Judgment :- This Criminal Petition is filed U/S 482 CR.P.C Seeking to Quash the FIR NO.189/2010 dated 08-06-2010 (Vide Annexure-D) registered by the Ankola Pollice Uttara Kannada district, (pursuant to P.C.NO.4/10 dated 03-06-2010 before JMFC, ANKOLA Vide Annexure-B The Criminal Petition is filed U/S 482 CR.P.C Seeking to Quash the Entrie Proceedings in P.C.NO.54/2010 on the file of JMFC, ANKOLA and quash the FIR NO.189/2010 at Annexure-the registered by the ANKOLA Police.) These three petitions under Section 482, Cr. P.C. are directed against initiation of prosecution against the petitioners in various cases registered on the file of the jurisdictional magistrate, for offences under the provisions of Karnataka Forest Act and also Indian Penal Code. As common questions of law and facts arise for consideration, the petitions are clubbed to be disposed of by this common order. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the State and examined records in supplementation thereto. 3. The contentious issues urged by both sides shall be referred to while dealing with the relevant questions in the following paragraphs. However, a brief reference to the factual matrix needing reference is as follows. a) Crl. P.7645/10 is by four petitioners, urging common grievance. The 1st Petitioner – ILC Industries Limited, 2nd petitioner-Ashapura Minechem Limited and 4th petitioner-PJS Overseas Limited are companies incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1956, while the 3rd petitioner-Doddanavar Brothers is a partnership concern. b) Petitioner no.1 claims to be a reputed two-star export house engaged in the business of exporting minerals including iron ore after outsourcing from miners through proper approved channels after obtaining valid permits. The quantity of iron ore involved is 1,30,000 metric tonnes (MT) stacked in the stockyard of Sri Mallikarjuna Shipping Private Limited (SMSPL). Petitioner no.2 claims to be a company engaged in export of minerals and iron ore after purchasing it from Vaishnavi Minerals, Hospet, mined from their site at vyasanekere. The quantity of iron ore involved is 50,000 MT. The 3rd petitioner, partnership firm claims to be the owner of a mine engaged in export of iron ore. The quantity of iron ore involved is 30,000 WMT of iron ore fines of Grade 58% and 20,000 WMT of iron ore fines of Grade 63.5%. The quantity of iron ore involved is 50,000 MT. The 3rd petitioner, partnership firm claims to be the owner of a mine engaged in export of iron ore. The quantity of iron ore involved is 30,000 WMT of iron ore fines of Grade 58% and 20,000 WMT of iron ore fines of Grade 63.5%. The 4th petitioner also claims to be an exported of minerals and iron ore purchased from various suppliers like Bharath Trading Company, Sandeep Enterprises, Anagha Enterprises and Shri Gajanana Logistics. The quantity of iron ore involved is 16,000 MT. C) All the petitioners claim they have, after acquiring ore in the manner aforesaid, obtained permits from the Department of Mines and geology. Petitioner no.2 has produced permits granted to it from the Forest Department vide Annexure-T series dated 6.1.2010 and 25.1.2010 appended to the petition. Similarly, the 3rd petitioner claims to have obtained permits from the Forest Department for exporting the said quantity of ore. Likewise, the 4th petitioner has put up a similar plea. d) it is the case of the petitioners that the iron ore in question is sourced from mines which are licenced within forest mines as well as licenced from non-forest area. Iron ore business involves at all times various intermediaries; mine owners sell the iron ore to various traders or intermediaries and a significant quantity of iron ore is bought by traders and exported to China and in Karnataka is shipped from Mangalore, Karwar and Belekere ports. e) Belekere port is situate in Uttara Kannada and it is notified under Section 7(a) of the Customs Act as a Customs Notified Port. A copy of the notification is produced at Annexure-A. Karwar and Belekere ports are not ‘all- weather ports’ and before the advent of monsoon and during monsoon, the ports are shut down and in this year, i.e. 2010, the port was notified to be closed for export activity from 15.5.2010. However, closure was effected on 28.5.2010. f) The Government has appointed various stevedores or approved handling agents of customs and ports authorities which have their own stocking yard within the precincts of Belekere Port. SMSPL is one such handing agent and other handling agents are Adani Enterprises Limited, Salagaocar Mining Industries Pvt. Limited and Raj Mahal Silks. However, closure was effected on 28.5.2010. f) The Government has appointed various stevedores or approved handling agents of customs and ports authorities which have their own stocking yard within the precincts of Belekere Port. SMSPL is one such handing agent and other handling agents are Adani Enterprises Limited, Salagaocar Mining Industries Pvt. Limited and Raj Mahal Silks. These agents acts as facilitators for the purpose of import and export and provide infrastructure like jetties, shelter, road and other basic amenities at their cost, for stacking or storing cargo for inspection and verification of Customs authorities. g) Petitioners urge that the respondent, viz., Range Forest Officer, Ankola, uttara Kannada, registered a case in FCR.17/09-10 on 15.3.2010 and seized consignments stacked by the petitioners (of various quantity) at Belekere port, vide seizure report dated 20.3.2010. Copies of the same are produced at Annexures-B and C respectively. h) In the follow-up action on 26.3.2010, petitioners were informed by the handling agent that customs authorities had suspended export operations without furnishing details, except the communication on 25.3.2010 of Assistant Commissioner of Customs as well as Superintendent of Customs vide Annexures-D and E. An undated letter was issued by the Forest Officer to the Port Conservator asking him to maintain necessary records along with the cancelled way permits for further action. Letter No.984/09-10 vide Annexure-F is relied by them to show that a blanket suspension of export activity has been effected. i) The 1st petitioner, aggrieved by the act of the respondent filed W.P. 10347/10 and obtained an interim order, permitting export of ore covered by the permits. They allege as per the narration in FIR 17/09-10, 5,00,000 MT of Iron ore at Belekere Port was reported to have been seized but the petitioners herein were not accused of having indulged in any criminal activity, much less any of the offences indicated in the FCR. The FIR was registered only against the Port Officer. The offences alleged against him are under the provisions of Sections 2(7) (b) (iv), 62, 80 of the Forest Act, 1963, read with Rules 143 and 162 of the Forest Rules, 1969. Aggrieved by the seizure they filed an application under Sections 451 and 457, Cr. P.C. in Crime No.17/09-10 for release of iron ore seized as per seizure report dated 20.3.2010. Aggrieved by the seizure they filed an application under Sections 451 and 457, Cr. P.C. in Crime No.17/09-10 for release of iron ore seized as per seizure report dated 20.3.2010. In support thereof, petitioners put up a common plea that on closure of the port, they were entitled to take possession of iron ore, but it was declined. Referring to the order passed in the writ petition stated above, it is urged though this court directed release of the Iron ore, the Forest Officer failed to comply with the direction. Instead, they filed an application vide Annexure-A dated 29.5.2010, seeking extension of time to release the ore. In the said application, the Department did not refer to the alleged seizure of iron ore on 20.3.2010 as was reported in FCR.17/09-10. j) Despite efforts of the petitioners to impress upon the authorities (including the complainant) that despite court order to release, the seizure report was illegal and in terms of the direction of this court, they were required to hand over interim custody of iron ore to them, the officers failed. It is assertively urged by all the petitioners that in terms of the directions issued by the High Court by its interim order dated 31.3.2010 in W.P. 10347/10, and their willingness to furnish indemnity bond towards the value of one owned by each of the petitioners, the officers of the Forest Department have failed to release the quantity of ore. k) The petitioners have seriously questioned the legality of initiated of prosecution as well as alleged seizure on the ground that it is in contravention of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure relating to investigation of cases relating to non-cognizable offence and seizure of properties. To substantiate illegality in the action of the respondent, they highlight the incompetence of the officers to initiate prosecution or seizure, referring to Section 155(2) of Cr. P.C. l) In this regard, they contend that on 13.4.2010, a meeting was held by the officers of the State in the chambers of Principal Secretary to Government, Department of Forest, Ecology and Environment, regarding seizure of iron ore in Karwar and Belekere