Summary
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s direction to release seized iron ore to Vedanta. The High Court relied on acceptance of a closure report in a separate Lokayukta SIT case, whereas the seizure and e-tender disposal order arose in different criminal proceedings. Closure of the unrelated case did not invalidate that order or establish entitlement to the ore. Vedanta remained free to approach the jurisdictional criminal court and prove the ore’s existence and its ownership.
Issues
- Whether acceptance of a final report in a separate SIT case justified release of iron ore seized and governed by orders in different criminal proceedings.
- Where and on what basis the respondent could seek release of the seized ore.
Held
- The accepted final report concerned Crime No.2/2014 investigated by the Lokayukta SIT. The 8 May 2015 order permitting disposal through e-tender concerned the separate special criminal cases arising from the earlier seizure. Acceptance of the report in the former case had no consequence for the latter order; relying on it to direct release was erroneous. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19)
- The respondent’s claim to approximately 34,544 metric tonnes was not finally determined. It could apply to the designated CBI Special Court for release, establishing both the existence of the seized iron ore and ownership rights over it. The criminal court was to decide any such application according to law. (¶¶ 18, 20, 21)
Result
State’s criminal appeal allowed; High Court release judgment set aside. Respondent given liberty to seek release before the jurisdictional criminal court on proof of existence and ownership; no immediate release ordered.