(Prayer: These criminal petitions are filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in RC Nos.13(A)/2012, 14(A)/2012 and 15(A)/2012 of CBI/ACB, Bangalore City, respectively pending under Spl. C.C. NO.21/2014 on the file of the XLVI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bangalore for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 434, 379, 411, 447, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 120-B of IPC and under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) and 13(1)(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and under Section 21 read with 4(1) and 4(1)(A) and 23 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957 and Section 24 of Karnataka Forest Act.)
1. These petitions are filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the alleged offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 434, 379, 411, 447, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 120-B of IPC and under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) and 13(1)(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and under Section 21 read with 4(1) and 4(1)(A) and 23 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957 and Section 24 of Karnataka Forest Act registered in FIR in RC Nos.13(A)/2012, 14(A)/2012 and 15(A)/2012.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case as averred in Crl.P. No.1990/2014 are that accused No.1 M/s. Dream Logistics Company (India) Private Limited had exported iron ore from Belekeri port to foreign countries to the extent of 9.16 lakh MT., out of which, substantial portion is found to be illegally mined iron ore in forest areas of Bellary. During the course of investigation, on 3.9.2013, the petitioner- accused No.8 has been arrested with the allegation that he is the proprietor of M/s. Jambunatheshwara Minerals and the said proprietary concern had sold 19,524 MT. of iron ore to M/s. Sri Srinivasa Minerals Trading Company. The said firm in turn had sold the said materials to accused No.1 M/s. Dream Logistics Company (India) Private Limited. The petitioner was produced before the Special Court with remand application on 3.9.2012 and he was taken to police custody till 12.3.2013 and after police custody, he has been remanded to judicial custody. After completion of investigation, CBI filed charge sheet before the Special Court for the alleged offences under Sections 120-B read with Sections 409, 420, 434, 447, 468, 471 of IPC against the petitioner along with the other 14 accused.
3. It is pleaded in the petition that petitioner has not committed any offence, he is innocent and he has not indulged in illegal mining extraction in the forest area. The petitioner has contended that he is the proprietor of M/s. Jambunatheshwara Minerals which is the business concern having licence to deal iron ore. His business was only to purchase iron ore materials from the sellers and in turn, he was selling the same for higher price to the respective buyers. Accordingly, the petitioner's concern had purchased iron ore of 20,000 MT. from M/s. Srinivasa Logistics and sold the same to M/s. Sri Srinivasa Minerals Trading Company. Regarding the said purchase, amount is credited to the account of Sri Srinivasa Logistics Company and after this purchase, it had sold iron ore in favour of M/s. Sri. Srinivas Minerals Trading Company Limited under invoice.
4. It is further averred that the purchase of iron ore from M/s.Srinivasa Logistics is based on valid permits issued by the Department of Minerals and Geology and in turn, the said iron ore has been sold to M/s. Sri Srinivasa Minerals Trading Company with permit. Thereby, the petitioner has changed the hands of purchase of iron ore materials for a higher rate and he has not indulged in any illegal mining activities. It is further averred in the petition that without any basis, the petitioner has been arrested because the firm M/s. Srinivasa Logistics who has sold the iron ore to him has not been made as an accused and similarly, to whom the petitioner has sold i.e., M/s. Sri Srinivasa Minerals Trading Company is also not made as an accused. The petitioner is the only middle man who had purchased the iron ore and in turn, sold the same to the prospective buyers, for which he had the licence and the invoice/bills are produced.
