDepartment of-. Forest, AEco'l~~o:gy and Environment, regarding\n\n\"V'~seAlzuv\ufb01\u00e9\"i~ofiron ore 'i'n\"\"r<-arwar and Befekere Ports and further\n\n "--.T.n"the:V's~aid meeting, the officers having realised\n\nthatgrl\u00e9gistrgatlityriil of the case and seizure was not legal,\n\nVV"--\u00ab___'addresse-cl't.a letter on 26.4.2010 to the concerned\n\n  (ie_partrnent under the signature of the Principal Secretary,\n\n0""\ufb02liepgartment of Forest, Ecology and Environment, enclosing\n\n copy of the proceedings of the meeting on 26.4.2010 (A\n\n 5\n<"'%w'\\"'\/\n\n'-. I\n\\.:\n\n\n\nI4\nand B), that there was no prescribed system or ruie for\ninvestigation and seizure and that it proposes to formulate\n\nsome mechanism for future action. Thus, it is urgveduthat\n\nseizure is per se iiiegai and contrary to the Custo_n"i's\u00ab \n\nForeign Trade Policy of the Government of  V \n\nm) As things stood thus, newsipapneirsv \n\nthat the seized cargo of various_ex.porte'i's.__hasii:i.ee'n"'ii'\u00a7egja|iy " '\n\ntransported after seizure... Actipng-ion. the nevirspaper report\ndated 6.6.2010 and  and AD),\npetitioners on theiiirito appoint an\niz'iciepen<;:i'e'n'ti'  there was any\nexport activiity the alleged seizure and that\nreport was nVe"g-atived; A it \n\n  I;'n:AgthVVe"\u00abmeantime, another F-'IR in Crime No.189\/IO\n\nis".re-g_ivsitered.d___ the Port Officer for the offence\n\n punish"able'"u'n:der Section 406 and 379 I.P.C. in which\n\n.,'_'g;eyera_i exporters including the petitioners are arraigned as\n\n4'_'_A\u20ac:_O'\u00a5"aiccu'sed. The FIR is at AE. They seek quashing of FIR\n\nit :{'\\io;'1V7\/09-10 dated 15.3.2010 vide Annexure~B on the file\n\n T\\\n\n J\n\n'6,:~'- '-\u00ab\n\n\/.\n\n\n\n15\nof JMFC, Ankoia, as also seizure report dated 20.3.2010\n\nvide Annexure--C and they further seek quas'h.iVngn7.of\n\nproceedings dated 12.4.2010 vide Annexuref.!eppartihen'~t;L\u00bbV.,oAt:'ustoms clearance\nwas also obtained which isj:E-\u20acsi_spi_mAi'l'ar;clearances are at\nE9, E--1O   each of the\nshipping  export\". It was\nissued  pInod'ds_trie\"$ which is at Annexure-12\n\nand is supported' \"by\"thelitioliV\ufb01dated 1.4.2010. Petitioner\n\nvfurnishgeld' details\"o_:f\"ali shipping permits in paragraph 5 of\n\nIn?_th:e\u00abpe'titio'hA\u00e9details of which need not be incorporated in this\n\noweh_.*\"\n\ner.) In short, petitioner's contention is that under\n\n\"\"*C\".\"\"--iia':ious pverrnits and Customs clearance, iron ore fines\n\n sta.cked5in Belekere Port on the leased portion was iawful\n\n .:j'_'and.i\u00a7there was no illegality.\n\n'ii 17';\n\\.r\"\ufb01\u00a7\\\\~1\\\u00a7\";\/\/\n\n\n\n\n\n1.8\n\ns) Referring to the fact situation, it is urged that on\n\n4.6.2010 the Assistant Conservator of Forest, \n\ndivision, filed a private complaint before \n\niincharge of JMFC Ankola, for the offences\n\n(7)(b)(iv), s2, 80, 24(e) of the F0r_'e\u00e9~\ufb01lt*Act,';.s53,.\n\ncontravention of provisions of'-vE,\u00a7'u!.es 1.\u00a743.._.. if-\"forest\n\nRules. The learned magistrate-tegliwsitereddlit'*as~-'l\u00a7>.C.54\/10\nand referred the sanded under Section\n155(3),  by 26.7.2010.\nConsequen': vlrelsvpondent herein submitted\na detailed  to the 15' respondent\nwhich  allegations against one\n\nMahesh Bile, l\u00a7o'rt.h.'-Cohselrvator, Belekere Port, Ankola, for\n\nA:'ofi7e=nc\"es, undd\ufb02erdvsections 405, 406, 379, Cr.P.C.\n\n-.S'irni|a'rlv,--.._t'i1e\"s-eomplainant has levelled allegations against\n\nthe-.peti_t~ione-rdlwcompany and 11 others for the offence 379,\n\n and the petitioner is arraigned as accused no.3 in\n\n of the complaint. It is further urged that on\n\n   _,_8\u00a76.2G10, the 15' respondent registered FCR.O1.89\/10 for the\n\nif offence under Section 406, Cr.P.C. against Mahesh Bile, Port\n\n_ \\\n\n.:'i\\ \n3\/'  \\\n .\/'\n\n\n\n19\nConservator, Beiekere Port, Ankola, vide Annexure~H. On\n9.6.2010, 15' respondent sent a report to JMFC incharge of\nAnkola vide Annexure*3 which according t them isfwrholly\n\nillegal.\n\nt) The petitioner has _,,,therefore',=~-.f'_~~qu'estion.ed'=at\n\nregistration of FIR against it for the c;'ffence.,_'undergegctivoin\n\n379, I.P.C. in FCR.189\/1@lV_'i--n_  \n\nMr.Mahesh Bile is charged. It__i_s\"'-contendedthat registration\nof case against it is ?ille{ga.|'\"'a's\u00ab the allegation in the\n\ncomplaint does not reyieavl.{;orrii'n':ss'io'n ;ori,iainy offence. The\n\npetiticnelrly a person, such action is\nuntenal3le.'\u00ab For  theft, only a natural person as\n\nenvisagedtinder.S'ectE.on\"'378, I.P.C. could be charged.\n\nit   \u00ab.j\"he_ second ground urged is, complaint filed by\n\n  \u00ab'r'e.s_p'o,ndent shows petitioner company is roped in,\n\nwitf'iou't:'n1entioning the basis for creating vicarious liability.