ports and further action. P.C. l) In this regard, they contend that on 13.4.2010, a meeting was held by the officers of the State in the chambers of Principal Secretary to Government, Department of Forest, Ecology and Environment, regarding seizure of iron ore in Karwar and Belekere ports and further action. In the said meeting, the officers having realized that registration of the case and seizure was not legal, addressed a letter on 26.4.2010 to the concerned department under the signature of the Principal Secretary, Department of Forest, Ecology and Environment, enclosing a copy of the proceedings of the meeting on 26.4.2010(A and B,), that there was no prescribed system or rule for investigation and seizure and that it proposes to formulate some mechanism for future action. Thus, it is urged that seizure is per se illegal and contrary to the Customs Act and Foreign Trade Policy of the Government of India. m) As things stood thus, newspapers carried a report that the seized cargo of various exporters has been illegally transported after seizure. Acting on the newspaper report dated 6.6.2010 and 9.6.2010 (vide SC and AD), petitioners on their part instructed SMSPL to appoint an independent agency to ascertain whether there was any export activity subsequent to the alleged seizure and that report was negative. n) In the meantime, another FIR in Crime No.189/10 is registered against the Port Officer for the offence punishable under Section 406 and 379 I.P.C. in which several exporters including the petitioners are arraigned as co-accused. The FIR is at AE. They seek quashing of FIR No.17/09-10 dated 15.3.2010 vide Annexure-B on the file of JMFC, Ankola, as also seizure report dated 20.3.2010 vide Annexure-C and they further seek quashing of proceedings dated 12.4.2010 vide Annexure-K rejecting their application under Section 451 and 457, Cr.P.C. for release of 97,549.080 MT of iron ore. These are the prayers in Crl. P.7645/10. o) Crl.P.7646/10 is by the same petitioners are on the same Petitioners and on the same grounds seek quashing of proceedings initiated against them in FCR. 189/10 (arising out of Pc.54/10 dated 3.6.2010) vide Annexure-D on the file of JMFC, Ankola. p) Cril.P. 7673/10 is by M/s Adani Enterprises Limited which is neither the mine owner nor importer or exporter but claims to be a licenced stevedore. It claims to have obtained lease of an area within the limits of Belekere Port. 189/10 (arising out of Pc.54/10 dated 3.6.2010) vide Annexure-D on the file of JMFC, Ankola. p) Cril.P. 7673/10 is by M/s Adani Enterprises Limited which is neither the mine owner nor importer or exporter but claims to be a licenced stevedore. It claims to have obtained lease of an area within the limits of Belekere Port. Being a licencee, it provides infrastructure facilities like jetty, shelter, approach roads to the jetty and other basic amenities to exporters. It relies on Annexure-A, a contract entered into with owners/exporters of iron ore for providing services for shipping of iron ore from the port. Petitioner urges that on 15.3.2010, the Section Forester, Ankola, registered FCR.17/09-10 under the provisions of Karnataka Forest Act and Rules there under and seized stored iron ore under mahazar on ‘as-is where-is basis and handed it over to the Conservator, Belekere Port, for safe custody on 20.3.2010. It contends that iron ore fines seized by the Forest Department-respondent no.2 in this petition, belong to various clients of the petitioner to the tune of 93,079.21 MT. It’s communication dated 15.4.2010 to the Port Conservator furnished names of clients who owned the ore, and the necessary information is at Annexures-2. Three of the clients in Annexure-A, viz., Greentech, ILC Industries Limited and Ashapura Minichem, approached the High Court in W.P. 10349/10, 14551/10 and 145529/10 and obtained interim order on 31.3.2010, directing the respondents to permit petitioner’s clients (exporters and clients of the petitioner), vide Annexure-B, Similar order was passed in W.P.14551/10 dated 4.5.2010 directing release of 33,000 MT of iron ore which is at Annexure-C. It is urged in all, 17,549.08 MT of ore was seized by respondent no.2 and kept in the custody of the 3rd respondent vide Annexure-D. As per the interim order, the exporters informed the petitioner to load the cargo into the vessel after obtaining necessary clearance. Despite it, the respondent restrained export of ore and failed to release the same. q) It is further urged the iron ore seized was under permit granted by Forest Department, Customs clearance was also obtained which is at E-8; similar clearance are at E-9, E-10 and E-11. Petitioner contends each of the shipping bills contain the endorsement “Let export”. It was issued in favour of ILC Industries which is at Annexure-12 and is supported by the bill dated 1.4.2010. Petitioner contends each of the shipping bills contain the endorsement “Let export”. It was issued in favour of ILC Industries which is at Annexure-12 and is supported by the bill dated 1.4.2010. Petitioner furnished details of alls hipping permits in paragraph 5 of the petition details of which need not be incorporated in this order. r) In short, petitioner’s contention is that under various permits and Customs clearance, iron ore fines stacked in Belekere Port on the leased portion was lawful and there was no illegality. s) Referring to the fact situation, it is urged that on 4.6.2010 the Assistant Conservator of Forest, Ankola Sub-division, filed a private complaint before JMFC, Kurnta, iincharge of JMFC Ankola, for the offences under Sections 2 (7)(b)(iv), 62,80,24(e) of the forest Act, 1963 and for contravention of provisions of Rules 143,162 of the Forest Rules. The learned magistrate registered it as P.C.54/10 and referred the same to PSI, Ankola, under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. The report is awaited by 26.7.2010. Consequent to such order, 2nd respondent herein submitted a detailed complaint on 7.6.2010 to the 1st respondent which is at Annexure-G, containing allegations against one Mahesh bile, Port Conservator, Belekere Port, Ankola, for the offences under Sections 405,406,379, Cr.P.C. Similarly, the complainant ahs leveled allegations against the petitioner company and 11 others for the offence 379, I.P.C and the petitioner is arraigned as accused no.3 in page 4 of the complaint. It is further urged that on 8.6.21010 the 1st respondent registered FCT. 0189/10 for the offence under Section 406, Cr.P.C. against Mahesh Bile, Port Conservator, Belekere Port, Ankola, vide Annexure-H. On 9.6.2010 1st respondent sent a report to JMFC incharge of Ankola vide Annexure-3 which according them is wholly illegal. t) The petitioner has therefore, questioned registration of FIR against it for the offence under Section 379, I.P.C in FCR.189/10 in which the Port Officer, Mr. Mahesh Bile is charged. It is contended that registration of case against it is per se illegal as the allegation in the complaint does not reveal commission of any offence. The petitioner company being a juristic person, such action is untenable. For the offence of theft, only a natural person as envisaged under Section 378, I.P.C could be charged. u) The second ground urged is, complaint filed by the 2nd respondent shows petitioner company is roped in, without mentioning the basis for creating vicarious liability. The petitioner company being a juristic person, such action is untenable. For the offence of theft, only a natural person as envisaged under Section 378, I.P.C could be charged. u) The second ground urged is, complaint filed by the 2nd respondent shows petitioner company is roped in, without mentioning the basis for creating vicarious liability. The third ground urged is, respondent no.2 knowing fully that the seized cargo belonged to various clients of the petitioner who are exporters, and in whose favour the High Court had granted an interim order vide Annexures B, C an D, has illegally registered then case. So far as the petitioner is concerned, the ingredients which constitute the offence under Section 378, I.P.C. are not made out. The fourth ground urged is, the role of the petitioner company in the alleged theft is not indicated. 