<p>The High Court has dismissed a batch of petitions filed by companies and individuals challenging the charge sheets filed by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) in the case of illegal export of stolen iron ore from Belekeri port near Karwar.</p>.<p>The cases were registered for offences under the IPC and also under Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, and Rules and Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969. The companies had also challenged the proceedings initiated by the special court for Lokayukta cases.</p>.<p>The petitions were filed by ILC Industries Limited, Clariya Marketing Services Private Limited and MK Engineering Corporation. The contention raised by the petitioners was that since the companies were involved in the transactions individuals are not responsible. Justice John Michael Cunha rejected these contentions.</p>.<p>“The facts and circumstances disclosed in the material collected by investigating officer undoubtedly point out that the petitioners ingeniously have been operating behind the cover of firm or company by entering into conspiracy with other accused with intent to make unlawful gain making out the ingredients of offence under Sections 420 and 120B of IPC,” the court said.</p>
<p>The High Court has dismissed a batch of petitions filed by companies and individuals challenging the charge sheets filed by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) in the case of illegal export of stolen iron ore from Belekeri port near Karwar.</p>.<p>The cases were registered for offences under the IPC and also under Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, and Rules and Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969. The companies had also challenged the proceedings initiated by the special court for Lokayukta cases.</p>.<p>The petitions were filed by ILC Industries Limited, Clariya Marketing Services Private Limited and MK Engineering Corporation. The contention raised by the petitioners was that since the companies were involved in the transactions individuals are not responsible. Justice John Michael Cunha rejected these contentions.</p>.<p>“The facts and circumstances disclosed in the material collected by investigating officer undoubtedly point out that the petitioners ingeniously have been operating behind the cover of firm or company by entering into conspiracy with other accused with intent to make unlawful gain making out the ingredients of offence under Sections 420 and 120B of IPC,” the court said.</p>