\n\n *l\"he,_.thi\"rd ground urged is, respondent no.2 knowing fully\n\nliighiatil the seized cargo belonged to various clients of the\n\nit 'V\"'petitioner who are exporters, and in whose favour the High\n\ni:'\"\u00a7i'9\"'5\/'\n\n\n\n20\nCourt had granted an interim order vide Annexures B, C and\n\nD, has illegally registered the case. So far as the petitioner\n\nis concerned, the ingredients which constitute theg'v0ffe_n~c..e\n\nunder Section 378, I.P,C. are not made out. \n\nground urged is, the role of the petitioner com\"p.a'_ey'V\"'i:nV\"theE \"\n\nalleged theft is not indicated.\n\n4. In support of the grounVds:u'r=gedtin  to\nseek quashing of  llllgrouvnds in\nCrl.P.7646\/10 seeking quiashrsgsgi g_ci;;\u00a7;is*i;svi.i'g:sf9\/09, learned\ncounsel, Sri   the following\nQroundszi\" llll H\n\nI) feel conipiiaiintV_ini.V_lfe':if{.;~1f\/09-10 was registered on\n\n1S.3.2Q1_O against_the7~._por'tV Officer who is public servant,\n\n,j\"'wi_thou_jt'* pl3ta.iningV\"V'priolr permission and is thus, in\n\nSection 197, Cr.P.C. and is liable to be\n\nA.,1;)V\"\"\".The investigation in FCR.17\/O9~1O dated\n\n'.'_;_i5\u00a7'3V.'2OAiO could not have been taken up without prior\n\n 'L\n_.\/-*:?m-\\?\/'\/\n\n'\\_\/'\n\n\n\n2}\npermission of the jurisdictional magistrate as the offences\n\nalleged are all non--c0gnizable.\n\nIII) That the 15' respondent complgai_n4ant'iflin',_\n\nFCFL17\/09-10 on 15.3.2010, could not have  \n\nfines without the permission of the:v'rnagi'st.rate\n\nto a non--c0gnizab|e offence.\n\nIV) The complaint does  of the\npetitioners as to commission  offences and\nthere is no prima on record for\nsustaining   investigate.\n\nV) iron. orewwthe petitioners was in the\n\nlawful oVwvnersh~ip_\"f0r,whichfithey had relevant documents like\n\n(\"V'F'0resvt._p'er_mit~-.and Cus'to'ms clearance.\n\n ._  \"'i\"h\"e..__1'5E\"p.etitioner (ILC Industries) claims iron ore\n\nif En ste\"c:\".VI\\lail.c. and\nArticle 226 of the Constitution fist\u00bbunlirnited__hm\/hereunder in\n\nthe interest of just'f:f<i\u00a7; the High Court."ca.n.,rnake such orders\n\nas may he %neces:sary7'}Vto orejyent .abuse of the process of the\ncourt, or othterwise,'to~.secure_the needs of justice within the\n\n,oarame_ters laid down. in'=Bh'ajanlal's case.\n\ni  g ":\ufb01_ !i(4:E-KI HORMUSJI GHARDA & omens .v.\n\nM"E.H'ER\u00abyAi~ra'i'i.oLis' forest islands have been\n\nsei':\u00e9a~--i5y the':f:'\u00a7Foreshoepahrtment and severai\n\nForest' Offences, have been registered\n\nwhichi-arestitii-'_pe'.jdi'n..g\". Joint survey has been\n\n\ufb02ordered thiis\"Hovn'bie Court (green Bench) 'in\n\n during 2009, which is stiii\n\n\" --._i\u00abiri'c;c~'rIr_i,r;ie:\u00e9;;'\n\n <ci'--7)_ Jan 2010 - The Hon'bie Lokayukta\n\nV' *  received complaint\/s regarding iiiegai mining\n\n"in forest iand as weli as Government land in\n\nBeliary \/ Chitradurga and other Districts, as\n\n'\\\n\n"X.\/'\n\n\n\n32\nwell as unauthorized transportation without\nvalid permits for the purpose of exports\n\nthrough Belekeri and Karwar ports.\n\n(e) Feb 2010 - Special team of \n\nconstituted by the Hon'b_le :..Lofi<a";iu.l{ta'----.it\n\nconducted raids and seized, several 'evidences.  '\n\nlike computer, hard--disE<, d'o_cuments,'~reco-rds\n\npermits, etc, corisis.ting_\u00ab"of l'a--rge,"ii.umberVlofx\n\nsuspected mining leases'v'purportedl'y.,\u00bb'issued\nfrom Cudapa'*-_Disijrictin A,nd'ra_pradesh and\n\nforged 'tra_ns\u00a7::ortatiori-A._pe~rm'its'issu-ed from the\nState of.,l<jarnatal<a"\u00a7'~.:"\n\n(r)"15'.'3,.2'o.1.o section Forester, Arikola\n\n5reg_istered. aforest offences Crime No.17\/O9-\n\n'*1'.\n\n  -- A Mahazar was drawn stating\n\n hugeqiiantity of unauthorised iron ore was\n\nfovuirid in the port area at Belekeri without any\n\nVl"~_.valid permits or documents with port\n\nAuthorities or licenced stevedores.\n\n:'_\\V\\\n'4\n\n'wi\ni\n\nX;'\/\n\n\n\n33\n(h) 15.3.2010 -- FIR was submitted to the\njtzrisdictionai JMFC, Ankoia. {No seizure of Iron\n\nore)\n\n(i) 15.3.2010 -- Request was made seeking".  \n\npermission to investigate the offences \n\nrequired under $55 (2) of Cr.P.C';"' -\n\n(j) 13.3.2010 -- Jurisdictionaii\ufb02b\/i'F\u00a3T grant'ed'A." "\n\npermission to investigate "'the'i\u00bboffences_ 'um'-er7;\n\nSection 155 Cr.P.C'"a.s pra*v"ed"Fo'i'c. \n(K) 20.3.2010 -- Seizure. was rnade estin1'ating\nthe quantitvfiof Iron ipr\u00e9 s_t'ored"'i'n----~the ports\n\na;rea._  Eeiiekeirei ' 'vi.a"pp_roxi'mateEy quantifying\n\nnioretiiian S ia'i<hs,. ri\ufb01et\u00e9ric tons. (Mahazar was\n\n' 'dra.wn)a.  _ V0 " \n\n  (-i)v V?_0..