4. In support of the grounds urged in Crl.P.76451/10 to seek quashing of FCR.17/09-10 and grounds in Crl.P.7646/10 seeking quashing of FCR. 189/09, learned counsel, Sri Thiruvengadam has raised the following grounds: I) The complaint in FCR. 17/09-10 was registered on 15.3.2010 against the Port Officer who is public servant, without obtaining prior permission and is thus, in contravention of Section 197, Cr.P.C. and is liable to be quashed. II) The investigation in FCR.17/09-10 dated 15.3.2010 could not have been taken up without prior permission of the jurisdictional magistrate as the offences alleged are all non-cognizable. III) That the 1st respondent complainant in FCR.17/09-10 on 15.3.2010, could not have seized iron ore fines without the permission of the magistrate as it relates to a non-cognizable offence. IV) The complaint does not disclose the role of the petitioners as to commission of the alleged offences and there is no prima facie material brought on record for sustaining the FIR or grant of permission to investigate. V) Iron ore stacked by the petitioners was in the lawful ownership for which they had relevant documents like Forest permit and Customs clearance. V) Iron ore stacked by the petitioners was in the lawful ownership for which they had relevant documents like Forest permit and Customs clearance. VI) The 1st petitioner (ILC Industries) claims iron ore in stack no.13 and 14 to the tune of 33,000 MT; 2nd petitioner (Ashpura Minichem Limited) claims its ore is in stack no.2 to the tune of 17,549.08 MT;3rd petitioner (Doddanavar Brothers) claims ore is in stack no.15 to the tune of 31,000 MT; and the 4th petitioner (PJS Overseas Limited) claims its ore is in stack no.5 to the tune of 16,000 MT, in all, 97,549.08 MT. It is urged, the High Court has granted permission to transport and therefore, the FIR was registered illegally. VII) The complaint is illegal per se as no seizure can be effected in contravention of Section 11(i) read with Sec. 7 of the Customs Act. VIII) No seizure can be effected in Customs Notified Area and the customs Act prevails over any other law including the Karnataka Forest Act which is state enactment. IX) That the petitioners have not been arraigned as accused in the complaint before the JMFC, Ankola, nor any case is made out against them. Therefore, the stock cannot be seized. X) The complaint filed by the respondent does not specify the role of the petitioners in commission of the alleged offences and therefore, when they are not persons against whom the case is registered, their property is not liable to be seized. XI) Neither the mahazar nor any other material relied on by the Range Forest Officer indicates involvement of the petitioners. He has no jurisdiction or authority to seize the material stacked in Customs/Notified Area. XII) The seizure contravenes caluses 2.42 and 2.42.1 of the Foreign Trade Policy of the Government of India(AG). XIII) According to the Asst. Commissioner of Customs, Seizure is per se illegal and is contrary to law. The complaint itself is contrary to law and the Forest Act and Rules made under which cannot override the Central enactment which fall within the Union List of the Constitution. Hence, the act of the respondent is ultra vires the Constitution of India. XIV) On account of seizure, irreparable hardship has been caused the petitioners which cannot be quantified in terms of money. The complaint is not maintainable against the Port Officer who is in Government service and in custody of the goods. Hence, the act of the respondent is ultra vires the Constitution of India. XIV) On account of seizure, irreparable hardship has been caused the petitioners which cannot be quantified in terms of money. The complaint is not maintainable against the Port Officer who is in Government service and in custody of the goods. XV) The Seizure report is not accompanies by any detailed and thus is unsustainable. XVI) The compliant is not maintainable as admittedly the State has no mechanism to document transportation of minerals as noticed in the meeting held by the Principal Secretary to Government Department of Forest, Ecology and Environment. On this basis, Sri Thiruvengadam seeks quashing of FCR.17/09-10 and FCR.189/09 5. As regards Crl.P.7673/10, learned senior advocate for the petitioner, Sri Ravi B.Naik, has sought quashing of the Fir registered against M/s Adani Enterprises, firstly questioning the competence of Forest Department officers to investigation offences which fall within the competence of police officer named in the code of Criminal Procedure. The main ground of challenge posed by him I, the FIR has been registered against the company for the offence under Section 379,I.P.C. Such a charge is untenable as the Charge is untenable as the complaint for the offence of theft can be filed only against a natural person as envisaged under Section 378, I.P.C. In the complaint, no statement is made that could constitute an allegation against the petitioner regarding the alleged theft of iron ore which charge is actually leveled against Mahesh Bile, Port Officer. The other ground 6of challenge posed by him are already referred to in paragraphs supra which I shall refer to subsequently. 6. Learned counsel, Sri Thiruvengadam and designated senior advocate, Sri Ravi B.Naik seek citational support to their contentions from the following case laws: a) STATE OF WEST BENGAL & OTHERS .v. SWAPANKUMAR GUHI (1982 (1) SCC 569) wherein the apex court referring to Section 157, held police investigation is cognizable only if FIR prima facie discloses commission of a cognizable offence. Where such an offence is not disclosed, the court is justified in interfering with investigation and quashing the same in exercise of power conferred by Article 226 and 136 of the Constitution of India. b) STATE OF HARYANA .v. BHAJANLAL (1992 Supp. Where such an offence is not disclosed, the court is justified in interfering with investigation and quashing the same in exercise of power conferred by Article 226 and 136 of the Constitution of India. b) STATE OF HARYANA .v. BHAJANLAL (1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335) wherein in para 102 (4) the apex court held that where the allegation in the FIR did not constitute a cognizable offence, but only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by the police officer without the order o f the magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2), Cr.P.C. C) PEPSI FOODS LIMITED & ANOTHER .v. SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE & OTHERS ( 1998 (5) SCC 749 ) wherein the apex court, dealing with the question as to whether under Section 482, Cr.P.C., quashing of proceedings pending investigation is permissible, referred to the High Court’s power to quash criminal proceedings in exercise of power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 482, Cr.P.C. and held: The High Court can exercise its power of judicial review in criminal matters. Under Article 227 of the Constitution, power of superintendence by the High Court is not only of administrative nature but is also of judicial nature. This article confers vast powers on the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of law by inferior courts and to see that the stream of administration of justice remains clean and pure. The power conferred on the High Court under Article 227 and under Section 482, Cr.P.C, have no limits; more the power, more due care and caution is to be exercised while invoking these powers. When the exercise of powers could be under Article 227 or Section 482 of the Code, it may not always be necessary to invoke the provisions of Article 226. ……. When the exercise of powers could be under Article 227 or Section 482 of the Code, it may not always be necessary to invoke the provisions of Article 226. ……. No doubt the magistrate can discharge an accused at any stage of the trial if he considers the charge to be groundless, but that does not mean, accused cannot approach the High Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C. or Article 227 of the Constitution to have the proceedings quashed against him when the complaint does not make out any case against him, and still he must undergo the agony of criminal trail.’ d) STATE OF ORISSA .v. DEBENDRANATH PADDHI ( 2005 SCC 568 ) wherein at paragraph 29 of the judgment, the apex court held: Accused having to face trial despite being in a position to produce material of unimpeachable character of sterling quality, the width of power of the High Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C. and Article 226 of the Constitution is unlimited whereunder in the interest of justice, the High Court can make such orders as may be necessary to prevent abuse of the process of the court, or otherwise, to secure the needs of justice within the parameters laid down in Bhajanlal’s case. e) In KEKI HORMUSJI GHARDA & OTHERS .v.S MEHERVAN RUSTOM IRANI & ANOTHER (2009 (6) (475) in paragraph 17 of the judgment, dealing with the question as to what is ‘vicarious liability’ it held: Commission of an offence by raising legal fiction or by creating vicarious liability in terms of the provision of the statue must be expressly stated. The managing director or directors of the company, thus, cannot be said to have committed the offence only because they are holders of offices. The magistrate, therefore, in the opinion of the apex court, was not correct in issuing summons without taking into consideration all such matters. The managing director and directors of the company should not have been summoned only because some allegations were made against the company but not against them individually. f) MAQSUD SAIYED .v. STATE OF GUJARATH & OTHERS (2008 (6) SCC 668) wherein the apex court on the same question of vicarious liability of the directors held that the charge leveled against the company was untenable in the absence of adequate allegation with regard to the ingredients of the offence and with regard to correct statutory provision. f) MAQSUD SAIYED .v. STATE OF GUJARATH & OTHERS (2008 (6) SCC 668) wherein the apex court on the same question of vicarious liability of the directors held that the charge leveled against the company was untenable in the absence of adequate allegation with regard to the ingredients of the offence and with regard to correct statutory provision. g) IN SUDARSHAN MANCHANDA .v. STATE OF KARNATAKA (1979 (2) KLJ 449), this court referring to the scheme of Section 155(2), Cr.P.C. held that any investigation by the police officer for a non-cognizable offence without requisite permission or order of the magistrate would be one without jurisdiction. If the investigation commenced without the requisite sanction or order of the magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2), Cr.P.C. it cannot be valid when the order of the Magistrate is obtained subsequently. 