TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court Upholds Trial Order in Criminal Conspiracy Case</h1> <h3>M.E. Shivalingamurthy Versus Central Bureau of Investigation, Bengaluru</h3> M.E. Shivalingamurthy Versus Central Bureau of Investigation, Bengaluru - (2020) 2 SCC 768 Issues Involved:1. Legality of the High Court's order setting aside the Magistrate's order of discharge.2. Applicability of Rule 37 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960.3. Allegations of criminal conspiracy and abuse of official position.4. Evaluation of evidence and legal principles for discharge under Section 227 of the Cr.PC.5. Role and actions of the Appellant as Director of Mines and Geology.Analysis:1. Legality of the High Court's Order Setting Aside the Magistrate's Order of Discharge:The appeal challenges the High Court's decision which overturned the Magistrate's order that discharged the Appellant. The High Court found that the Magistrate had made an 'omnibus observation' and failed to consider incriminating circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution. The High Court emphasized that for punishing under Section 120B of the IPC, the prosecution must prove the conspiracy, which can be inferred from illegal acts or omissions by conspirators.2. Applicability of Rule 37 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960:The core issue revolves around whether the Appellant violated Rule 37, which mandates obtaining prior consent from the State Government for transferring a mining lease. The Appellant argued that the practice in the Department did not require invoking Rule 37 for reconstitution of the firm and relied on precedents where Rule 37 was not applied. However, the High Court noted that the Appellant's order dated 04.01.2010, which directed the issuance of Mineral Dispatch Permits (MDPs), was made without obtaining the necessary legal opinion, violating Rule 37.3. Allegations of Criminal Conspiracy and Abuse of Official Position:The charge-sheet alleged that the Appellant, as part of a criminal conspiracy, abused his official position to issue MDPs to the new partners of AMC without following due legal procedures, thereby cheating the Government of Karnataka. The prosecution's case was bolstered by the Deputy Director (Legal)'s statement that no legal opinion was sought, contradicting the Appellant's claim that he acted on legal advice. The High Court found that the Appellant's actions raised 'grave suspicion' of criminal conspiracy and abuse of power.4. Evaluation of Evidence and Legal Principles for Discharge under Section 227 of the Cr.PC:The judgment refers to legal principles established in cases like P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala and Anr., emphasizing that at the stage of framing charges, the court must sift evidence to see if there is sufficient ground for proceeding. The court must consider the broad probabilities and the total effect of evidence without making a roving inquiry. The Appellant's defense, including the practice of not invoking Rule 37 and his claim of having sought legal opinion, was deemed matters for trial, not for discharge.5. Role and Actions of the Appellant as Director of Mines and Geology:The Appellant's role began with a letter from AMC's partners informing about the firm's reconstitution. The prosecution argued that the Appellant should have sought prior sanction from the State Government under Rule 37 before acting on the reconstitution. The Appellant's defense was that he acted in good faith based on departmental practices and past precedents. However, the High Court found that the Appellant's actions, particularly his claim of having obtained legal advice, which was contradicted by the Deputy Director (Legal), warranted a trial to determine the veracity of the allegations.Conclusion:The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing that the materials produced by the prosecution raised grave suspicion against the Appellant, justifying a trial. The appeal was dismissed, and the observations made were confined to the context of deciding the application under Section 227 of the Cr.PC, without affecting the trial's outcome.
TaxTMI 