\u00a7.2_010 - Seized Iron ore was handed\n\nit*5oVverT'_ft.o";thVe custody of Port Conservator of\n\n Beiekere on "as is bare basis", under an\n\nit *  acknowiedgment obtained form port\n\nConservator -- Sri Mahesh Biiagi (accused\n\nNo.1) who has filed a Cr|.Petition to quash the\n\n\n\n34\nFOC before Principal Bench at Bangalore which\n\nis still pending. 12\n\n(m) 22.3.2010 -- Jurisdictional Magistrate.'V:V"':%'i\n\ngranted permission to retain the seized Iron  \n\nore until further orders, as the -:;'a'n'i--e. cannot\u00e9tie I. '4\n\nmoved out of Port Area.\n\n(n) 25.3.2010 --- Theikicommissioii\u00e9r.7of] \n\nCustoms, Mangalore,_ ori:ieredi--.t'or\u00bb"the closure"\n\nof export activities foiia viree'k:'Vtirr;:\u00e9'--e_iia'b'l~ing to\ncomplete  '\u00a7..i;a 'Belel<ere \/\n\u00a7i'o--!.!owing\n\norder in Wriyt Petition?  as\n\n\"The 'r'\u00abesoonde'n't._\u00bbNosV\u00a7\"3.to 6 shall verify such\n\ndocuments in'V-det--ai|\"'~and if need arises, it is\n\n to th'em....to seize such rnateriais by\n\n  the petitioner and their stevedors\n\nnWaboutfdiscrepancies noticed ....... .. and if any\n\ndiscrehpancy is noticed subsequently, the\n\nV 'A  petitioner and the mining tease hoiders who\n\n\"has suppiied the iron ore fines to the\n\npetitioner will remain iiabie for such amount\n\nthey may held to be due and for such other\n\n\n\n36\n\nlegal action. In this reczard, the petitioner\n\nshall also furnish indemnity bond in favour of   \n\nthe respondents 3 to 6 which shall have \n\nconcurrence of the minind lease hOlder...3li$i3.V \n\nendorsed on it.\"\n\n(Copy sought to  produ\ufb01ed)\n\n(5) 2.0.4.2010 ~ Dismissal__oi'*-app.licatior:s.filed V}\n\nby Ashapura Mi'n_e:chenn  under\nSectms 451 and 45?V:\u00a2.f._Q'.;_iPA_  \n\n(t)  'vii'-he3_ ':l;li'g.h.BCourt of\nKarnazita   passed' V an Interirn\nodr'<\ufb01i"er"_'i* l\\'luosV\u00a7ViV;i551\/2010 and\n\n fS$2\/ 2C1  '   Ind ustries Ltd . k, a nd\n\nV_l_\u00a7\\shapura" .i\\{ii'vnecheVrn"\u00bblV Ltd., respectively, as\n\n   ..... \n<\/pre>\n
  sought by the petitioner is in<\/p>\n
 the earlier order passed in<\/p>\n
 ..wV.p.”N’e.10347\/2010 dated 31.3.2010. Hence,<\/p>\n
”  respondents are directed to release 33,000\/~<\/p>\n
it metric tons iron ore seized by respondent No.2<\/p>\n
and kept in the custody of respondent No.3 as<\/p>\n
per seizure report Annexure-N subject to the<\/p>\n
37<\/span><\/p>\n
petitioner executing indemnity Bond after<\/p>\n
satisfying \/ verifying of documents.”<\/p>\n
(U) 6.5.2019 — Letter from Port Conservator <\/p>\n
officer, Belekeri indicating stock of Iron ore <\/p>\n
on the date of the seizure _.on.._20.3I}2’Oi”di’.’;v.it<\/p>\n
indicating partywise stock statementrFiirnishe’d:–”<\/p>\n
by following Stevedores;\n<\/p>\n
(a) M\/s Adani Enterprises Ltd.,41m’4,3V57.:63  ‘2<\/p>\n
(b) Sri Maiiikarjun S’i1A.l4p’f,\/ing  g,As9.5;u?,\u00a7;a2o MT 22 V<\/p>\n
{(2) Salgaoncar Mining Indiistrv<\/p>\n
{d) Rajarrgaiialw Silks ifiosp\u00e9ie -.Q’;2\u00b04,.0V2O.80o MT<\/p>\n
Tot_a_l  ”  *i–“8}i3_i5,9gi:i1.083 MT<\/p>\n
(v)A ‘May 2610″ .Tih’eci’24following Writ Petitions<\/p>\n
_;j haive been.__fi’l’ed seeking release of seized Iron<\/p>\n
 o_i.\u00a7a\u00abntity;\n<\/p>\n
 V”(\u00a7:’)}…W:Pr~..i\\l.o.3.5742\/2010 PJS Overseas Ltd.,
\n 16,003 I522?\n<\/p>\n
(2) w[‘r>.r~io.15743\/2010 Soddannavar Brother<\/p>\n
“$3000 MT<\/p>\n
4’;(Mining lease holder whose lease period
\n‘ expired on 28.2.2010, Deemed renewal not<\/p>\n
given by i’~”orest Department,
\nW.P.No.14762\/2010 pending before Green
\nBench.\n<\/p>\n
38<\/span><\/p>\n
(3) W.P.No.157-44\/2010 Sri Mahai Ltd.,
\n21,000 MT<\/p>\n
(4) W.P.N0.1S745-746\/2010<\/p>\n
Swastick Steels Ltd…~~-.0′ \u00bb 0′<\/p>\n
30,840 MT<\/p>\n
(5) W.P.i\\lo.1S756\/2010 Sri La_>_<m.i__Venl;'ateshdjv.0"0<\/p>\n
48,000 MT %<\/p>\n
V 1,4:6,._1s\u00e9i–0_zMT  -. ~. "\n<\/p>\n
(w) 2.6.2010 — Local Ne0wsoa;3ers”car_ry’ing 0<\/p>\n
the information t’t;a:t’:V\u00ab–!argi_e gtian.tit.3r”*of seized H<\/p>\n
iron ore is missing allegedl”\u00a7V__e>\u00a7po-‘rtehd–0t_hro~ugh
\nB.elel<ere_'\/4  )1 Mar'::;:aiore"\n<\/p>\n
(x_)….g2.’6._2oi.Q_ __ “At Vireportgwais filed to the
\nj’t_;tis;::–i:tVie’iiai~v..ji~i.i=C,.,’_\u00e9eei;.in.g directions to the<\/p>\n
local. police ‘to reg:\u00ab;te{ti ie case.<\/p>\n
 2.6r2″G’1\u00ab0……:\u00bbAttention of Hori’bie Chief<\/p>\n
  ‘tiivgi.!a’nc\u00e9v Commissioner, New Delhi was drawn<\/p>\n
reqti’est’i’h.g’V to initiate immediate action to<\/p>\n
 p”re.ser”it loss to the State \/ National Exchequer.<\/p>\n
V  (2) 3.6.2010 — A status report was submitted<\/p>\n
to the jurisdictional JMFC stating that huge<\/p>\n
quantity of seized iron ore is missing.<\/p>\n
39<\/span><\/p>\n
(aa) 7.6.2010 — Written Complaint was filed<\/p>\n
to the S.H.O Ankota for the offences
\nDtznishabie under Sections 405, 406 and
\nof IPC against the Port Conserv_at.or__— M_a’hes*t{‘_’:V.