7. In negation of all the grounds urged against registration of cases, the State has filed statement disclosing the chronology of events which is as under: (a).123.2007- The Government of Karnataka was pleased to request the Honorable Lokayukta to probe into the allegation regarding illegality and irregularities in mining as well as unauthorized removal and transportation of mineral contrary to law under the Government. Order No.CI 164/MMM/06 dated 12.3.2007, replacing one man commission headed by former Chief Justice of High Court-Honorable U.LBhat. (b) 18.12.2008- The Honorable Lokayukta submitted its first report to the Government with certain recommendations and observations. (c) Dr.U.V. Singh, conservator of Forests submitted a report mining leases inspected nearly 66 mining lease holders have encroached upon the forest land in various Districts of Karnataka for illegal mining. Nearly 15 lakhs metric tons of Iron ore extracted from various forest lands have been seized by the Forests Department and several Forest Offences Crimes have been registered which are still pending. Joint survey has been ordered by this Honorable Court (green Bench) in 16 cases during 2009, which is still incomplete. (d) Jan 2010 The Honorable Lokayukta received complaint/s regarding illegal Mining in forest land as well as Government land in Bellary/Chitradurga and other Districts, as we as unauthorized transportation without valid permits for the purpose of exports through Beleken and Karwar ports. (d) Jan 2010 The Honorable Lokayukta received complaint/s regarding illegal Mining in forest land as well as Government land in Bellary/Chitradurga and other Districts, as we as unauthorized transportation without valid permits for the purpose of exports through Beleken and Karwar ports. (e) Feb 2010 – Special team of experts constituted by the Honorable Lokayukta Conducted raids and seized several evidences like computer, hard-disk, documents Records permits, etc., consisting of large number of suspected mining leases Purportedly issued from Cudapa District in Andrapradesh and forged transportation Permits issue from the State of Karnataka. (f) 15.3.2010- The section Forester, Ankola registered a forest offences Crime No.17/09-10. (g) 15.3.2010-A Mahazar was drawn stating huge quantity of unauthorized iron Ore was found in the port area at Belekeri without any valid permits or documents with port Authorities or licenced stevedores. (h) 15.3.2010- FIR was submitted to the jurisdictional JMFC, Ankola. (No seizure of Iron ore). (i)15.3.2010- Request was made seeking permission to investigate the offences As required under 155 (2) of Cr. P.C. (j) 18.3.2010 – Jurisdictional JMFC granted permission to investigate the Offences under Section 155 Cr.P.C as prayed for. (k) 20.3.2010- Seizure was made estimating the quantity of Iron ore stored In the ports area at belekere approximately quantifying more than 5 lakhs metric Tones (Mahazar was drawn). (l) 20.3.2010- Seized Iron ore was handed over to the custody of Port Conservator of Belekere on “as is bare basis”, under an acknowledgment obtained Form port Conservator –Sri Mahesh Bilagi (accused No.1) who has filed a Crl. Petition to quash the FOC before Principal Bench at Bangalore which is still Pending. (m) 22.3.2010 – jurisdictional Magistrate granted permission to retain the seized Iron ore until further orders, as the same cannot be moved out of Port Area. (n) 25.3.2010 – The Commissioner of Customs, Mangalore, ordered for the closure of export activities for a week time enabling to complete the investigation At Belekere/Karwar ports. (o) 29.3.2010 – The Honorable High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore granted an Interim Order in Writ Petition Nos.10239-240/2010 filed by M/s Bachavat Enterprises, now the writ petition is learnt to be withdrawn. (p) 31.3.2010 – The Honorable High Court of Karnataka passed an Interim Order In Writ petition Nos. 10347/2010 clubbed with 10708/2010. (copy produced). (o) 29.3.2010 – The Honorable High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore granted an Interim Order in Writ Petition Nos.10239-240/2010 filed by M/s Bachavat Enterprises, now the writ petition is learnt to be withdrawn. (p) 31.3.2010 – The Honorable High Court of Karnataka passed an Interim Order In Writ petition Nos. 10347/2010 clubbed with 10708/2010. (copy produced). (q) 12.4.2010- Jurisdictional JMFC rejects the application filed by: (a) Doddannavannar Brothers (b) I.L.C Industries Ltd., (c) Greentek Mining Industries filed under Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C, for Seeking interim custody for the purpose of Exports out of India. (r) 19.4.2010- The Honorable High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore passed theFollowing order in Writ Petition No.12236/2010 as under…… “The respondent Nos.3 to 6 shall verify such documents in detail and if need arises, it is open to them to seize such materials by intimating the petitioner and their stevedores about discrepancies noticed …… and if any discrepancy is noticed subsequently, the petitioner and the mining lease holders who has supplied the iron ore fines to the petitioner will remain liable for such amount they may held to be due and for such other legal action. In this regard, the petitioner shall also furnish indemnity bond in favour of the respondents 3 to 6 which shall have the concurrence of the mining lease holder also endorsed on it.” (Copy sought to be produced) (s) 20.4.2010- Dismissal of applications filed by Ashapura Minechem Ltd filed under Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. (t) 4.5.2010 – The Honorable High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore passed an Interim Order in Writ Petition Nos.14551/2010 and 14552/2010 filed by ILC Industries Ltd. K, and Ashapura Minechem Ltd., respectively, as under. “Interim Order sought by the petitioner is in tune with the earlier order Passed in W.P.No.10347/2010 dated 31.3.2010. “Interim Order sought by the petitioner is in tune with the earlier order Passed in W.P.No.10347/2010 dated 31.3.2010. Hence, respondents are Directed to release 33,000/- metric tons iron ore seized by respondent No.2 And kept in the custody of respondent No.3 as per seizure report Annexure- N subject to the petitioner executing indemnity Bond after satisfying/verifying of documents.” (u) 6.5.2010 –Letter from Port Conservator officer, Belekeri indicating stock of iron o Ore as on the date of the seizure on 20.3.2010 indicating party wise stock statement Furnished by following Stevedores; (a) M/s Adani Enterprises Ltd., 4,14,357.163 MT (b) Sri Mallikarjun shipping 2,59,279.020 MT (c) Salgaoncar Mining Industry 1,03,354.100 MT (d) Rajamahal Silks Hospete 0.24,020.800 MT Total 8,05,991.083 MT (v) May 2010 – The following Writ Petitions have been filed seeking release of seized Iron ore quantity; (1) W.P. No.15742/2010 PJS Overseas Ltd., 16,000 MT (2) W.P. No. 15743/2010 Doddannavar Brother 31,000 MT (Mining lease holder whose lease period expired on 28.2.2010. Deemed renewal not given by Forest Department, W.P.No.14762/2010 pending before Green (3) W.P.No.15744/2010 Sri. Mahal Ltd., 21,000 MT (4) W.P. No.15745-746/2010 Swastick Steels Ltd 30,840 MT (5) W.P.No.15756/2010 Sri Laxmi Venkatesh 48,000 MT 1,46,840 MT (w) 2.6.2010 – Local Newspapers carrying the information that large quantity of seized iron ore is missing allegedly exported through Belekere/karwar/Mangalore ports. (X) 2.6.2010-A report was filed to the jurisdictional JMFC, seeking directions to the Local police to register the case. (Y) 2.6.2010-Attention of Honorable Chief Vigilance Commissioner, New Delhi was drawn requesting to initiate immediate action to present loss to the State/National Exchequer. (z) 3.6.2010 – A status report was submitted to the jurisdictional JMFC stating that huge quantity of seized iron ore is missing. (aa) 7.6.2010- Written Complaint was filed to the S.H.O Ankola for the offences punishable under Sections 405,406 and 379 of IPC against the Port Conservator-Mahesh Bilaya and 8 Exporters who have filed various writ petitions claiming ownership over certain quantity of seized iron ore and 3 licenced stevedores. (ab) 8.6.2010 – FIR was registered under 154 of Cr.P.C. and submitted to the jurisdictional JMFC. (ac) 9.6.2010- I/C Fort Conservator Belekere filed an independent complaint to the police Inspector, Ankola against M/s Adani Enterprises and ors. for the alleged offences. 