K.V.N. GOVINDARAJ S/O LATE GOPAL SHETTY KORAGAL vs CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

- 1 -
CRL.P No. 101447 of 2022


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
R

DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101447 OF 2022

BETWEEN:

K.V.N. GOVINDARAJ,
S/O LATE GOPAL SHETTY KORAGAL,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
OCC BUSINESS, R/O 8TH CROSS, MJ NAGAR,
GEETA GOPAL MANSION,
HOSAPETE - 583201,
VIJAYANAGAR.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI C V NAGESH, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI K L PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,
EOB ECONOMIC OFFENCES WING,
RAJAJI BHAVAN CHENNAI 600090,
REP BY INPECTOR OF POLICE.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI N D GUNDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.,
SEEKING TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN CC
NO.412/2020 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
ANKOLA (RC NO.17(E)2013/CBI/EOW/ CHENNAI) FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 21(1) R/W SECTION 4(1), 4(1)
(A) AND 23 OF MMDR ACT 1957 AND SECTION 24 OF
KARNATAKA FOREST ACT, IN SO FAR THE PRESENT THE
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.5 IS CONCERNED.













Digitally
signed by C
HONNUR SAB
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
TH
FOR ORDERS ON 13 AUGUST, 2026 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE
FOLLOWING:

- 2 -
CRL.P No. 101447 of 2022


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

CAV ORDER
This petition is filed to quash the proceedings in
C.C.No.412/2020 pending before JMFC, Ankola for the
offences punishable under Section 21 read with Section 4(1),
4(1)(A), Section 23 of The Mines and Minerals (Development
and Regulation) Act, 1957 ('Act of 1957') and Section 24 of
Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 ('Act of 1963').

2. This petition is filed by accused No.5. The private
complaint is filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class
Ankola in PCR No.131/2020. After taking cognizance, the
same has been renumbered as C.C.No.412/2020.

3. The order taking cognizance and issuing the
process reads as under:
"The Inspector of Police, CBI, Chennai has filed the
private complaint against the accused No.1 to 6 for the
offences punishable under Section 21(1) read with
4(1), 4(1)(A), under Section 23 of Mines and minerals
(Development and regulation) Act, 1957 and section 24
of Karnataka Forest Act.

- 3 -
CRL.P No. 101447 of 2022


Perused the complaint averments and documents
produced along with complaint. Since the complainant
is public servant and complaint has been filed in
discharge of his official duty, the complainant and
witness not examined, their examination is hereby
dispensed with. Cognizance is taken against the
accused No.1 to 6. Office is here by directed to register
criminal case against the accused No.1 to 6 for the
offence punishable under section 21(1) read with 4(1),
4(1)(A) under section 23 of Mines and minerals
(Development and regulation) Act 1957 and section 24
of Karnataka Forest Act 1963.
Issue summons to the accused No.1 to 6.
Call on:24-11-2020."

4. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the
petitioner would submit that the order taking cognizance
does not reflect application of mind. Accused/petitioner is
admittedly residing outside the jurisdiction of the Court
which took cognizance. The procedure contemplated under
Section 202 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Code,
1973') is not followed and further enquiry has not been held
before issuing process after taking cognizance. On these two
aspects, learned Senior counsel would submit that the
impugned order has to be set aside in limine .

- 4 -
CRL.P No. 101447 of 2022



5. In addition, learned Senior counsel would also
urge that the offences carry a maximum imprisonment of
three years and fine. And that being the position, the
complaint filed on 12.10.2020 is barred by limitation as the
alleged incidents have taken place between 01.01.2009 and
31.05.2010.

6. In the alternative, learned senior counsel would
urge that assuming that the complaint was filed pursuant to
the order dated 16.09.2013 passed by the Apex Court in
W.P.No.562/2009, then also the complaint ought to have
been filed within three years from the date of the order
dated 16.09.2013. However, the complaint is filed 7 years
later, and same is barred by limitation.

7. It is also urged by the learned senior counsel that
the application is not filed for condonation of delay and all
these aspects have not been taken into consideration by the
learned Magistrate.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent CBI would
urge that the primary investigation into the offences was
conducted by the CBI and thereafter the report is submitted

- 5 -
CRL.P No. 101447 of 2022


to the Apex Court in W.P.No.562/2009. Later, vide order
dated 16.09.2013 the Apex Court permitted CBI to register
the criminal case and accordingly the criminal case was
registered and the investigation was carried out.