5. The CBI has opposed the petition by filing the objection statement. It is contended in the objection statement that the said case is registered based on the order dated 7.9.2012 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in W.P. (Civil) No.562/2009 and connected matters, in which CBI has been directed to investigate the illegalities committed by various persons in the matter of export of iron ore from the Belekeri port. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further directed the CBI to carry out thorough and intensive investigation including, if so required, custodial interrogation of any accused. The contention of the petitioner that he had purchased the iron ore from M/s. Srinivasa Logistics and sold the same to M/s. Sri Srinivasa Minerals Trading Company is wrong and hence, denied. The petitioner had not produced any invoice of M/s. Srinivasa Logistics raised on his firm M/s. Jambunatheshwara Minerals and also did not submit any details regarding the said purchase. There is evidence on record to show that the iron ore sold by the petitioner to M/s. Sri Srinivasa Minerals Trading Company was actually purchased by him from Accused No.6 Sri. Janardharn Reddy without any permit by conspiring with the other accused. The investigation revealed that the petitioner is closely associated with Sri. K. Maheshkumar- accused No.4 and was indulged in illegal transportation of iron ore. Illegal iron ore was being transported from various spot yards to Belekeri port with the aid of risk invoices 'invoices of M/s. Sri Manjunatheshwara Minerals' being got printed by the accused-petitioner and supplied by him and Sri. Karapudi Mahesh-adcused-4 to the trucks. It is further revealed that Rs.200/- per MT of iron ore was being collected for the issue of the said risk invoices being got printed by the petitioner. The petitioner who is proprietor of M/s. Jambunatheshwara Minerals has not provided the permits under which the sale of 19524 MT of iron ore was made by him to M/s. Sri Srinivasa Mineral Trading Company. With regard to the supply of the iron ore with valid permits, the petitioner has neither provided the same to the respondent CBI during investigation nor has he enclosed the same with his bail application. The petitioner is very influential and if enlarged on bail, he may tamper with evidence and may also influence the witnesses and he may also abscond. The offences alleged are serious. Hence, sought to reject the petition.
6. The prosecution case as averred in Crl.P. No.1991/2014 are that accused No.1 M/s. ILC Industries Ltd. had exported iron ore from Belekeri port to foreign countries to the extent of 9.86 lakh MT., out of which, substantial portion is found to be illegally mined iron ore in forest areas of Bellary. During the course of investigation, the respondent CBI sought permission of the Special Court to array the petitioner as an accused on 24.9.2013 and accordingly, permission was granted and body warrant was issued. The petitioner who was in judicial custody was produced before the said Court on 10.9.2013 and he has been subjected for interrogation by taking him to police custody. After completion of investigation, CBI filed charge sheet before the Special Court alleging that the petitioner- accused No.8 is the proprietor of M/s. Jambunatheshwara Minerals and the said proprietary concern had sold 9,989 MT. of iron ore to M/s. ILC Industries Ltd. without any valid permit. For having sold the same, Rs.5.00 crore is credited to the account of the petitioner, but in turn, no payment is made for having purchased the same. It is further averred in the petition that the petitioner being the licencee to deal iron ore had purchased iron ore of 40,000 MT form M/s. Srinivas Logistics and the amount was credited to its account. Out of the said material, 9989 MT iron ore has been supplied to M/s. ILC Industries Ltd. and for having sold the said material, sales invoice is also maintained.
7. It is further averred that the purchase of iron ore is based on valid permits issued by the Department of Minerals and Geology and the said iron ore has been sold to M/s. ILC Industries Ltd. with permit. Thereby, the petitioner has changed the hands of purchase of iron ore materials for a higher rate and he has not indulged in any illegal mining activities. It is further averred in the petition the petitioner is the only middle man who had purchased the iron ore and in turn, sold the same to the prospective buyers, for which he had the licence and the invoice/bills are produced.
8. The CBI has opposed the petition by filing the objection statement. It is contended in the objection statement that the said case is registered based on the order dated 7.9.2012 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in W.P. (Civil) No.562/2009 and connected matters, in which CBI has been directed to investigate the illegalities committed by various persons in the matter of export of iron ore from the Belekeri port. The contention of the petitioner that he had purchased the iron ore from M/s. Srinivasa Logistics is wrong and hence, denied. The petitioner had not produced any invoice of M/s. Srinivasa Logistics and also did not submit any details regarding the said purchase. The investigation revealed that the petitioner had facilitated the risk transport/illegal transportation of iron ore from Bellary District at the behest of the accused Karapudi Mahesh and that the invoices of M/s. Sri Manjunatheshwara Minerals' which was given to the truck drivers carrying iron ore without permits from various stockyards to Belekeri port, was got printed by the petitioner accused also clearly brings out his role in facilitating the transportation of illegal iron ore. With regard to the supply of the iron ore with valid permits, the petitioner has neither provided the same to the respondent CBI during investigation nor has he enclosed the same with his bail application. The petitioner is very influential and if enlarged on bail, he may tamper with evidence and may also influence the witnesses and he may also abscond. The offences alleged are serious. Hence, sought to reject the petition.