8. The contentions of the Learned counsel for the petitioners And the learned Govt. advocate for the state has received my serious consideration. 9. (ac) 9.6.2010- I/C Fort Conservator Belekere filed an independent complaint to the police Inspector, Ankola against M/s Adani Enterprises and ors. for the alleged offences. 8. The contentions of the Learned counsel for the petitioners And the learned Govt. advocate for the state has received my serious consideration. 9. The following questions need to be answered: (I) Whether the forest officer named under Section 62-A of the Forest Act could Be equated to a police officer for the purpose of investigation of offences Punishable under the provisions of the Forest Act? (II) Whether the forest officer named under Section 62-A could apply for permission to the magistrate under Section 155(2), Cr.P.C. to investigate non-cognizable offences under the provisions of the Act, or whether he could Only be a complainant to the police officer, or whether the police officer alone is competent to apply to the magistrate for grant of permission? (III) In the instant case, whether permission of the magistrate was obtained before carrying out investigation in FTC.17/09-10 and FCR.189/09. (IV) Whether the seizure effected by the police officer is vitiated for not obtaining prior permission to investigate, as required under Section 155(2), Cr.P.c.? 10. The contention of designated senior advocates, Sri Ravi B. Naik and learned counsel, Sri Thiruvengadam is that any forest officer not below the rank of a Range Forest Officer named under Section 62-A of the Act is not a police officer and cannot be deemed to be so for the purpose of investigating a non-cognizable offence and he will not be competent to even apply to the magistrate under Section 155(2), Cr.P.C. for grant of permission. Referring to the investigation in FTC. 17/09-10 and FCR.189/09, they contend FIR reveals it is registered for investigation of offences punishable under Sections 2(7)(b)(iv), 62,80 of the Forest Act, 1963, and therefore, the complainant-Assistant Conservator of Forest was not competent to register the FIR itself or to apply to the magistrate for grant of permission under Section 155(2), Cr.P.C. It is urged he could at the most, apply to the jurisdictional police who in turn would be competent to register FIR and apply to the magistrate for grant of permission. The view expressed by this court in the case of SUDARSHAN MANCHANDA (supra) is relied to highlight the bar imposed by Section 155(2), Cr.P.C. on the police officer to investigate a non-cognizable case and the decision in the case of S. MURARI & ANOTHER .vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY RANGE FOREST OFFICER, KUDREMUKH (ILR 2004 KAR 1706) is relied to support the first proposition wherein the learned single Judge of this court held that ‘a Range Forest Officer is not a police officer within the meaning of Section 2(16) of the Forest Act’ and thus a forest officer named under Section 62-A of the Forest Act cannot be equated or deemed to be a police officer for the purpose of Section 155(2), Cr.P.C. The proposition laid down in the said decisions is extracted hereunder: SUDARSHAN MANCHANDA .v. STATE OF KARNATAKA (1979(2) KLJ 449) ’12 Section 15 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, reads thus: “155 Information as to non-cognizable cases and investigation of such cases: (1) When information is given to an officer in charge of a police station of the commission within the limits of such station of a non-cognizable offence, he shall enter or cause to be entered the substance of the information in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf, and refer the informant to the magistrate. (2) No police officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without the order of a magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial.” (Sub clauses (3) and (4) omitted as unnecessary). Therefore, when an information is given to an officer of the police station with regard to the commission of a non-cognizable offence, it is his duty to enter the substance of the information in a book kept for the said purpose and thereafter refer the informant to the magistrate. Further, duty is also cast on the police officer not to investigate into the non-cognizable offence without the order of a magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trail. Further, duty is also cast on the police officer not to investigate into the non-cognizable offence without the order of a magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trail. It is significant to note that the word ‘shall’ indicates that any police officer should not take up the investigation into a non-cognizable offence without the requisite order of the magistrate in that behalf in which case it could safely be concluded that any investigation by a police officer into a non-cognizable offence without the requisite permission or order of the magistrate would be one without jurisdiction. In the instant case, as already stated, the accident is said to have occurred in the night intervening 26th and 27th April 1979 and the Sub Officer, North Fire Station, intimated the Sub Inspector of Police Kalasipalayam Police Station, on 27.4.1979 at 3.30 P.M. in respect of the alleged violation of S. 13 of the Karnataka Fire Force Act, 1964, the rules and the notification issued thereunder. Immediately after the receipt of the information, the Sub Inspector of Police proceeded to the spot and, after extinguishing the fire drew up a panchanama of the scene of the accident as evidenced by the copy of the Panchanama filed along with the petition which is marked as Exhibit ‘D’. In the Panchanama, though the time is not mentioned, the date on which it was drawn is mentioned as 27.4.1979. This is admittedly before the First Information Report is sent to jurisdictional magistrate on 28.4.1979 and the necessary application was made by the police before the learned magistrate seeking permission to investigate into the non-cognizable offence as contemplated under S.155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The fact that the Sub Inspector of Police did proceed to the spot on 27.4.1979 itself with the intention of collecting necessary information with regard to the nature of the accident, etc. and drawing up of a panchanama thereafter clearly indicate that the police started investigation on the basis of the report sent to him by the Sub Officer, North Fire Station, Bangalore. It is significant to note that after drawing up of the panchanama, he has also given a umber as Crime No.409/79. All these have happened before the requisite sanction is obtained by the police from the jurisdictional magistrate.’ S. MURARI & ANR. It is significant to note that after drawing up of the panchanama, he has also given a umber as Crime No.409/79. All these have happened before the requisite sanction is obtained by the police from the jurisdictional magistrate.’ S. MURARI & ANR. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY RANGE FOREST OFFICER, KUDREMUKH (ILR 2004 KAR 1706) Karnataka Forest Act-Section 62-A- Range Forest Officer shall be deemed to be a police officer for the purpose of Sec.156, Cr. P.C.- but for the purpose of Section 155, Range Forest Officer is not a police officer within the meaning of Section 62-A of the Karnataka Forest Act.’ 11. Seemingly the decision of the learned single Judge in the case of S. MURARI is in support of the contentions urged by the learned counsel, but in the light of the decision of the Division Bench of this court in V.S.LAD & SONS, BELLARY .v. STATE OF KARNATAKA ( 2009 (3) KCCR 2067 ), a firm decision has to be taken.’ 12. As in the decision of the learned single Judge in the case of S. MURLI, it is held that ‘for the purpose of Section 155, Cr.P.C. RANGE FOREST OFFICER is not a police officer’, the interpretation of the provision of Section 62-A is necessary. It reads thus: ’62-A Powers of Forest Officer in the matter of investigation- (1) Any forest officer not below the rank of a RANGE FOREST OFFICER and within such specified area as the State Government may, by notification specify, may as regards offences under this Act exercise powers conferred on an officer in-charge of a police station by the provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Provided that any such power shall be subject to such restrictions and modifications, if any as the State Government may specify. (2) For the purpose of Section 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the area in regard to which the forest officer is empowered under sub-section (1), shall be deemed to be a police station and such officer shall be deemed to be the officer in-charge of such station. Section 62*A has two parts, sub-section (1) refers to any forest officer not below the rank of RANGE FOREST OFFICER. Section 62*A has two parts, sub-section (1) refers to any forest officer not below the rank of RANGE FOREST OFFICER. It envisages; any forest officer not below the rank of RANGE FOREST OFFICER AND within such specified area as the State Government may, by notification, specify as regards offences under this Act exercise powers conferred on the officer incharge of a police station by the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Provided that any such power shall be subject to such restrictions and modifications if any as the State Government may specify.’ Therefore, this provision confers on any forest officer not below the rank of RANGE FOREST OFFICER power to investigate as conferred on the police officer incharge of a police station, subject only to such restrictions and modifications as the State Government may specify. Thus, the power of investigation relates to offences under this Act i.e. Forest Act. No distinction is made between cognizable and non-cognizable offences. It refers to offences under the Act and therefore, interpretation has to be that I refers to all offences under the Forest Act and is not restricted to only cognizable offences. Keeping this in mind, we have to examine sub-section (2) to which reference has been made in the earlier decisions. 13. Sub-Section (2) of Section 62-A postulates that for the purpose of Section 156, Cr.P.C., an area which a police officer is empowered under sub-section(1) shall be deemed to be a police station and such officer shall be deemed to be the officer in charge of the said police station. There cannot be two opinions that sub-section (2) refers to the area which, for the purpose of Section 156 of the Code, shall be deemed to be a police station. It does not restrict power conferred by sub-section (1). 14. The High Court of Karnataka has issued a notification dated 1.7.2009 to the following effect: GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA NO. FEE 104 FDP 2010 Karnataka Government Secretariat M.S. BUILDING Bangalore, Dated 01.07.2010 NOTIFICATION The Government of Karnataka hereby notifies the areas under the territorial jurisdiction of the Range Forest Officers of Karnataka Forest Department including wildlife to be the specified areas under Sections 62-A of the Karnataka Forest Act 1963 for the purpose of offences under this Act to exercise powers conferred on an officer in-charge of a police station by the provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. This order is deemed to have come into effect from the date of issue of amendment to this Section in the Act 20 of 2000 i.e. 04/10/2000. By Order and in the name of the Governor of Karnataka (Gopal) Under Secretary to Government Forest Ecology & Environment Department 15. In the notification, the area has been specified in respect of which the police officer above the rank of Range Forest Officer, may investigate offences under the Act. The notification does not incorporate any restriction or modification in the matter relating to investigation of offences under the Act. 16. Therefore, the conclusion of the Division Bench of this court that FIR registered even on the basis of Lokayukta report by the forest officer was valid and FIR was not liable to be quashed and also based on the interpretation as discussed above, it has to be held that by virtue of Section 62-A(1) of the Forest Act, an officer not below the rank of Range Forest Officer is deemed to be a police officer for the purpose of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, under Section 155(2) or 156, Cr.P.C. he is deemed to be a police officer. The arguments to the contrary are, therefore, discounted. 17. Now, we shall come to the question as to whether investigation in the instant case as commenced by the Deputy Conservator of Forest without the permission of the magistrate, vitiates the proceedings. In this regard, it is material to note that FCR. 17/09-10 came to be registered on 15.3.2010 on which day the forest officer visited the port and noticed stacking of iron ore. Suspecting it to be an attempt to illegally export it without the requisite permits he registered the case. 18. Sri Ravi B. Naik and Sri. Thiruvengadam, with vehemence, asserted that after registering the FIR on 15.3.2010, the forest officer had seized the ore and registered a case under Sections 2(7) (b) (iv) 62,80 of the Forest Act and for violation of Rules 143 and 162 of the Forest Rules. Since it was done without the permission of the magistrate as required under Section 155(2), Cr.P.C., the entire proceedings are vitiated. If what is urged is factually so, then the ground is acceptable. Since it was done without the permission of the magistrate as required under Section 155(2), Cr.P.C., the entire proceedings are vitiated. If what is urged is factually so, then the ground is acceptable. However, on a perusal of the records made available, it is noticed that the complainant/forest officer had applied to the jurisdictional magistrate at Ankola, in FCR.17/09-10 for grant of permission to investigate the case for the offences indicated above, as required under Section 155(2), Cr.P.c. The magistrate passed the order on 18.3.2010, granting permission to investigate the case. In pursuance to the said order, seizure has been effected on 20.3.2010. The seizure report at Annexure-C appended to Crl.P.7645/10 indicates that seizure was reported to the magistrate on 20.3.2010. Seizure, undoubtedly, is after obtaining permission to investigate the case and hence, the requirement of Section 155 (2)-, Cr.P.C. has been met by the forest officer. 19. On facts, it is seen investigation has commenced only after permission was granted by the magistrate and hence, registration of FCR.17/09-10 is not in contravention of the provisions of the Cr.P.C. and hence, not vitiated. 20. Regarding seizure, petitioners contend that it is illegal as the ore stacked was covered with forest permit in respect of a particular quantity; Customs clearance was also obtained. These are questions of fact to be inquired into. Petitioners have referred to the orders passed in their favour in W.P.10347/10 dated 31.3.2010 and subsequent orders in the connected writ petitions to show they were permitted to lift the seized iron ore subject to executing an indemnity bond. I have perused the interim orders passed by this court in the writ petitions referred to above. They are not unconditional. The order relied by the petitioners dated 31.3.2010 in W.P. 10347/10 is of relevance and to understand its effect, it is extracted hereunder: ‘Though this court on an earlier instance had issued an interim order staying the order which is similar to the one which is produced as Annexure-J to this petition, the period prescribed in the said notice has expired……….. In the present case, the impugned Annexure-M dated 29.3.2010 the document itself indicates that the exporters are permitted to load iron ore other than what has been seized by the forest authorities. In the present case, the impugned Annexure-M dated 29.3.2010 the document itself indicates that the exporters are permitted to load iron ore other than what has been seized by the forest authorities. Hence, an interim order in the instant case is issued directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to export iron ore regarding which clearance has been obtained from the forest authorities and in respect of which customs duty has been collected by the authorities. It is made clear that in respect of iron ore which may be stocked in the yard and in respect of the same, if there is no endorsement of forest authorities as required under Rule 162 of the Karnataka Forest Rules, such stock of iron ore shall not be permitted under this interim order. Hence, export may be permitted on verification of documents and subject to the petitioner filing indemnity bond. The export permitted shall remain subject to the result of the petition and further orders to be passed.’ Based on the order extracted above, similar orders have been passed in subsequent writ petitions, but it is clear from the nature of the interim order granted that petitioners were permitted to load iron ore other than what was seized by the forest authorities. The direction issue to the respondents was to permit the petitioners to export iron ore regarding which clearance has been obtained from forest authorities and in respect of which customs duty has been collected. Besides, other conditions enumerated in the order clarify that the iron ore seized was not permitted to be lifted/exported and in fact permission granted in respect of unseized iron ore was also subject to fulfillment of all requirements under law and the endorsement of the forest authorities under Rule 162 of the Forest Rules. 21. When confronted with this fact situation, learned counsel for the petitioners responded referring to the additional documents filed by them. They referred to bulk permits granted to them by the Forest Department and several trip sheets and on that basis, it is urged that iron ore seized as also other ore is covered under bulk permits and also way-permits. Customs duty has been paid in proof of which they have produced certain endorsements. However, on a perusal of these documents, it is seen the so-called permits are questioned by the forest authorities. 