9. Initially a criminal case was filed and FIR was
registered against M/s Greentex Mining Industries Limited,
Bengaluru and its Directors. Thereafter, the investigation
was carried out and during investigation it was revealed that
several fictitious Companies have been formed and through
those fictitious Companies, fake records have been created
and iron ores illegally excavated have been illegally
transported and exported.

10. Learned counsel for the respondent would also
urge that it is only during the investigation, the CBI came to
know about the involvement of the petitioner and other
persons operating under the name of fictitious Companies.

11. The charge sheet was filed on 01.10.2020 (as per
the endorsement on the charge sheet in C.C.No.408/2020
and 410/2020 by the JMFC, Ankola) in respect of several
offences under the Indian Penal Code and cases have been

- 6 -
CRL.P No. 101447 of 2022


registered before the JMFC in C.C.No.408 and 410 of 2020.
However, the present complaint is filed for the offences
under the Act of 1957 as the said Act mandates a private
complaint, before the Court and same is filed on 12.10.2020
and same is within the prescribed period of limitation from
the date of knowledge of the offence by the accused.

12. Learned counsel for the respondent would also
submit that the offences alleged carry imprisonment of 5
years, as such, the complaint is in time, and Section 468 of
the Cr.P.C. read with Section 467 would apply only in those
cases where the imprisonment is for 3 years or less than 3
years.

13. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner by way
of reply would submit that the offences are allegedly
committed between the period from 01.01.2009 to
31.05.2010 and the provisions of the Act of 1957, prevailing
then prescribed a maximum punishment of 2 years
imprisonment and fine and not 5 years.

14. It is the submission of the learned Senior counsel
that the Act of 1957 was amended with effect from

- 7 -
CRL.P No. 101447 of 2022


12.01.2015 and the punishment is enhanced to 5 years with
effect from 12.01.2015 and that being the position, the
respondent cannot contend that the Section 468 of the Code,
1973 or the limitation has no application.

15. The Court has considered the contentions raised
at the Bar and perused the records.

16. The order taking cognizance as noted above,
reveals that the Police Inspector, CBI has filed the complaint
under the provisions of Act of 1957. It also reveals that the
Court has perused the complaint averments and the
documents produced along with the complaint.

17. The Trial Court has noticed that the complaint is
filed in discharge of the official duty and the Court took a
view that there is no need to examine the complainant and
the witnesses. Accordingly, the Court has taken cognizance
against accused No.1 to 6.

18. The order also reveals that the cognizance is
taken for the offence under Section 21(1) read with Section
4(1), and 4(1)(A) and Section 23 of the Act of 1957. The
order does not disclose that any enquiry is held under

- 8 -
CRL.P No. 101447 of 2022


Section 202 of the Code, 1973, though the accused is
residing outside the jurisdiction of the Court which took the
cognizance.

19. It is a settled principle of law that when
cognizance is taken based on the Police report, the Court has
to go through the records and pass an order of taking
cognizance and that order should reflect application of mind.

20. The settled position of law is that order taking
cognizance need not be elaborate and the Court at that stage
is not expected to consider whether materials are sufficient
to convict the accused. All that is required is prima facie
consideration of the materials on record and satisfaction to
proceed further against the accused.

21. In a proceeding initiated based on a private
complaint, consideration is slightly different from the
consideration to take cognizance based on the Police report.
In case of private complaint, depending on the nature of the
allegation, the scrutiny required may be slightly higher than
what is required in a case based on the Police report.

- 9 -
CRL.P No. 101447 of 2022



22. In the instant case, as can be noticed from the
order, the Court does not record prima facie satisfaction for
taking cognizance. Thus, the order taking cognizance
without application of mind is an error. However, that by
itself is not a ground to set aside the order. If there are
materials to support the order taking cognizance, this Court
can supplement the reasons as held in Criminal Petition
No.101445/2022 c/w Criminal Petition 101448/2022
against the same petitioner involving offences under the
provisions of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

23. However, the petitioner also has raised a
contention relating to limitation. As can be noticed from the
contentions raised, the offence carried 2 years imprisonment
and fine when the alleged offence was committed between
2009 and 2010. Thus, the respondent- State cannot contend
that the Section 468 of the Code, 1973 does not apply on the
ground that the punishment prescribed is 5 years when the
cognizance was taken. The settled position of law is the
penal consequence cannot have a retrospective application.
The law was amended with effect from 12.01.2015
enhancing the punishment for the offence under Section

- 10 -
CRL.P No. 101447 of 2022


21(1) of Act, 1957. Thus, the Court has to apply the law that
was prevailing in the year 2009 and 2010 when the alleged
offence took place.