\nBilava and 8 Exporters who have fijeti ‘
\nwrit petitions claiming o\\\u00bbvVne.rushiph’oveI” ;ertavi’nV’:
\nquantity of seized iron ovt4e’~\u00ab.xar:dV Bhhhiicetncved<\/p>\n
stevedores.\n<\/p>\n
(ab) s.a_.2_o;’1.o_ — :”\ufb02FiF{::vvas<\/p>\n
1.54    to the<\/p>\n
 t  5 %<\/p>\n
(:a=’:)’  H Fort Conservator
\n_Betet<ere fileo~v__an,indebendent complaint to the<\/p>\n
go\u00a7';ce_ Inshgiiectof,\u00bb Ankola against M\/s Adani<\/p>\n
  E.nterpfi'sve_s and ors. for the atteged offences.<\/p>\n
Z  8.  The tfontentions of the Learned counset for the<\/p>\n
' "".5i.*'f.__VV;j\u00bbetitionezis'And the learned Govt. advocate for the state Has<\/p>\n
 _%c:Ce.E.ved my serious consideration.<\/p>\n
  The fottowing questions need to be answered:<\/p>\n
}%<Q2'1~'<\/p>\n
(1)<\/span><\/p>\n
(II)<\/p>\n
(III)<\/p>\n
40<\/span><\/p>\n
Whether the forest officer named under
\nSection 62–A of the Forest Act could_._ be
\nequated to a poiice officer for the purposge”\u00bbof<\/p>\n
investigation of offences punishable-f”u-.nfdei\ufb02_<\/p>\n
the provisions of the Forest Act?\n<\/p>\n
Whether the forest officer _riiarjr’ied’–.jun4der’~\u00ab _
\nSection 62–A could appilvgfor.’ per”rhlssion_’ito’t-._V if
\nthe magistrate under 1’Sect_iAo’ri; ii551{2)._,_  i
\nto investigate non–cog’niza._bl’e offe_ncesgun_”dert’~i_:
\nthe provisions ofthe Act;.or’–wheth-er. he coiuldi<\/p>\n
only be a comp|ain_a’nt to the police o._ffi’cer;’ or
\nwhether the poiiceofficer alo’n.e’is”competent
\nto apply to thel.—~m’agIs–trate “for grant of
\n|I)el’r’I’iiSS|Oi”I__?”‘a,  _   <\/p>\n
In the instant w-h.e’t’hfeir__’permission of
\nthe_:m.agist’rate -was -.otb_taine.:d Vbefo re carrying
\nout ‘pi-nves–tigation”V _i’n–7*~ FT.C.17\/O9\u00ab1O and<\/p>\n
 A     <\/p>\n
 t’r’ie.”‘sei2’u’r’e”effected by the police
\n._ — offi”:l:er_\u00bb is ‘~vitia_ted for not obtaining prior
\n. perrn’iss.io’n_.to.d4iii.vestigate, as required under<\/p>\n
‘ Sectl-on”.15.5’\u20ac?J} Cr.P.C.?\n<\/p>\n
__1{}. __\u00a7The. cont’e..ri_ti’o’n of designated senior advocate, Sri<\/p>\n
aTnd._Vlearned counsei, Sri Thiruvengadam is that<\/p>\n
alnv”foVrlest7’of_f’ic’er” not below the rank of a Range Forest<\/p>\n
A _Office”r na_’niedi’under Section 62–A of the Act is not a police
\n and cannot be deemed to be so for the purpose of
\n‘_’_c~_in’v.esti’gatihg a non–coghi2:able offence and he will not be<\/p>\n
A –i’.4:”c’oi-hpetent to even apply to the magistrate under Section<\/p>\n
4E
\n155(2), Cr.P.C. for grant of permission. Referring to the<\/p>\n
investigation in FTC.17\/09-10 and FCR.189\/O9, they<\/p>\n
contend FIR reveals it is registered for investigati’~o.sn’\u00ab._if_o~fVV<\/p>\n
Offences punishable under Sections 2 (7)(b)(iv)_,ji?:2;A:’\u00e9rg—-<\/p>\n
the Forest Act, 1963, and theref_ore,..__theHc’orn’_plai’ea’nt~..cu<\/p>\n
Assistant Conservator of Forest was  c0.m’peteVrif..’\/j;E)?.11<\/p>\n
register the FIR itself or to  -‘for
\ngrant of permission under   It is
\nurged he could at the most,i\ufb01a~pp-\ufb02y tlhefijurisdictional police
\nwho in turn would  and apply to
\nthe  view expressed
\nby this i’C.OU–\u00a5’t SUDARSHAN MANCHANDA<\/p>\n
(Supra) is r’e!4_iued_ to _h’igfi\u00bbii:ght4Vthe bar imposed by Section<\/p>\n
…s.155(2.}.\u00a7gCr.~P.C. Vonsthe ‘police officer to investigate a non\u00bb-<\/p>\n
A”~.cog}ji\u00abi7at3l.e ‘ca-sVe”~~a_nd the decision in the case of S.MURARI<\/p>\n
eifffavfiii.\/r’hHe’Ri_ STATE OF KARNATAKA BY RANGE<\/p>\n
-‘Poet.-‘.”‘sT. EvJiV!.=i*=2ii’V(:ER, KUDREMUKH (ILR 2004 KAR 1706)<\/p>\n
 rieliread to support the first proposition wherein the learned<\/p>\n
 Qsingile Eudge of this court held that ‘a Range Forest Officer is<\/p>\n
 52 police officer within the meaning of Section 2( 16) of<\/p>\n
42<\/span><\/p>\n
the Forest Act’ and thus a forest officer named under<\/p>\n
Section 62–A of the Forest Act cannot be equatedttoyr<\/p>\n
deemed to be a poiice officer for the purpose <\/p>\n
155(2), Cr.P.C. The proposition iaiyd dow_n~~~E\u00bbn.:ft)he.::said\u00bbx’<\/p>\n
decisions is extracted hereunder:\n<\/p>\n
SUDARSHAN MANCHANDA .v”.i,_StATs””’tis;i\u00a7_Vt  ”
\nKARNAAKA(1979(2)KLJt.44y9) ‘ ”\n<\/p>\n
’12. Section 15 (oi: theii””C’oVtd’e”of Criminai:
\nProcedure, 1973, re’a.dT3_th.us:;_’.V ” ‘ <\/p>\n
“1SE3. Information Vast-v.to’i ri-oArii:cognfzabfe”
\ncases’ \u00ab .._and Lin vestfgationj  .. of’ such
\nCas–es:;5′ _. _ 3  _t  ”\n<\/p>\n
(1) When_'<-.)infutmati_on Vis "7gi'v_er1_ to an<\/p>\n
oi'f.ice.r in ch'a'rg.e'i*o"f' a "poiiceg station of<\/p>\n
 **** "the"com1iniissi'oh-.with'in–..the limits of<\/p>\n
s_uc'hf_..sta'tior1..of a nomcognizable<\/p>\n
-, “offence,fh.eishai–!._enter’or cause to be<\/p>\n
* V entered ” .jth_e”~~._)sub~stance of the<\/p>\n
“‘in_forma’ti_or.i.iri )a”}i:>ooi< to be kept by<\/p>\n
 su'ch_' officer"; in""such form as the<\/p>\n
  State Government may prescribe in<\/p>\n
*  this beha'if;*i'and refer the informant
\n, tothe magistrate.\n<\/p>\n
“~'(_2)  .”‘No i.ooi’i’ce officer shall investigate a
\n‘M “n’on’~cognizable case without the
\n ‘ .or’der of a magistrate having power
\n2 to try such case or commit the case
\n” for triai.”\n<\/p>\n
 (Sub ciauses (3) and (4) are omitted as
\nunnecessary) Therefore, when an information
\nis given to an officer of the poiice station with
\nregard to the commission of a non–cognizabie
\noffence, it is his duty to enter the substance of<\/p>\n
‘N<\/p>\n
‘– 5<\/p>\n
\\.x<\/p>\n
 .’1:.i.\u00ab…\n<\/p>\n
by the i’earned counsel, but in the light of the decision of the<\/p>\n
 ,
\nfigu\ufb01x<\/p>\n
44<\/span><\/p>\n
contemplated under S.155(2) of the Code of
\nCriminal Procedure.\n<\/p>\n
panchanama, he has a’is.o”‘V-given  Vr’.’u,r_r’i,be’r as
\nCrime l\\io.409\/79. All th*ese,have’ happened