22. We have to take into consideration the following circumstances. Customs duty has been paid in proof of which they have produced certain endorsements. However, on a perusal of these documents, it is seen the so-called permits are questioned by the forest authorities. 22. We have to take into consideration the following circumstances. • The genesis of registration of cases in FCR.17/09-10 189/10 and other cases in P.C. 54/10 is relatable to investigation conducted by Lokayukta. • The chronology of events submitted on behalf of the State reveals that Government of Karnataka, noticing illegal mining activity, had requested Lokayukta to probe into and investigate illegality and irregularities in the mining and unauthorized removal and transportation of minerals contrary to law under G.O. No.CI/164/MMM/06/12.3.2007 replacing the commission appointed under Justice U.L Bhat, Former Chief Justice of the High Court. • The Lokayukta probed the matter and submitted its report on 18.12.2008 with certain recommendations. Mr.U.V.Singh, Conservator of Forests submitted a report that out of 99 mining leases inspected, nearly 66 mining lease holders had encroached upon forest land in various districts of Karnataka for illegal mining. Nearly 15,00,000 MT of iron ore extracted from various forest lands was seized by the forest authorities and several forest crimes were registered which are still pending further action. • In the meantime, the Green Bench of the Karnataka High Court ordered a joint survey in 16 cases in the year 2009 which was not completed. • In January 2010, Lokayukta received complaints regarding illegal mining in forest land as well as Government land in Bellary, Chitradurga and other districts and unauthorized transportation without valid permits from Belekere and karwar ports. On that complaint, further action was taken and a special team of experts was constituted in February 2010 by the Lokayukta himself which conducted raids and seized several incriminating material like hard disks records, permits consisting of large number of suspected mining leases purportedly issued from Cadapa in Andhra Pradesh and also found forged transporation permits of Karnataka State. • Forests permits seized from the possession of various miners transporters were found to be forged and therefore, Range Forest Officer, Ankola, took further action. In this fact situation, the Section Forester, Ankola registered the case for the offences indicated on 15.3.2010 in FCR.17/09-10. On that date, he visited various places where iron ore was stacked and found ore at Belekere port without any valid permits or endorsement. In this fact situation, the Section Forester, Ankola registered the case for the offences indicated on 15.3.2010 in FCR.17/09-10. On that date, he visited various places where iron ore was stacked and found ore at Belekere port without any valid permits or endorsement. The port authorities including licenced stevedores could not testify to lawful stacking of ore for export which he recorded in the mahazar on 15.3.2010. 23 . It is material to note that what he did was recording of what he saw, but did not seize the ore on 15.3.2010. he registered FCR.17/09-10 and submitted to the jurisdictional magistrate and sought permission to investigate the offences under the provisions of Forest Act and in this regard sought permission under Section 155(2), Cr. P.C. which was granted by the magistrate on 18.3.2010. In pursuance to such permission granted, he has effected seizure on 18.3.2010. 24. It is pertinent to note that registration of FCR. 17/09-10 is for illegal transportation of iron ore without permits as required under the Act and that suspicion was on the basis that forest permits and other documents seized from the offices of miners, were for forged. Hence, I am inclined to accept the contention on behalf of the State that Xerox copies of permits filed by the petitioners are the subject matter of investigation as to whether they are forged or not, and hence it will be unsafe to rely on them. 25. At this juncture, petitioners had filed an application before the magistrate under Sections 451, 457, Cr.P.C for relase of the seized ore which application came to be rejected by order dated 12.4.2010. Petitioners have sought quashing of the said order, but in the circumstances the jurisdictional magistrate was justified in rejecting the said application. 26. We must further notice that on 2.6.2010, local newspapers carried a report that large quantities of seized iron ore was missing as it was allegedly exported through Mangalore, Belekere and Karwar ports. In this regard, a report was submitted by the forest officer to the magistrate seeking direction to the local police to register a case. Meanwhile, attention of the Central Vigilance Commission was drawn seeking permission to initiate action as it would result in huge loss to the national exchequer. On 3.6.2010, status report was submitted to the magistrate regarding huge quantities of seized iron ore missing. Meanwhile, attention of the Central Vigilance Commission was drawn seeking permission to initiate action as it would result in huge loss to the national exchequer. On 3.6.2010, status report was submitted to the magistrate regarding huge quantities of seized iron ore missing. On 7.6.2010, a written complaint was filed before SHO, Ankola, for the offences punishable under Sections 405,406,379,, I.P.C against the Port Conservator-Mahesh Bile and eight exporters who were petitioners in the writ petition before this court, seeking ownership of the seized iron ore and also against three licenced stevedores. On 8.6.2010, FIR was registered; on 9.6.2010 in charge Port Conservator, Belekere Port, filed an independent complaint before the Inspector, Ankola against M/s Adani Enterprises for the alleged offences. Thus, it is seen Crime Nos.17/09-10 and 189/10 and P.C.54/10 are for offences punishable under Sections 405,406,379, I.P.C against Mahesh Bile-Port Conservator and others which includes the petitioners in Crl.P.Nos.7645/10, 7646/10 and three licenced stevedores. Similarly, separate case was registered in P.C. 54/10 against M/s Adani Enterprises on the basis of complaint submitted by Port Conservator Belekere Port. Thus, the FIRs relate to commission of non-cognizable offences and therefore, SHO received the complaints and registered the same which are under investigation. 27. Referring to Section 62 of the Forest Act, petitioners averred that Mahesh Bile was a State Government officer and the case for the offences publishable under Sections 405,406,379, I.P.C. could not have been registered against him for want of proper consent as required under Section 197, Cr.P.C. The contention has to be discounted as the provision of Section 197 bars cognizance being taken against a public servant without prior sanction/consent of the State Government. It does not bar investigation into an offence, it is only the offence cognizable by the court which is barred, but an investigation into an offence by the competent investigating officer. On this ground, FIR registered for investigating the offences indicated above against Mahesh Bile are not liable to be quashed and more so , he is not a petitioner in any of these petitions. So far as the petitioners are concerned, who are also named as accused in both in FIRs, it must be noticed that their implication is on the allegation that they had connived with the Port Officer-Mahesh Bile. In other words, they are co-accused on the basis of their complicity in the theft of iron ore. So far as the petitioners are concerned, who are also named as accused in both in FIRs, it must be noticed that their implication is on the allegation that they had connived with the Port Officer-Mahesh Bile. In other words, they are co-accused on the basis of their complicity in the theft of iron ore. At present, it is only FIRs which have been registered and investigation is in progress. 28. The process of investigation cannot be stifled on technicalities as the I.O. had to lead to a logical end. He may find material against them or he may not, but prima facie material available against them was seizure mahazar dated 18.3.2010 in which some quantity of ore was missing since it was alleged that there was illegal transportation of iron ore out of the seized quantity. The case is subject to further investigation and hence, no ground is made out to interfere with it. 29. Sri. Ravi B. nalk’s contention that the case registered under Section 379, I.P.C. against M/s Adani Enterprises is not sustainable as it is a juristic person, is also unacceptable because under the General Clauses Act, the work ‘person’ includes a juristic person also. Keeping this in mind, if we read Section 378, I.P.C., a juristic person would also be liable but the natural person who, at the time of commission of the offence had indulged in such act, would be the person who has to be sentenced. 