24. Since the alleged offences were committed
between 2009 and 2010, as per the law prevailing then, the
maximum punishment was 2 years imprisonment and fine.
This aspect of the matter has not been considered by the
Trial Court.

25. However, what is required to be considered is,
whether the complaint is in time or barred under Sections
467, 468 and 469 of the Code, 1973. Sections 467, 468 and
469 of the Code, 1973, read as under:
467. Definitions.-
For the purposes of this Chapter, unless the context
otherwise requires, "period of limitation" means the
period specified in Section 468 for taking cognizance of
an offence.
468. Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the
period of limitation.-
(1) Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this
Code, no Court, shall take cognizance of an

- 11 -
CRL.P No. 101447 of 2022


offence of the category specified in sub-section
(2), after the expiry of the period of limitation.
(2) The period of limitation shall be -
(a) six months, if the offence is punishable
with fine only;
(b) one year, if the offence is punishable with
imprisonment for a term not exceeding one
year;
(c) three years, if the offence is punishable
with imprisonment for a term exceeding
one year but not exceeding three years.
(3) For the purposes of this section, the period of
limitation, in relation to offences which may be
tried together, shall be determined with
reference to the offence which is punishable with
the more severe punishment or, as the case may
be, the most severe punishment.
469. Commencement of the period of limitation.-
(1) The period of limitation, in relation to an
offender, shall commence,-
(a) on the date of the offence; or
(b) where the commission of the offence was
not known to the person aggrieved by the
offence or to any police officer, the first
day on which such offence comes to the

- 12 -
CRL.P No. 101447 of 2022


knowledge of such person or to any police
officer, whichever is earlier; or
(c) where it is not known by whom the offence
was committed, the first day on which the
identity of the offender is known to the
person aggrieved by the offence or to the
police officer making investigation into the
offence, whichever is earlier.
(2) In computing the said period, the day from which
such period is to be computed shall be excluded."

26. From the reading of Section 467, it is evident that
the period of limitation for taking cognizance for an offence
is, the period prescribed in Section 468.

27. Section 468(2) provides 3 different periods of
limitation, based on the offences punishable. The offence is
punishable only with fine, the limitation is 6 months. If the
offence is punishable with imprisonment not exceeding 1
year, the limitation is 1 year. If the offence is punishable
with imprisonment exceeding 1 year but not exceeding 3
years, the limitation is 3 years.

- 13 -
CRL.P No. 101447 of 2022



28. Section 469 provides for commencement of
period of limitation. Under the said provision, the limitation
shall commence;
(a) On the date of offence,
(b) From the date of knowledge to the person
aggrieved by the offence, or in the case of any police officer,
from the date of knowledge to the said police officer,
whichever is earlier.
(c) Where it is not known by whom the offence was
committed, the first day on which identity of the offender is
known to the person aggrieved or to the police officer
making investigation into the offence whichever is earlier.

29. The Apex Court in The State of Kerala & Anr.
1
vs. M/s. Panacea Biotec Ltd. had an occasion to deal with
the question of limitation with reference to Sections 468 and
469 of Code, 1973. The Apex Court has held that under
Section 469(1)(c) the limitation would begin to run from the

1
AIR 2026 SC 1284

- 14 -
CRL.P No. 101447 of 2022


date when the identity of the accused is known to the
competent authority.

30. Thus, it is evident that the commencement of
limitation is not necessarily the date of commission of the
offence, and under the Code, 1973. The commencement of
period of limitation is dependent on the dates referred to in
Section 469(1)(a)(b)(c) of the Code, 1973.