\nbefore the requisite sanctioriis “obtained”‘by”the
\npolice from the ju\u00abrisd_ic’t_ior;:_ai ma*gi’strate.’<\/p>\n
S.MURAR! &_.~- Amen; –. _  VST’.t\\”TE OF
\nKARNATAKA. B’! RZANG-E “:=o.REs:y*r OFFICER,
\nKUDR_E:–_\u00a5,,~iIU,i_r_(l-._E_ (.1LR’2_oo__4 i(AR:’i706)<\/p>\n
Karnata.k:aV1’V.;_,”Fol:est?’:fTA-=ct:%Section 62–A–Range
\nForest” \u00bbC;’ffice1’if” ‘shgailfbe deemed to be a police
\no.fficei’ f.o’r\u00bbth,e’purpo’s.e’of Sec.156, Cr.P.C.–but
\nfor the ptirpose ‘of”S-ection 155, Range Forest
\nOfficerii is “not. =a.”;~police officer within the<\/p>\n
,.meanirg_Vl eff-Section 62–A of the Karnataka
\n Forest Act! _ _<\/p>\n
 S_ee.rn.i:ng,|y the decision of the learned single Judge in<\/p>\n
athgeh–case”o’f\u00abS;*ll?i’tiRARI is in support of the contentions urged<\/p>\n
ifV\ufb02’s.,[}ivi..sAion”Bench of this court in V.S.LAD 8: SONS, BELLARY
\nat “;’i.:r.’l’\u00a7TATE OF KARNATAKA (2oo9(3) KCCR 2067), a<\/p>\n
 “firm decision has to be taken.\n<\/p>\n
The fact that the Sub~=.,_
\nInspector of Police did proceed to the spot .Qn\u00bb._*._V
\n27.4.1979 itself with the intention of co||ect’i–n’g—f_
\nnecessary information with regard
\nnature of the accident, etc. and drawing_’up~o.f\u00b0’ ”<\/p>\n
a panchanama thereafter clearly indi’ca–t.e’~..that
\nthe police started investigation “on the basi’3._of*–T:
\nthe report sent to him by: the,,Su’b..’Offi-cer,:’~-,t,_,_
\nNorth Fire Station, Bangalore, It is signif’icant’  ‘
\nto note that after.’ d__rawing_ ” up :’o’fl_=t_he <\/p>\n
Mm<\/p>\n
47<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
13. Sub–section (2) of Section 62–A postulates t__hat for<\/p>\n
the purpose of Section 156, Cr.P.C., an area whic’h._a-\u00ab4..p’o.lvice<\/p>\n
officer is empowered under subsection (1) shail
\nto be a police station and such office.r,_shalE’be”=-lqe’*
\nthe officer in charge of the said poliAce1’_stai’tioir;., “Tiier\u00e9:ica.nii.Qt<\/p>\n
be two opinions that sub~se_cti.on (2) refers  area.’<\/p>\n
which, for the purpose of se<;nafrA'.r.:p5s5kL of .the.Cod,e, shall be
\ndeemed to be a police"-sitationff[Iti"'dd_esl–n_ot restrict power
\nconferred by suta'~s_ecti0'n V<\/p>\n
14. The\u00a7!~l’5tj’h\u00a7_..l{aVr_na–tailk;_a has issued a notification<\/p>\n
dated  . 7.i20G?3\u00a7_Vto  _fo’l\u00ab!.o\u00bb~Jing effect:
\nV t}0″i\/’ii31\u00a7Ni\\.\u00bbi_f;’:>i:t.–0I\u00ab* KARNATAKA
\nN0.FE-E LIU4 F”DP’2.F[“) 1    Ketriiataka Government Seci’etari21t<\/p>\n
M.S.Bui1ding
\n.Bzmgz1E01’e._ dated 0 I \/07\/2() E 0<\/p>\n
NOTIFICATION
\nii =_3The’Cio–\\rerh1iieni’ of K21l’E1\u00a31i’dk\ufb02 hereby notifies the areas under the
\n“=._i.E1I’]’i_[-‘JI”‘ii’l]v j~i1:’isdic1i<_):1 of the Range Forest Officers of Kzirm-itakzi
\nF01'est';_Depu1'tinent iiicluding wildiife to he the specified areas under<\/p>\n
" I ;.Sectiion 62~A of the K21I'I]21Itll\\'\u00a31 F()rest Act i963 for the purpose of<\/p>\n
V'  o.\u00e9"\u00a7"ez2ces under this Act to exercise powers conferred on an ofl'ic<:r in~
\ncliarge. of an poiice staition by the provision of the Code of Criminal
\nProcedare 1973.\n<\/p>\n
48<\/span><\/p>\n
This order is deemed to have come into effect from the date of
\nissue of amendment to this Section in the Act 20 of 20()()
\no4\/in\/zooo. T’ T<\/p>\n
By Order and in the name of  2″\n<\/p>\n
Governor of Kmnaltelka <\/p>\n
lGC?-P\/’M… ‘   c
\nUnder Secretary toIGovc1’nm’3.1]t” _
\nForest Ecoiogv & Envitoiirnent Dep’;Lr’ftme’:lt ‘<\/p>\n
15. In the notification,   specified in
\nrespect of which the poliice   the  of Range
\nForest Officer, may investigatel..Vo’ffenci\u00e9\u00a7.I\/Llvvnider the Act. The
\nnotification   not  restriction or<\/p>\n
modificalt*ion:”‘l\u00a7n “rn,attei’r””‘re!ating to investigation of
\noffences un_derV:tliej <\/p>\n
16. There_fore,’th4es.con:ciusion of the Division Bench of this<\/p>\n
 coo.-i:;,’VVFIFQI’-eg,,i_s_tered even on the basis of Lokayukta
\n‘AF,E!V’\u00a3’J:>.F? “i,3,lf~t:h.Ae”‘forest officer was valid and FIR was not liable
\niiitoffee  aiso based on the interpretation as
\n  above, it has to be held that by virtue of Section
\nof the Forest Act, an officer not beiow the rank of
\n Forest Officer is deemed to be a police officer for the<\/p>\n
hfviourpose of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore,<\/p>\n
49<\/span>
\nunder Section 155(2) or 156, Cr.P.C., he is deemed to be a
\npolice officer. The arguments to the contrary are, vtfiiefefore,<\/p>\n
discounted.\n<\/p>\n
17. Now, we shall come to the questiorilas.tohviin\u00e9hetiweryi<\/p>\n
investigation in the instant case<\/p>\n
Deputy Conservator of Forest _without:”the pe,rrnis’sion’oF*the\u00bb,<\/p>\n
magistrate, vitiates the proce’edi’ngs. In:  rlegalrd, it is<\/p>\n
material to note that \u00a3131?\/o9′–s\u00abijo  was registered
\non 15.3.2010 on which dayllthe’ics’VrestTotfi<fe_i- visited the port<\/p>\n
and noticed s'ta&:l\u00a7i'i-ig  iamh o<re';"C."–Susfpecting it to be an<\/p>\n
attempt it vsiithvout the requisite permits,<\/p>\n
he registered tl:eV.caf;s\u00bbei."-~._,\u00b0-. <\/p>\n
 18…\u00ab\u00a7gaSri Rav–ie_B.N.aik and Sri Thiruvengadam, with<\/p>\n
 .\\;;e’shenie’nce,:l”asserted that after registering the FIR on<\/p>\n
“1*5x.”.3–.l201’t’V,”\u00e9.’,’_{:..title forest officer had seized the ore and<\/p>\n
S regihstered acase under Sections 2(7)(b)(iv) 62, 80 of the<\/p>\n
 ‘:g,F’oi’est Act and for violation of Rules 143 and 162 of the<\/p>\n
—  Forest Rules. Since it was done without the permission of<\/p>\n
“the magistrate as required under Section 155(2), Cr.P.C.,<\/p>\n
50<\/span>
\nthe entire proceedings are vitiated. If what is urged is
\nfactually so, then the ground is acceptable. Howev.er–,,yon a<\/p>\n
perusal of the records made available, it is notAi.ce’d.V,t:h’atthe<\/p>\n
