Iron ore smuggling: HC directs special court to decide if 23 forest officers be tried

NT Correspondent

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has instructed a special court hearing a case related to alleged iron ore smuggling to determine whether 23 prosecution witnesses, all of whom are forest officers, should also be named as accused in the case. Justice M Nagaprasanna, presiding over a singlejudge bench, issued the directive on February 7, while hearing a petition filed by S Muthaiah, a retired forest officer and one of the coaccused in the 2011 case. Muthaiah had earlier moved the special court, arguing that these witnesses should be treated as accused. The case revolves around allegations that mining baron and BJP MLA G Janardhana Reddy forged permits to transport iron ore, allegedly in collusion with the 23 forest officers.

These officers are accused of handing over blank permits with their signatures, which were later misused. Reddy was arrested by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in 2011 following a report by the Karnataka Lokayukta that exposed large-scale illegal mining in Ballari. The CBI investigation revealed that Reddy's mining network had illegally extracted iron ore, which was subsequently sold to traders who exported it without obtaining mandatory forest clearances or paying necessary taxes. Muthaiah's counsel argued that the forest officers, during their cross-examination, had admitted to signing blank permits.

Despite this admission, they were retained as prosecution witnesses rather than being charged as accused. He contended that the procedure outlined in Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) should have been invoked. This section allows courts to prosecute individuals who, based on evidence, appear to be guilty of an offence. The High Court, in its order, observed that while an accused can seek pardon and turn approver to testify against others, it is unusual for prosecution witnesses to seek similar pardon while having played a role in the alleged crime.

"Participants in the crime, to some extent, as they have admitted signing blank documents. If they admit signing blank documents, then they become accomplices," the bench stated. It further noted that an accused person cannot serve as a prosecution witness, nor should a guilty person escape punishment merely because they have been listed as a witness. The special court has now been directed to adjudicate on the application under Section 319 of the CrPC and decide whether these witnesses should be reclassified as accused.