Breaking News Illegal iron ore mining case: Supreme Court reserves judgement

Illegal iron ore mining case: Supreme Court reserves judgement

-

New Delhi, Oct 26 (ILNS) The Supreme Court has reserved its verdict in a petition challenging the cognizance taken by the Special Court for Lokayukta cases in a charge sheet filed by SIT in an illegal iron ore mining case.

A bench of Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice Vikram Nath, and Justice B.V. Nagarathna today reserved judgment in an appeal challenging the order of the Karnataka High Court. Passed by Justice John Michael Cunha declining to quash the cognizance of offences taken by a special court against the directors and the partners of various firms/companies in illegal sale and transportation of iron ore, without procuring necessary permit and payment of requisite fees and charges to the department, the case is based on the charge sheets

filed by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) of the Lokayukta Police. The accused have allegedly caused a total loss of Rs 3,27,83,379 to the State Exchequer.

The case of the petitioner is that during the time of alleged illegal mining, the petitioner was not present in the country and it was 2nd director who got himself involved in the trading with three other persons who are also arrayed as accused in the said charge-sheet. It is stated that the accused who was transporting the material were responsible for taking the permit. However, the same was made clear when the agreement was perused by the High Court and it was found that the responsibility was on the 2nd director of the company.

Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, today argued that the order of taking cognizance by the learned Special Judge reflects total non-application of mind. He submitted that the offences for which the cognizance was taken and summons was issued to the petitioner is not mentioned in the order of the special judge. He further submitted that the Special Judge had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence under the provisions of the MMDR act for want of complaint by the authorized officers.

The senior counsel argued that the Court of Session could not have taken cognizance since it is not the court of original jurisdiction as enunciated under Section 193 CrPC. 

“Section 193 in the Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973/ILNS/SNG/

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Latest news

Illegal iron ore mining case: Supreme Court reserves judgement

New Delhi, Oct 26 (ILNS) The Supreme Court has reserved its verdict in a petition challenging the...

Delhi HC will hear a plea against the release of the film ‘Faraaz’ based on the 7/16 Bangladesh Attack

New Delhi, Oct 26 (ILNS) The Delhi High Court today has adjourned its hearing in a suit...

Calcutta HC hopes agitating interns, students don’t trouble facilities at RG Kar Medical College

Kolkata, Oct 26 (ILNS) The Calcutta High Court on Monday said, We hope that the agitating students...

Bombay HC adjourns Aryan Khan bail hearing to Wednesday

Mumbai, Oct 26 (ILNS) The Bombay High Court today extended Aryan Khan’s bail hearing by another day....

Delhi High Court notes dismal affairs at CGIT for holding hearings through video conferencing

New Delhi, Oct 23 (ILNS) The Delhi High Court expressed dismay over the lack of adequate infrastructure...

Delhi High Court seeks response from registry over delay in trial in NIA cases

New Delhi, Oct 26 (ILNS) The Delhi High Court has recently granted time to its registry for...

Must read

You might also likeRELATED
Recommended to you