complainant\/forest officer had applied to th\u00e9sjjurisdvictioiaulal’V’<\/p>\n
magistrate at Ankola, in FCR;i1l7\/09e_1’D for<\/p>\n
permission to investigate the case for the offences i~nd’:.’cate’d-.,c<\/p>\n
above, as required under Sectiron 1″5’5.(_2′},, The<\/p>\n
magistrate passed t.heV_ oryder*onif-1,._8.3.20lI0′,”V granting
\npermission to investigate the caste; nce to the said
\norder, seizure_.,has b.eeri:A_ effected,lonj_’~2,0′,_3Vf.’2010. The seizure
\nreport at A:n’lh\u00e9,xvu}e\u00e9i::  “ta \u20acrl.P.764S\/10 indicates
\nthat seizure’ waVs’vrep’orted:_:to the magistrate on 20.3.2010.<\/p>\n
Seizure, un_dloubVt’e_d’ly,_” after obtaining permission to<\/p>\n
 inveshgate theV'”Cawse_____an.d hence, the requirement of Section<\/p>\n
  been met by the forest officer.\n<\/p>\n
19.0  On it is seen investigation has commenced oniy<\/p>\n
0′-.-\u00ab.___”after permission was granted by the magistrate and hence,<\/p>\n
  yV”rlegi_st:’r\ufb01.ation of FCR.17\/09-10 is not in contravention of the<\/p>\n
 -~–.,:_prcivIsions of the Cr.P.C. and hence, not vitiated.<\/p>\n
:_  \/
\nf,_\u00a7\\\/\\>.},
\n {iv
\n‘V’<\/p>\n
5.1.\n<\/p>\n
20. Regarding seizure, petitioners contend that it is illegal
\nas the ore stacked was covered with forest permit inrespect<\/p>\n
of a particular quantity; Customs ciearance_”‘-was”VV..also<\/p>\n
obtained. These are questions of fact to <\/p>\n
Petitioners have referred to the’Worders’\u00ab, pas.sed_ :i_n’e7’th.eir\u00bb<\/p>\n
favou r in W. P. 1 0347\/1 0 dated 3    O  ” su’bseci’u.<\u00e9\\n't.Vg<\/p>\n
orders in the connected writ~~..?:\u00e9.t,itionsutgj'~s.h'oviiFthey were<\/p>\n
permitted to iift the seized iron  s'ubjectito"'e)tecuting an
\nindemnity bond. I have JperLiseid:"theii"in'teri_m orders passed
\nby this courtiin-fire wr_it  to above. They<\/p>\n
are not   relied by the petitioners<\/p>\n
dated 731.s;3;2o1iioji:~:-ifvvi;P..:gino34n7\/10 is of relevance and to
\nunderstandits .efxlV"e.c't;i_it' is\ufb01extracted hereunder:<\/p>\n
 'Though theisvcourt on an earlier instance had
\n 'issued an interim order staying the order\n<\/p>\n
–\u00bb _ whi.ch_i’s similar to the one which is produced
\n Va_Vs\u00bb..y_A’nin.e><_jure-3 to this petition, the period
\n pres_crib;e'd in the said notice has
\nexpired' …….. ..\n<\/p>\n
In the present case, the impugned
\n“Annexure–M dated 29.3.2010 the document
\n itself indicates that the exporters are
\n permitted to ioad iron ore other than what
\n‘ has been seized by the forest authorities.
\nHence, an interim order in the instant case is
\nissued directing the respondents to permit
\nthe petitioner to export iron ore regarding<\/p>\n
52<\/span><\/p>\n
which clearance has been obtained from the
\nforest authorities and in respect of which
\ncustoms duty has bee collected by
\nauthorities. It is made clear that in res.pe.ct.__’_t’
\nof iron ore which may be stocked in the”yard”~t.””* ”
\nand in respect of the same, if there _i’s_nof 4
\nendorsement of forest __..au_thor.ities”  V
\nrequired under Rule 162 of the ;K’a_rnata_ka,.__t
\nForest Rules, such stock of ‘i.ror:fo~rve shali not ~
\nbe permitted under, _this ‘-interim _o?rder.’ ‘
\nHence, export may._V’~b.e permitted “~.__o”n~
\nverification of documenfsyyand subjec’trto the
\npetitioner filing i_ndemnyity_A’bon’d,. The –expo{rt
\npermitted shall ‘remain’ suVbje._cti’to. the result<\/p>\n
of the petition “and. furthverV(jr.de’rs to be
\nDassed.’ – i i   <\/p>\n
Based on  e>'<_tr'a'cted.."afbvoyeywsimilar orders have
\nbeen p,a.$s,eAd*..yiVn :su_bseduie'nt" w.rit.5petitions, but it is clear
\nfrom the n-.atu.re"V'o'i'–the_'iriter'i~–m order granted that petitioners<\/p>\n
were permitted' to _load' ore other than what was seized<\/p>\n
 byv..ti\u00a7j.e'_i1'orVestV"'a.uth_ori:'ties. The direction issued to the
\n to permit the petitioners to export iron ore
\nclearance has been obtained from forest<\/p>\n
–V authuorities and in respect of which customs duty has been
\n Besides, other conditions enumerated in the\n<\/p>\n
–‘  oprtderpplclarify that the iron ore seized was not permitted to<\/p>\n
 “be lifted\/exported and in fact permission granted in respect<\/p>\n
.r\\
\n.’ I i<\/p>\n
“~\\. ‘AL .\n<\/p>\n
55<\/span><\/p>\n
– In the meantime, the Green Bench of the Karnataka<\/p>\n
High Court ordered a joint survey in 16 ca_sesf”,:\u00abi.n”-.the
\nyear 2009 which was not completed. if  if if it
\no In January 2010, LokayLik\u00bbta\u00bb._,rece.iyledT.-‘I,’cor.1lpl\u00e9.ai’i1_tsVV’
\nregarding illegal mining
\nGovernment land in ‘iEie,l’iaVry, otheru
\ndistricts and unazuthorizedutran”s..p.ortation_.without valid
\nDermits from  ‘4l:<'a'rwVai*.,p0rts. On that
\ncomplaint,'further":ac:tio_nx':w.asV7 and a special
\nteam.  ._\u00a2_Qri'si1\u00a7,};~u'ted"'ViVn February 2010 by
\n  conducted raids and
\nseized  material like hard disks,
\nrecords, _ permitsEconsisting of large number of
\n,.\u00ab}gsu'spected' leases purportedly issued from
\n Andhra Pradesh and also found forged
\n permits of Karnataka State.\n<\/p>\n
  permits seized from the possession of various
\nof …__mvi”ners, transporters were found to be forged and
\n0 “therefore, Range Forest Officer, Ankola, took further<\/p>\n
action. In this fact situation, the Section Forester,<\/p>\n
58<\/span>
\nseeking direction to the local police to register a case.
\nMeanwhile, attention of the Central Vigilance Corri’n’:.i,ssion<\/p>\n
was drawn seeking permission to initiate action…a’s.iti-woiuld<\/p>\n
result in huge loss to the national exchequ,er.WQn  <\/p>\n
status report was submitted to<\/p>\n
huge quantities of seized ironore ‘missing. ‘:7′.6.2’0li’0, Wag<\/p>\n
written complaint was filed”V”i”9:ehfore SHO,”~!3{nl{o:la,for the<\/p>\n
offences punishable under 040,5,  V0379, I.P.C.