30. Sri Thiruvengadam, learned counsel for the petitioners, has raised another legal issue with regard to repugnancy under the provisions of the Customs Act and the Karnataka Forest Act. In this regard, he would contend that iron ore is an item covered under the Union List and therefore, it is only by Parliamentary legislation its import or export or mining could be determined. He submits, as iron ore fails under Union List, it is only the Union of India which has to issue the notification regarding restraint on its export as envisaged under Section 11-I of the Customs Act. He submits, provisions of Section 62 of the Forest Act conferring power on forest officers to seize such iron ore considering it as ‘forest produce’ does not empower the forest officer to enter upon the area coming within the Customs Act. He submits, provisions of Section 62 of the Forest Act conferring power on forest officers to seize such iron ore considering it as ‘forest produce’ does not empower the forest officer to enter upon the area coming within the Customs Act. In other words, it is urged, as iron ore was on the precincts of the port liable for customs duty, in the absence of any notification by the Central Government under Section 11-I of the Customs Act banning its export, the forest officer cannot invoke Section 62 of the Forest Act of seize such iron ore. This is on the basis that when there is a parliamentary legislation and State legislation, it is the Parliamentary legislation which prevails and not the State legislation. This issue has to be decided with reference to case laws. 31. As regards the legal position, it is well settled that in the case of GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRAPRADESH ANDANOTHER .v. J.B. EDUCATION SOCIETY (AIR 2005 SCC 2014) the apex court held that the question of repugnancy between a parliamentary legislation and state legislation can arise in two ways. First, where legislations enacted with respect to matters in their allotted sphere overlap and conflict. Second, where the two legislations are with respect to matters in the concurrent list and there is a conflict. In both the situations, the parliamentary legislation will predominate, in the first, by virtue of non-obstante clause in Article 246(1) of the Constitution. In the second, by reason of Section 245(1) of the Constitution. Clause (2) of Article 245 deals with a situation where the State legislation having been reserved and having obtained President’s assent prevails in that state, this again is subject to the proviso that Parliament can again bring as legislation to override even such state legislations. Keeping this principle in mind, we have to examine the case at hand. 32. In the instant case, FIR registered against the petitioners is for the offences punishable under Sections 2(7)(b)(iv), 62,80 of the Forest Act and Rules 143, 162 of the Forest Rules. Section 2(7)(b) iv) is the defining section which defines ‘forest produce’. Section 62 is a part of Chapter 9 and deals with penalties and procedures. 32. In the instant case, FIR registered against the petitioners is for the offences punishable under Sections 2(7)(b)(iv), 62,80 of the Forest Act and Rules 143, 162 of the Forest Rules. Section 2(7)(b) iv) is the defining section which defines ‘forest produce’. Section 62 is a part of Chapter 9 and deals with penalties and procedures. It postulates when there is reason to believe that a forest offence has been committed in respect of any forest produce, such produce together with all tools, boats, vehicles or cattle or any other property used in committing such offence, may be seized by any forest officer or police officer. Sub-section (2) envisages any forest officer or police officer. If he has reason to believe that the vehicle has been used for transportation of forest produce in respect of which there is reason to believe that offence has been committed or is being committed, he may require the driver or other person in charge of the vehicle to stop the vehicle and cause it to remain stationary as long as it may reasonably be necessary to examine the contents of the vehicle and inspect all records relating to the goods carried which are in the possession of such driver or other person in charge of the vehicle. Therefore, this provision confers the power of seizure on the forest officer when he suspects commission of any forest offence relating to forest produce defined under Section 2(7) referred to above. 33. Sri Thiruvengadam would contend that this provision could not be invoked as the property involved is iron ore to be exported which is covered by the provision of Section 11-H and 11-I of the Customs Act and therefore, the provisions of Customs Act being a Parliamentary legislation would prevail, and not the Forest Act which is a State legislation. This proposition would have been accepted had there been any conflict in the provisions of the two legislations. Section 11-H envisages “illegal export” means the export of any goods in contravention of the provisions of this Act or any other law for the time being in force. This means, if there is export of goods in contravention of the Forest Act, then it comes within other laws referred to in clause H. The case at hand relates to transportation of iron ore extracted from forest area and being exported without forest permits. This means, if there is export of goods in contravention of the Forest Act, then it comes within other laws referred to in clause H. The case at hand relates to transportation of iron ore extracted from forest area and being exported without forest permits. Therefore, the provision of Section 11-H of the Customs Act is attracted. 34. Section 11-I has also been referred to by the learned counsel to contend that unless the Central Govt., by notification, specifies iron ore to be one of the goods which is likely to illegally exported, iron ore is excluded from the Act. But a reading of Section 11-I shows, ‘if, having regard to the magnitude of illegal export of goods of any class or description, the Central Govt. is satisfied that it is expedient in public interest to take special measures for the purpose of checking illegal export or facilitating detection of goods which are likely to be illegally exported, it may, by notification in the official gazette, specify such goods or description.’ This provision is the enabling provision which permits the Central Government to specify the goods for the purpose of taking the required measures for checking illegal export for facilitating detecting of likely goods to be included. This provision, therefore, does not exclude applicability of Forest Act as iron ore which is a forest produce defined under Section2(7) (b) (iv) of the Act, with regard to which if any offence is committed, is liable to the seized under Section 62 of the Forest Act. Based on this discussion, it has to be held that there is no repugnancy in the provisions relating to seizure of iron ore in the Parliamentary legislation, i.e., Customs Act and the State legislation, i.e., Forest Act. The contention in this regard is, therefore, over-ruled. 35. Based on the discussions above, points framed at paragraph no.9 are answered as under: Point No.(1) : is answered in the affirmative. By virtue of Section 62-A of the Forest Act, the forest officer above the rank of a RANGE FOREST OFFICER named in Section 62A of the Act is equated to a police officer for the purpose of investigation of offences punishable under the provisions of the Forest Act. By virtue of Section 62-A of the Forest Act, the forest officer above the rank of a RANGE FOREST OFFICER named in Section 62A of the Act is equated to a police officer for the purpose of investigation of offences punishable under the provisions of the Forest Act. Point no.(2): Consequently, it has to be held that the forest officer referred to under Section 62-A of the Forest Act is competent to apply to the magistrate under Section 155(2), Cr.P.C. for grant of permission to investigate non-cognizable offences under the provisions of the Forest Act. He need not apply to the jurisdictional police officer through a complaint to seek such permission from the magistrate. Point No.(3): In the instant case, on facts it has to be held that the forest officer investigating the case in FCR.17/09-10 and FIR.189/10 had obtained prior permission for effecting seizure of the contraband and iron ore which is the subject matter of investigation. Point no.(4): Consequently, it is held that the seizure effected by the investigating officer for was after taking prior permission under Section 155(2), Cr.P.C., and hence not vitiated. 36. Based on the discussion in the foregoing paragraphs I am constrained to discount all contentions and grounds urged by the petitioners regarding competence of forest offices to investigate offences under the Forest Act, contention regarding untenability of investigation in FCR. No.17/09-10, Crime No. 189/10 and P.C. 54/10 as devoid of merits. All grounds urged by the petitioners seeking quashing of proceedings against them mentioned above are rejected. 37. In the result, Crl.P.7645/10 seeking quashing of proceedings in FCR.17/09-10, Crl. P.7647/10 seeking quashing of proceedings in Fir. 189/10 and Crl.P7673/10 seeking quashing of the entire proceedings in P.C. 54/10 are dismissed. All the interim orders granted in these petitions are dissolved and there shall be no impediment to the investigating officer to proceed with the investigation.