31. From the contents of the complaint it appears
that the involvement of the petitioner came to the light of
the Police only during the course of investigation. Though
there is no specific averment in the complaint as to when the
complainant came to know about the involvement of the
accused, the Court is of the view that at this juncture, it is
not possible to take a call, that the complaint is time barred.
To take a call that the complaint is time barred, the Court
must be in a position to say that the complainant or the
authorised officer had the knowledge of the offence on a
particular date which would be the starting point of
limitation. At this juncture, the Court is not in a position to

- 15 -
CRL.P No. 101447 of 2022


take a view that the complaint is time barred or the
complaint is in time.

32. Hence, there has to be a further inquiry by the
Court taking cognizance as to whether the complaint is filed
within 3 years from the knowledge as contemplated under
Sections 468(c) and 469(1)(c) of the Code, 1973.

33. In addition, it is also urged on behalf of the
petitioner that the Court ought to have held an enquiry
under Section 202 of the Code, 1973, before issuing process.
The legal position in this regard has been settled by the Apex
Court in M/s. Panacea Biotec Ltd. supra.

34. The object of Section 202 of the Code, 1973, is to
ensure that an accused residing beyond the territorial
jurisdiction of the Court taking cognizance is not subjected to
harassment in the form of frivolous complaints. In M/s.
Panacea Biotec Ltd supra . , the Apex Court has held that
where a complaint is made by a public servant in discharge
of his official duties, the further enquiry before issuing
process as contemplated under Section 202 of the Code,
1973, is not required.

- 16 -
CRL.P No. 101447 of 2022



35. Hence, the impugned order is not vitiated by non-
compliance of the procedure under Section 202 of the Code,
1973. However, as already noted the impugned order suffers
from other errors.

36. This being the position, the impugned order has
to be set aside and the matter has to be remitted to the Trial
Court for fresh consideration.

37. The Trial Court shall hold an enquiry as to the
date of the complainant’s knowledge about the involvement
of the accused No.5/petitioner in the commission of alleged
offence and based on the materials placed during the course
of such enquiry, the Court has to pass appropriate orders.

38. It is to be borne in mind that the period of
limitation is 3 years as the punishment that can be imposed
for the offence alleged is 2 years imprisonment and fine and
not 5 years, as the amended provision of the Act, 1957 does
not apply to the offences alleged.

39. If the Court taking cognizance finds that there are
materials to take cognizance of the offences and records
satisfaction with due application of mind, and that the

- 17 -
CRL.P No. 101447 of 2022


complaint is within 3 years from the knowledge of the
involvement of accused No.5, then the matter is required to
be committed to the jurisdictional Sessions Court in view of
the mandate of Sections 30B and 30C of the Act, 1957.

40. In case the Court taking cognizance finds that
the complainant had the knowledge about the involvement of
accused No.5, three years prior filing of the complaint, then
complaint probably would be time barred and the Court has
to ascertain whether any case is made out to condone the
delay under Section 473 of the Code, 1973.

41. As to the commencement of limitation and about
the knowledge of alleged involvement of the petitioner in the
commission of the offences, this Court has not expressed
any opinion and same has to be decided based on materials
to be placed during the course of further enquiry.
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Petition is allowed in part .
(ii) The order dated 19.10.2020 passed in C.C.
No.412/2020 by the JMFC, Ankola, taking

- 18 -
CRL.P No. 101447 of 2022


cognizance and issuing process against the
accused, is set aside.
(iii) The matter is remitted to the Trial Court for
fresh consideration in accordance with law.
(iv) The Trial Court shall conduct an enquiry to
ascertain the date on which the identity of
accused No.5 became known to the person
aggrieved or to the Police officer investigating
the offence, whichever is earlier, as
contemplated under Section 469(1)(c) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
(v) If the complaint is found to have been
instituted beyond the prescribed period of
limitation from the date of knowledge, the
Trial Court shall consider the applicability of
Section 473 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 before passing appropriate
orders.
(vi) If the complaint is found to be within
limitation, or if extension of limitation is
permissible under Section 473 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Trial Court
shall independently consider whether there
are materials to take cognizance and commit
the matter to the jurisdictional Sessions
Court in view of Sections 30B and 30C of the

- 19 -
CRL.P No. 101447 of 2022


Mines and Minerals (Development and
Regulation) Act, 1957.
Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
JUDGE







GVP