\nagainst the Port Conservaltolr\u00a7’vM;t,ipVeslh1l__’.8ile and eight
\nexporters who ‘w;e:,re petitioners petition before<\/p>\n
this court, iseei<in.g'V.owne'resjhi.p'—of the 'seized iron ore and also<\/p>\n
against.._th=reevlic\u00e9nced.istevedores. On 8.6.2010, FIR was<\/p>\n
registered\ufb01gon  in charge Port Conservator,<\/p>\n
_ Belek\u00a7{erei'~Port,V"'fi.le,d_____an independent complaint before the<\/p>\n
 .,T.nspect_or,.,Arilzola against M\/s Adani Enterprises for the<\/p>\n
eiiew Thus, it is seen Crime Nos.17\/09~10 and<\/p>\n
V ., 189'\/10 v\u00ab..\u00e9r1d".V'P.C.54\/10 are for offences punishable under<\/p>\n
405, 406, 379, I.P.C. against Mahesh Bile—-Port<\/p>\n
.'Co:ns\u00e9'rvator and others which includes the petitioners in<\/p>\n
0  scrip. f\\los.7645\/10, 7646\/10 and three licenced stevedores.<\/p>\n
,3,\\,,'-i\u00e9i\/"\n<\/p>\n
K ,1′<\/p>\n
59<\/span>
\nSimilarly, separate case was registered in P.C.54\/10__a__gainst<\/p>\n
M\/s Adani Enterprises on the basis of complaint-fsub’mi”tted<\/p>\n
by Port Conservator Belekere Port. Thus, <\/p>\n
commission of non–cognizab|e offencesgand tithe-riefoire’,j;.SHVOu’<\/p>\n
received the complaints and registerendi <\/p>\n
under investigation.\n<\/p>\n
27. Referring to Sve,-Cation 52s;\u00a24irr\u00a2hesi.Forest ‘Act,-ioetitioners
\naverred that Mahesh l’\u00a7$iie__’w’asgStiaiteg\ufb01overnment officer
\nand the case.’  under Sections
\n405, 406,; nothiave been registered
\n as required under
\nSectionv’A’1fl37,VC’r..E5′.’\u00e9;A’–ii\u00a7”‘he”‘contention has to be discounted<\/p>\n
as the..pgrovisio,n ‘offsectioin 197 bars cognizance being taken<\/p>\n
.  bubiic servant without prior sanction\/consent of<\/p>\n
  uS3tat’efGoVvreVr.hment. It does not bar investigation into an<\/p>\n
ofAfe.ncev;.-i~t_is= only the offence cognizable by the court which<\/p>\n
 but an investigation into an offence by the<\/p>\n
V.\u00ab’-combetent investigating officer. On this ground, FIR<\/p>\n
…_registered for investigating the offences indicated above<\/p>\n
it against Mahesh Bile are not liable to be quashed and more<\/p>\n
\u00a7
\nE
\n3<\/span>
\ni<\/p>\n
61<\/span>
\nnot sustainable as it is a juristic person, is also unacceptable<\/p>\n
because under the General Clauses Act, the word. Tlpeerson’<\/p>\n
includes a juristic person also. Keeping this i_r;i'”‘rn’!.’n~d’._._i <\/p>\n
read Section 378, I.P.C., a juristic person..wo.uldf.::al.soff_’be.,g'”V._<\/p>\n
liable but the natural person who,I,at the tin’ae{of’–comnn’iVss,ion<\/p>\n
of the offence had indulged in such ‘act,”‘would”‘Vbe <\/p>\n
who has to be sentenced.\n<\/p>\n
30. Sri Thiruveng”a.dar.nV,  counsel for the<\/p>\n
petitioners, has raised l,eg*’al.v.”i’ss;u.e’ with regard to<\/p>\n
repugnancy proiris.i’ons’:~Vo’fv~the Customs Act and<\/p>\n
the Ka,_rnatak’afVj’,Fores,t A:c’t~!_:n_this regard, he would contend
\nthat iron’ gore is  under the Union List and<\/p>\n
therefore, ituuispniy”byr”Pa’rliamentary legislation its import or<\/p>\n
f   mining cofuld be determined. He submits, as iron<\/p>\n
  List, it is only the Union of India which<\/p>\n
hats–to issuejthe notification regarding restraint on its export<\/p>\n
.u””-Wags,en\\}i’s.a”ged under Section 11-I of the Customs Act. He
\n ,..”sVub.m:its, provisions of Section 62 of the Forest Act
\n …c.onferring power on forest officers to seize such iron ore<\/p>\n
if considering it as ‘forest produce’ does not empower the<\/p>\n
62<\/span>
\nforest officer to enter upon the area coming within the
\nCustoms Act. In other words, it is urged, as iron ore_.-was on<\/p>\n
the precincts of the port liable for customs du’t\u00a7I;..f”i<n:"'t4he<\/p>\n
absence of any notification by the Central 4_<\/p>\n
under Section 11-1 of the Customsnact  \u00a2x.po:t,li<\/p>\n
the forest officer cannot invoke  S2 of  <\/p>\n
to seize such iron ore. This' is.,:on%theV"i3asiscVAth_at"~-when':there'<\/p>\n
is a Parliamentary |egi,.slation.i-anrl_:*St'ate lec_iisiva.tion, it is the
\nParliamentary legislation_whic.hi:'rVpreilailra:.and not the State
\nlegislation.   reference to
\ncase laws.:i'   f I A <\/p>\n
31. ‘As *\u00abr’eg.ards:’j’the.,’I4eg:a’i’position, it is well settled that in<\/p>\n
the case\u00b0._o”f_(\u00a7{)lllE_R\u00a5\u00a7:_i?1iENT or ANDHRA PRADESH<\/p>\n
 AN,.!’i{l|l5VNi’\u20ac.)THEV.Rw–.t(V.’ J.i?s.eoucAT1oN socrerv (AIR 2005<\/p>\n
   apex court held that the question of<\/p>\n
“‘r4e:p–ugriaVri’\u00a3:y{between a parliamentary legislation and state<\/p>\n
legis.’ati-on”can arise in two ways. First, where legislations<\/p>\n
if eniacteti” with respect to matters in their allotted sphere<\/p>\n
 Zoivferlap and Conflict. Second, where the two legislations are<\/p>\n
 “with respect to matters in the concurrent list and there is a<\/p>\n
 V’;  ”\n<\/p>\n
-(:1)<\/p>\n
5\/<\/p>\n
63<\/span>
\nconflict. In both the situations, the parliamentary
\nlegislation will predominate, in the first, by virtueofg non-<\/p>\n
obstante clause in Article 246(1) of the Constiti,iti_ohV,”‘jufnhbbthte<\/p>\n
second, by reason of Section 245(1) of <\/p>\n
Clause (2) of Article 245 deals witha \u00absitfuation the S<\/p>\n
State legislation having been reservedand having<\/p>\n
President’s assent prevails in tihat=i,state,’-thi’s.again iswsbubjectb<\/p>\n
to the proviso that Pariia__menvi”‘carrilbagajn bring”as”Vlegislati’on
\nto override even such’ state\u00bbiulegislatfonsg. Keeping this<\/p>\n
principie in mi.n\u00ab<i\u00ab,_vv.e have exarn'.i_ne_'thje case at hand.<\/p>\n
32. in ‘the  “FIR registered against the<\/p>\n
petitionersr..,i_S for “offences punishabie under Sections<\/p>\n
 2(7_)'(;’\u00ab.*.3),UA’v),v% 62’,”8\u20ac}.._o.f\u00abthe Forest Act and Rules 143, 162 of<\/p>\n
 ‘the” Eoi~.,3S;#  Section 2(7)(b)iv) is the defining section<\/p>\n
w’hi.ch dvefiihvrje,-sfttforest produce’. Section 62 is a part of<\/p>\n
‘.VChapt~er”‘r9land deals with penaities and procedures. It<\/p>\n
it “i.jifpost’a.lates when there is reason to beiieve that a forest<\/p>\n
 o\ufb01fence has been committed in respect of any forest<\/p>\n
‘”gHproduce, such produce together with aii toois, boats,<\/p>\n
64<\/span>
\nvehicles or cattle or any other property used in committing<\/p>\n
such offence, may be seized by any forest officer V:or.\ufb02’pgol.i4ce<\/p>\n
officer. Sub–section (2) envisages any <\/p>\n
police officer. If he has reason tobelieve’  v_cj:i.hi’clAeVV’<\/p>\n
has been used for transportation <\/p>\n
respect of which there is reaso:n~~.to believe–.thatu”~off’e’nce has<\/p>\n
been committed or is being ‘co’:~.V\u00a7..ririit’ted., he’m’a.yV.require the
\ndriver or other persontin”_.Q;r1ar.g\u00a7’;\u00a7:i.of::Athetvehicle to stop the
\nvehicle and causeit  long as it may
\nreasonably; contents of the
\nvehiclewd_uliris.pe:ct3 Vall’*re’cords'”re-lating to the goods carried
\nwhich are   such driver or other person in<\/p>\n
charge ofuthe vehicle.._ ‘”Tb~erefore, this provision confers the<\/p>\n
 p0V_’J’\u00e9~’.’ of s_eizu’r”e\u00bb0.n_.sthe forest officer when he suspects<\/p>\n
 ‘cornmissioinv’~o’f’any forest offence relating to forest produce<\/p>\n
d’e.fin~ed urrdjer.’a’$Vection 2(7) referred to above.<\/p>\n
 ..Sri:’Thiruvengadam would contend that this provision<\/p>\n
 _fco’u.!d:”not be invoked as the property involved is iron ore to<\/p>\n