9. The case of the prosecution as averred in Crl.P. No.1992/2014 is that accused No.1 M/s. S.B. Logistics had exported iron ore from Belekeri port to foreign countries to the extent of 7.74 lakh MT., out of which, substantial portion is found to be illegally mined iron ore in forest areas of Bellary. During the course of investigation, on 3.9.2013, the petitioner has been arrested with the allegation that he is the proprietor of M/s. Jambunatheshwara Minerals and the said proprietary concern had sold 10,000 MT. of iron ore to M/s. S.B. Logistics and it was sold based on valid permit and issuing invoices and bills and the amount for having purchased the same is shown through bank account and so also for having sold, the amount is credited from M/s. S.B. Logistics. It is averred that the entire transaction of sale of 10,000 MT of iron ore is legally permissible transaction because his concern M/s. Jambunatheswara Minerals had licece to deal iron ore and he had purchased iron ore from M/s. Srinivasa Logistics by paying valuable consideration and the said transaction is based on valid permits issued by Department of Mines and Geology and Forest Department and in turn, it has sold the same to M/s. S.B. Logistics for which the amount of Rs.52,60,000/- has been received and credited to his account.
10. It is pleaded in the petition that petitioner has not indulged in illegal mining extraction in the forest area. He is only a dealer in iron ore had purchased iron ore materials from the seller based on valid permits and the same has been sold in faovur of M/s. S.B. Logistics and for which amount is debited in favour of M/s. Srinivasa Logistics and to his account, amount is credited from M/s. S.B. Logistics. Regarding these transactions, VAT return forms, income tax and wealth tax return are submitted to Government and all these taxes are paid and its proprietary concern had valid licence to deal this kind of business. Therefore, no offence is committed by the petitioner by selling the 10,000 MT of iron ore to M/s. S.B. Logistics.
11. So far as the role of the petitioner is concerned, no offence is attracted because he has not conspired with any persons to do illegal mining activities in forest area and he has not committed theft of iron ore or trespassed into the forest area. Therefore, there was no meeting of minds in between the petitioner and the other accused, who have been cited in the charge sheet. Therefore, the offence under Section 120B does not attract. The petitioner is still in custody. Now the investigation is completed and the charge sheet is filed. Since there are many number of accused persons, huge number of witnesses and voluminous records, the commencement of trial may takes long time. The offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The allegation that the petitioner has got permit for sale of iron ore on behalf of the accused Karapudi Mahesh is totally false. There is no possibility of the petitioner tampering the witnesses because the investigation is completed and the charge sheet is filed. The documents are seized and produced before the Court. Petitioner is suffering from serious illness due to piles, back pain and abdomen pain due to gastritis. By the order of the trial court, he was admitted as inpatient in M/s. Shekar hospital at Bangalore. Still he is under the treatment and under the care of the Doctor. The Special Court has granted bail to some of the other accused against whom the serious allegations are made in the charge sheet and the case of the petitioner stands on better footing compared to them. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be granted with bail.
12. The CBI has opposed the petition by filing the objection statement. It is contended in the objection statement that the said case is registered based on the order dated 7.9.2012 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in W.P. (Civil) No.562/2009 and connected matters, in which CBI has been directed to investigate the illegalities committed by various persons in the matter of export of iron ore from the Belekeri port. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further directed the CBI to carry out thorough and intensive investigation including, if so required, custodian interrogation of any accused. The contention of the petitioner that he had purchased the iron ore from M/s. Srinivasa Logistics and sold the same to M/s. Sri Srinivasa Minerals Trading Company is wrong and hence, denied. The petitioner had not produced any invoice of M/s. Srinivasa Logistics raised on his firm M/s. Jambunatheshwara Minerals and also did not submit any details regarding the said purchase. There is evidence on record to show that the iron ore sold by the petitioner to M/s. Sri Srinivasa Minerals Trading Company was actually purchased without any permits by conspiring with the other accused. The investigation revealed that the petitioner is closely associated with Sri. K. Maheshkumar-accused No.4 and was indulged in illegal transportation of iron ore. Illegal iron ore was being transported from various spot yards to Belekeri port with the aid of risk invoices 'invoices of M/s. Sri Manjunatheshwara Minerals' being got printed by the accused-petitioner and supplied by him and Sri. Karapudi Mahesh-accused-4 to the trucks. It is further revealed that Rs.200/- per MT of iron ore was being collected for the issue of the said risk invoices being got printed by the petitioner. The petitioner who is proprietor of M/s. Jambunatheshwara Minerals has not provided the permits under which the sale of 10000 MT of iron ore was made by him to M/s. S.B. Logistics. With regard to the supply of the iron ore with valid permits, the petitioner has neither provided the same to the respondent CBI during investigation nor has he enclosed the same with his bail application. The petitioner is very influential and if enlarged on bail, he may tamper with evidence and may also influence the witnesses and he may also abscond. The offences alleged are serious. Hence, sought to reject the petition.
13. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Special Public Prosecutor and the Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent-CBI.
14. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, during the course of the arguments, submitted that the petitioner is a dealer in iron ore and he has not at all involved in extracting the iron ore from the mines. The petitioner had purchased the iron ore by making payment to the bank account. The learned Counsel made the submission that accused Nos.16, 19 and 21 have been already granted bail by the Special Court. He submitted that the prosecution has not placed the materials regarding the location where exactly the mining operation is done. He also made submission that the petitioner is not the mining operator and that the firm i.e., M/s. Srinivasa Logistics, from whom the petitioner had purchased the iron ore is not arrayed as an accused person. The petitioner to whom i.e., M/s. Sri Srinivasa Minerals Trading Company has sold the iron ore, is already released on bail. The learned Counsel made the submission that there is no material placed by the prosecution to show that the petitioner has purchased the material from accused No.6. Looking to the prosecution material, it will not show that accused No.6 was involved in illegal mining or he was selling the iron ore. The learned Counsel draws the attention of this Court to the invoices produced in the case and made submission that there is no prima facie material placed by the prosecution to show the involvement of the petitioner in committing the alleged offence of conspiracy and other alleged offences. He submitted that the petitioner is also suffering from serious ailments and he is under continuous treatment. He further submitted that now investigation is completed and the charge sheet filed. The alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment of life. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel relied upon the decisions, which he has filed along with memo of authorities dated 6.6.2014.
15. As against this, learned Senior Counsel and Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-CBI, during the course of the arguments, submitted that though it is contended by the petitioner that he was purchasing the iron ore from M/s. Srinivasa Logistics and sold to M/s. Sri Srinivasa Minerals Trading Company, but the materials collected during investigation goes to show that the petitioner used to purchase the iron ore from accused No.6. The petitioner was selling the iron ore without permit issued by the concerned department. He submitted that the statement of witnesses recorded by the investigating Officer during investigation clearly goes to show that the present petitioner is also one of the conspirators in committing the alleged offences. He further submitted that the petitioner had not produced the permits during investigation and even he has not produced the permits along with the bail petition. He further submitted that the petitioner himself was printing the false invoices and also the permits and selling the iron ore. Since there is conspiracy between all the accused persons in committing the alleged offences and thereby there is a loss to the state exchequer in many crores of rupees, the petitioner is not entitled to be granted with bail. Hence, the learned SPP submitted to reject the bail petition. In support of his contention, the learned SPP has produced the citations along with memo of authorities dated 9.6.2014.
16. I have perused the averments made in the bail petitions, objection filed by the CBI to the bail application and the materials produced by both sides in support of their contentions and the charge sheet materials so also the decisions relied upon by learned counsel for petitioner and also the learned SPP for CBI which are referred above.