  exported which is covered by the provision of Section<\/p>\n
V 11-3-1 and 11–I of the Customs Act and therefore, the<\/p>\n
E
\n\u00a7<\/p>\n
65<\/span>
\nprovisions of Customs Act being a Parliamentary legislation
\nwould prevail, and not the Forest Act which is a”–,State<\/p>\n
legislation. This proposition would have been  <\/p>\n
there been any conflict in the provisioVns”~._:offithelitwo<\/p>\n
legislations. Section 11-H envisag;eAs'””‘iiiegia\/ -exp_o’rtff’,,Vh?ean;s<\/p>\n
the export of any goods in contraven_tior._? of provisions of,<\/p>\n
this Act or any other law for”~th’e timelinllfolrce. This<\/p>\n
means, if there is export of_.”g’oo’d-is in”-contravenition of the
\nForest Act, then it comes~l.’wi’t’iiilnVV referred to in<\/p>\n
clause H. The  at :har,;d…..rel’ates]”tO..tfansportation of iron<\/p>\n
ore extra–cte:d~gf.rori%;,fore’st..area”a~nd being exported without
\nforest permglits,   provision of Section 11-H of<\/p>\n
the Custorns_gAct Vi’s-att.raCtu\u00e9d.<\/p>\n
.   g.;yC:ctijoAn,_.11–IVHhas also been referred to by the learned<\/p>\n
 contend that unless the Central Govt, by<\/p>\n
notifi__cat,_i_von,,uspecifies iron ore to be one of the goods which<\/p>\n
 |il<ely*.to illegally exported, iron ore is excluded from the
\nA    a reading of Section 11-1 shows, 'if, having regard
\nVi   ..to\u00a7the magnitude of illegal export of goods of any class or<\/p>\n
 description, the Central Govt. is satis\ufb01ed that it is expedient<\/p>\n
A M'
\n7<\/span><\/p>\n
VJ<\/p>\n
\\.’<\/p>\n
69<\/span><\/p>\n
are ciissoived and there shali be no impediment to the<\/p>\n
investigating officer to proceed with the investigatioffii.<\/p>\n
sci\/ii    <\/p>\n
vgh*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Ilc Industries Ltd. vs State Of Karnataka on 2 November, 2010 Author: Jawad Rahim I IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 2″” DAY OF NOVEMBER 2010,.-.__ BEFORE II THE HON’BLE MRJUSTICE JAWAD RA.H’I–M CRL.P. NO.7645\/2010, 7646\/2010 AND ‘7BV7,3,\/V29,:0,_ IN CRL.P NO.7645\/2010 BETWEEN: 1. ILC INDUSTRIES […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-245868","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nIlc Industries Ltd. vs State Of Karnataka on 2 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ilc-industries-ltd-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-2-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ilc Industries Ltd. vs State Of Karnataka on 2 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ilc-industries-ltd-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-2-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-11-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-27T14:58:03+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"38 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ilc-industries-ltd-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-2-november-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ilc-industries-ltd-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-2-november-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ilc Industries Ltd. vs State Of Karnataka on 2 November, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-27T14:58:03+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ilc-industries-ltd-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-2-november-2010\"},\"wordCount\":4506,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ilc-industries-ltd-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-2-november-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ilc-industries-ltd-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-2-november-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ilc-industries-ltd-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-2-november-2010\",\"name\":\"Ilc Industries Ltd. vs State Of Karnataka on 2 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-27T14:58:03+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ilc-industries-ltd-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-2-november-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ilc-industries-ltd-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-2-november-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ilc-industries-ltd-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-2-november-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ilc Industries Ltd. vs State Of Karnataka on 2 November, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Ilc Industries Ltd. vs State Of Karnataka on 2 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ilc-industries-ltd-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-2-november-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ilc Industries Ltd. vs State Of Karnataka on 2 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ilc-industries-ltd-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-2-november-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-11-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-27T14:58:03+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"38 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ilc-industries-ltd-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-2-november-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ilc-industries-ltd-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-2-november-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ilc Industries Ltd. vs State Of Karnataka on 2 November, 2010","datePublished":"2010-11-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-27T14:58:03+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ilc-industries-ltd-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-2-november-2010"},"wordCount":4506,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ilc-industries-ltd-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-2-november-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ilc-industries-ltd-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-2-november-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ilc-industries-ltd-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-2-november-2010","name":"Ilc Industries Ltd. vs State Of Karnataka on 2 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-11-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-27T14:58:03+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ilc-industries-ltd-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-2-november-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ilc-industries-ltd-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-2-november-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ilc-industries-ltd-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-2-november-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ilc Industries Ltd. vs State Of Karnataka on 2 November, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/245868","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=245868"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/245868\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=245868"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=245868"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=245868"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}