17. Let me referred to statement of witnesses recorded by the investigating officer during investigation pertaining to the transactions of the petitioner. The charge sheet witness No.118 is one Mr. K. Vijay, son of Veerabhadrappa Karadi whose statement has been recorded on 28.6.2013. In his statement, K. Vijay has stated that he is a graduate in B.Com., from Vijayanagar college, Hosptet in the year 2000 and thereafter, he started working in M/s. Prakash Printers belonging to his father Sri. K. Veerbhadrappa. His father started M/s. Prakash Printers in the year 1979-80 and he was looking after the affairs of the shop since 2000. He has shown the invoices of M/s. Sri Laxmi Venkateshwara Minerals, M/s. Bakhamarkandeswara Minerals and Sri. Manjunatheswar Minerals. He has further stated that during the period 2007 to 2010 Sri. Idly Yerriswamy, the partner and associate of Sri. Kenche Mahesh @ Karpudi Mahesh had requested him to print and supply the invoices, goods consignment notes, delivery challan, books etc. of M/s. Sri Lakshmi Venkateshwara Minerals and Trading Company, M/s. Bhakha Markandeshwar Minerals and Sri. Manjunatheswar Minerals, Sri. Lakshmivenkateshwar Transporter and contractors etc. Accordingly, he had printed the same at their printing press situated near Siddhivinayaka temple, near bus stand, Hospet. Thereafter, Idly Yerriswamy also requested him to print and furnish transit passes of the Department of Mines and Geology Government of Andhra Pradesh and informed him that he and his partner Sri. Karapudi Mahesh have got a firm in the name of Sri Venkateshwara Minerals and Trading Company P.S. No.5-3, 5-6, Malapanagudi village D. Hirehal Mandal, Ananthpur District. Whenever he went to the office for collecting the payment from Idly Yerriswamy or Kumar at their office near Bellary road circle, he used to meet accountant Dada Peer and collect the payments and he was paid in cash. Idly Yerriswamy and Kumar also used to get the invoices of M/s. Srilakshmi Venkateshwara Minerals, M/s. Bhakha Markandeshwar Minerals and Sri. Manjunatheswar Minerals as well as goods consignment notes, delivery challans, loading slips etc. from M/s. Pavan Digital Printers, Station Road, Hospet owned by Sri. Appaji Rao. He has further stated that Idly Yerriswamy is his classmate in PUC and B.Com. at Vijayangar college, Hospet during the period from 1994 to 2000.
18. C.W.119 Sri. Veerabhadrappa Karadi stated in his statement dated 1.7.2013 that he is the proprietor of M/s. Prakash Printers at Hospet. He is in the business of printing since 1979-80 and he started M/s. Prakash Printers. His elder son is K. Vijaykumar and younger son is K. Prakash Kumar. His elder son has been managing the affairs of the printing press since 2000 after completing B.Com. They print bill books, invoices, letter pads, goods consignments notes, loading slips, delivery challans, visiting cards, wedding cards etc. and they also make rubber stamps. On being shown the invoices of M/s. Srilakshmi Venkateshwara Minerals, M/s. Bhakha Markandeshwar Minerals and Sri. Manjunatheswar Minerals, etc. and on perusal of the same, he has stated that the same were printed in their press. The soft copies of the same are available in the hard disk seized by CBI on 28.6.2013. The aforesaid invoices were got printed by Idli Yerriswamy who is the class mate of his elder son K. Vijayakumar, when he was studying B.Com. In the further statement dated 10.10.2012, he has deposed that against the purchase No.DLC/PO/10-11/06 dated 1.4.2010 for supply of 20000 MT of iron ore fines, M/s. Sri. Srinivasa Minerals Trading Company had supplied a quantity of 19524 vide invoice No.3 dated 12.4.2010 which bears the signature of Sri. Mallikarjuna, Liaising Officer, M/s. Sri Srinivasa Minerals Trading Company. Against this supply, they had received payment vide three cheques which were deposited in the bank account No.00000010820656294 of M/s. Srinivasa Minerals Trading company , SBI, College Road, Hospet. They had sold the materials on Ex-Belekeri basis and they had purchased the aforesaid quantity of IOF from M/S. Jambunatheshwar Minerals on Ex-Belekeri basis for the purpose of export. They had paid to M/s. Jambunatheswar Minerals vide cheques of their account No.00000010820656294. He had produced photocopies of bulk permits No.143731 dated 24.2.2010 for 992 MT of IOF No.144053 dated 15.3.2010 for 2000 MT of IOF and No.144305 dated 26.3.2010 for 2000 MT. All the three issued to Sri. Lakshmi Venkateshwara Minerals. Hospet, for transport from Ingalgi to Belekeri.
19. C.W.205 - M. Prakash in his further statement dated 26.2.2014 has also stated that on being shown photocopies of bulk permits No.143731 dated 24.2.2010 for 992 MT of IOF No.144053 dated 15.3.2010 for 2000 MT of IOF and No.144305 dated 26.3.2010 for 2000 MT., all the three issued to Sri. Lakshmi Venkateshwara Minerals, Hospet, for transport from Ingalgi to Belekeri which were submitted by him to CBI. On being asked, he has stated that the said bulk permits were sent to their office by Idly Yerriswamy, subsequently after they requested for the same. Idly Yerriswamy had not given any permits at the time of supply of iron ore. On being asked whether the iron ore sold to M/s. DLC was loaded from Ingalgi as mentioned in the said bulk permits and the iron ore sold to M/s. DLC was loaded at Kineta plot, Narendra Plot and near a Weigh Bridge on Sandur-Hospet road in Venkatigiri village.
20. C.W.206 Sri. B. Mallikarjuna Rao in his statement on 26.2.2014 has stated that he joined as an Office Assistant in M/s. Sri. Srinivasa Mineral Trading Company in the year 2004-05. The said company is in the business of iron ore trading since 2004-05. They were also exporting iron ore. Sri. Y. Srinivasa Rao was only dealing with various suppliers of iron ore. With regard to the iron ore purchased from M/s. Sri. Jambunatheswara Minerals, Sri. Y. Srinivas Rao only dealt with the supplier. Sri. Srinivasa Rao and himself talk to Sri. Karapudi Mahesh regarding the said supply. he has furhte stated that Karapudi Mahesh who was supplying the iron ore had offered him to supply iron ore around 50,000 MT to Belekeri from Venkatagiri area. He told him to issue the purchase orders in the name of Sri. Jambunatheswara Minerals and accordingly, he issued the purchase orders after informing the managing partners Y. Srinivasa Rao, who has directed the same. Karapudi Mahesh and Idly Yerriswamy, the proprietor of M/s. Jambunatheswara Minerals are close associates and worked together and they supplied the materials as per invoice No.009 dated 2.1.2010 for the quantity of 20000 MTs. They had issued the cheques i.e, at Sl. Nos.1 to 8 as mentioned in his statement. The said cheques were issued by Sri. Srinvasa Rao in favour of M/s. Jambunatheshwara Minerals. Karapudi Mahesh had told him that cash had to be withdrawn and paid to Mr. Ali Khan as the material belongs to them. He has further stated that as per the direction of Sri. Srinvasa Rao, sometimes, he withdraws the cash using the self cheques issued by Idli Yerriswamy and handed over the cash to Karapudi Mahesh. Later, Karapudi Mahesh went to Bellari to hand over cash in the month of June and July 2010 to Mr. Ali Khan, P.A. of Sri. G. Janardhana Reddy at Kuteera the residence of G. Janardhana Reddy at Bellary. He has also stated that apart from Rs.1,500 per Metric Tonne paid to bank account as per the direction of Sri. Srinivas Rao, he also paid an amount of Rs.200/- per metric tonne in cash to Karapudi Mahesh and Idli Yerriwamy towards risk transportation as per the direction of Sri. Srinivasa Rao. The said bulk permits were sent to their office by Idli Yerriwamy. Subsequently, after they requested for the same and .had not given any permits at the time of supply of iron ore. On being asked whether the iron ore sold to M/s. DLC was loaded from Ingalgi as mentioned in the said bulk permits, he has stated that iron ore sold to M/s. DLC was loaded at Kineta plot , Naredra plot and near a Weigh Bridge on Sandur-Hospet Road in the village.
21. C.W.215 Mr. Sadashiva in his statement dated 16.1.2014 has stated that he is the partner of M/s. Lakshmi Venkateshwara Minerals Private Limited and his younger brother Sri. Karapudi Mahesh and his friend Idly Yerriswamy had started a firm in the name of Sri. Lakshmivenkateshwara Minerals in the year 2007-08 for the purpose of doing iron ore business. At that time, they have also included him as partner to the said firm and he is the other younger brother Sri. K. Kumar. All the business affairs of the said firm was done by Karapudi Mahesh and Idly Yerriswamy. They never involved him and his brother Kumar at any point of time to the business made to the said firm. However, he was one of the signatories for signing cheques of the bank maintained with Axis Bank, Laxmi Vilas Bank, Hospet branch in the name of M/s.SLVM. He further stated about the risk movement and collection of risk money from the traders and supply of iron ore on behalf of G. Janardhana Reddy and Ali khan. He has stated that he does not have any knowledge of said movement and collection and his brother was doing risk movement along with Sri. Swasthika Nagaraj during 2009-10 on behalf of G. Jnarhdan Reddy and Ali Khan. Idly Yerriswamy was also closely associated with his younger brother Karapudi Mahesh in risk movement. During 2009-10, around 30-40 boys were working with Karapudi Mahesh and Idly Yerriswamy and they used to assist them in their risk movements.
22. C.W.216 one Sri. K. Kumar, partner of Sri. Lakshmi Venkateswara Minerals Private Limited in his statement dated 10.12.2013 has stated that his brother Karapudi Mahesh and his friend Idly Yerriswamy have formed a firm in the name of M/s. Sri Lakshmi Venkateshwara Minerals in the year 2007-08 for the purpose of doing iron ore and at that time, they have also included him and his younger brother Sadashiva as partner in the said firm. However, all the business affairs of the said firm was done by Karapudi Mahesh and Idly Yerriswamy. They never involved him and his brother Sadashiva at any point of time in the business made through the said firm. His brother K Sadasiva and K Maheshkuamr @ Karapudi Mahesh are the authored signatories for signing the cheques of the bank account maintained in Axis Bank and Laxmivilas Bank Hospet branch in the name of M/s.SLVM. He has also stated about risk movement and collection of risk money from traders and suppliers of iron ore on behalf of Sri. G. Janardhana Reddy and Ali khan. He does not have any knowledge about the said movement and collection and his younger brother was doing risk movement along with Swastik Nagaraj during 2009-10 on behalf of G. Janardhana Reddy and Ali Khan. Idly Yerriswamy was also closely associated with his younger brother Karapudi Mahesh in risk movement. The invoices of various firms were being got printed by Idly Yerriswamy from M/s. Prakash Printers, Hospet and the other printers.
23. Perusing the charge sheet materials by way of statement of witnesses and the documents produced by the respondent-CBI, they prima facie go to show involvement of the present petitioner in the commission of the alleged offences. Looking to the materials on record and the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is only a dealer in the iron ore and he was not doing the mining operations, cannot be accepted at all. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the present petitioner purchased 40000 MT of iron ore and has sold 20000 MT to M/s. Srinivas Mineral Trading Company and 10000 MT of iron ore to each two other firms i.e., M/s. ILC Industries Ltd and M/s. S.B. Logistics and except that he has not at all purchased any other quantity of iron ore nor has he indulged in the transportation of the iron ore to any other persons. It is also his contention that he has produced invoices to show that the petitioner has purchased only aforesaid quantity of iron ore and sold the same to different persons. Considering the material collected during investigation, it is altogether different. The material goes to show that the petitioner was not at all having the permits issued by the Department of Mines and Geology permitting him to transport any specific quantity of the iron ore. The statement of witnesses recorded during investigation goes to show that when he transported iron ore at that time, permit was not given, but subsequently, and on the request of the purchasers, he gave the permits. It is also stated by the witnesses that looking to the said permits also, the place of loading the iron ore is also not tallying with the place as contended by the petitioner. There is evidence to show prima facie that the petitioner along with another accused Karapudi Mahesh so also Gali Janardhana Reddy and his PA Ali Khan involved in getting the invoices, permits through the printing press.
24. In this connection, the charge sheet witnesses about whose statement I have made a reference prima facie goes to show the allegations of the prosecution for the commission of the alleged offences by the petitioner. It is the allegation of the prosecution that the present petitioner has not produced the permits, which he is said to have obtained from the competent authority, before the investigating officer and even he has not produced those permits before the Court also, while seeking his release on bail. For this, the contention of the learned counsel of the petitioner is that while selling the iron ore, he has already transferred the permits into the hands of the purchasers and it is the ultimate purchasers who are supposed to have the permits and not the present petitioner. Even if it is so, at least the petitioner could have produced the copies of the said permits or at least the acknowledgements from the purchasers of the iron ore stating that they have received the permits from the petitioner. As I have already observed above that the statement of witnesses is very clear that when he sold the iron ore to the different firms, he has not transferred the permits to the purchasers. There is also prima facie materials that he was the one of the partners of Sri. Lakshmi Venkateshwara Trading Company and he along with one Karapudi Mahesh were also collecting Rs.200/- per MT of iron ore towards risk transportation charges. The materials also go to show prima facie that there is conspiracy between the petitioner, Karapudi Mahesh, the accused Gali Janardhana Reddy in the mining operation and transportation of the iron ore. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner though contended that he has purchased the iron ore from M/s. Srinivasa Logistics, the said firm is not made as an accused person. It is the aspect to be taken into consideration by the trial court while trying the case and even if it is contended that M/s. Srinivasa Logistics is not made as an accused person, the said ground cannot be considered to say that the petitioner also should not have been arrayed as an accused person in this case.
25. Regarding the decisions relied upon by both the sides and the principles enunciated therein, I have gone through the said decisions. Before taking the assistance of any of the decisions relied upon by the respective parties, the Court has to consider the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the nature of the allegations made, seriousness of the offences, the punishment for the alleged offences, etc.
26. Even in the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon by learned Counsel for the petitioner in case of SANJAY CHANDRA VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION reported in (2012)1 SCC 40, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also observed that each case however has to be decided on its own merits. Therefore, the facts and circumstances collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation are to be considered as to whether the petitioner is entitled to be granted with bail. In another decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in case of Y.S. JAGAN MOHAN REDDY Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION reported in (2013)7 SCC 439, their Lordships have observed at para 34 of the said judgment that economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with different approach in the matter of bail. This observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court goes to show that the Court has to see the seriousness of the offence and the magnitude of the amount involved in the case and thereby, loss to the public exchequer which is to be taken into consideration while dealing with the bail applications. Considering the materials collected during investigation, the contention of the present petitioner that there is no prima facie case made out by the prosecution about his involvement in the case cannot be accepted. There are serious allegations and there is a prima facie material that even he is involved in getting the invoices, goods consignment notes, delivery challan, books, loading slips, etc. printed in the press. When there are materials to show about these allegations, it cannot be said that the petitioner has not involved in the mining operation and he is only the dealer in selling the quantity of 40,000 MT iron ore and not more than that.
27. It is also the contention of the petitioner that he is suffering from ailments and he is not keeping the good health. It is his further contention that he has been referred to the doctors for treatment and he is in continuous treatment. Hence, on medical ground also, he is seeking his release in all the three petitions. In this connection, I have perused the documents produced at Annexure-F dated 17.1.2014 issued from Shekar Hospital, Bull Temple Road Bangalore addressing to the Medical Officer, Central Jail, Parappana Agrahara. In the said letter, it is stated that he was treated accordingly and he has recovered partially. He needs to be evaluated for back ache, if symptoms persist. He also needs colonoscopy, if bleeding persists. Along with the said letter, the said hospital has also issued the discharge summary. In the said discharge summary, it is observed by the Doctor that patient is stable now and can be discharged in stable condition. I have also perused the medical records dated 26.9.2013 of Central Prison, Bangalore and the extract of the out patient book. Perusing those entries, they are pertaining to the different dates of the year 2013. But the discharge summary which is a recent document issued on 17.1.2014 shows that the condition of the patient is stable and looking to the said condition, the hospital has discharged the petitioner. Therefore, this also goes to show that there is no such serious condition of the petitioner and the records also goes to show that the prison authorities are taking proper medical care about the health condition of the present petitioner. Therefore, on that ground also, the petitioner is not entitled to be granted with bail.
27. Looking to all these materials on record, I am of the opinion that prosecution has prima facie established its case against the present petitioner and he is not entitled to be granted with bail. Accordingly, all the petitions are rejected.