Back
2015 Supreme(Kar) 304
High Court of Karnataka (Circuit Bench of Kalaburagi)
K.N. PHANEENDRA, J.
Ranganath – Petitioner
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
Criminal Revision Petition No. 200071 of 2014
Decided On : 25-02-2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:R.S. Lagali, Advocate.
For the Respondent: S.S. Kumman, Spl. PP., for Lokayukta.
Headnote:CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 - Section 245: [K.N. Phaneendra, J] Discharge of accused - Where the matter requires to be decided by means of some evidence and some doubt is created with regard to the complicity of the accused in the crime, then the Court normally should not discharge the accused and it should frame the charges and proceed with the case to provide opportunity to both the parties to prove their respective pleas. When the allegations are sufficient to constitute an offence under the Provision of Prevention of Corruption Act, which is also supported by the statement of the co-accused during the course of trap, the accused does not deserve for discharge. The proof is something different from prima facie allegations made against the accused. When prima facie allegations are available against the accused, which are sufficient to create strong suspicion with regard to the commission of the offence that itself is sufficient to frame charges against the accused and proceed with the case. Mere registration of a case subsequently invariably in all the cases will not totally vitiates the proceedings. Further it may vitiate the portion of the investigation but if the Court is of the opinion that excluding the vitiated portion if the other portion of the charge sheet is believable then the Court has to take proper steps on that particular aspect. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion, in this particular case whether the investigation is vitiated and on that ground the entire charge sheet has to be thrown out or whether the accused is to be acquitted has to be evaluated and appreciated only after providing an opportunity to the prosecution and it cannot be snubbed at the initial stages.
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 - Section 2(c)(i): [K.N. Phaneendra, J] Public servant - Licensed Surveyor is a public servant.
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 - Sections 7, 13(1)(d): [K.N. Phaneendra, J] Demand and acceptance of bribe - Held, Existence of any official work for demand of bribe is not a sine-qua-non to attract the provisions of Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Section 7, if it is read with explanation, it gives an indication that even a public servant accepts or agrees to accept any gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward for doing or for bearing to do any official act or for showing or for bearing to show in the exercise of his official functions, is said to commit such an offence. Therefore, even the public servant has no existing work with him pertaining to the complainant and he was not in a position to do any work but if he demands and accepts any gratification the provision is attracted.
K.N. PHANEENDRA, J.
1. The petitioner who is arrayed as accused No. 1 in Special C.C. No. 38/2012 pending on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bidar (Lokayukta case) aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Special Judge Vide order dated 25.08.2014 in refusing to discharge the petitioner of the charges levelled against him is before this Court.
2. It is not in dispute that at the relevant point of time the petitioner was working as a Licensed Surveyor and one Mr. Nagesh was working as a Computer operator in the office of the Tahsildar at Basavakalyan in Gulbarga District.
3. The brief factual matrix that emanate from the records are that, a person by name Basavaraj S/o Channabasayya lodged a complaint on 10.08.2010 making allegations that his brother-in-law by name Asttik S/o Mallayya is a Mechanic residing at Aurangabad. There is a land bearing Sy. No. 52/A belonged to the father of Asttik by name Mallayya and after the death of the said Mallayya, the said Asttik wanted to get his name mutated in the revenue records pertaining to the said land. In fact, he entrusted the said work to the complainant and in that context he went to the office of the Tahsildar at Basavakalyan, and submitted an application along with necessary fee. Thereafter, in this context he went to the computer section of the said office and came to know that the file is with one Mr. Ranganath, Surveyor who is the petitioner herein. It is alleged that the petitioner told the complainant that the land has already been measured and as the complainant did not appear in time, the complainant has to make necessary application again with fee for the purpose of survey and for acceptance of the mutation etc. When the complainant asked why he has to pay the fee again then it is alleged that this petitioner has demanded a sum of Rs. 1,300/- by way of bribe assuring him that within one week he will get the work done. It is further alleged that on the same day an amount of Rs. 7,00/- was paid to him and accepted to pay the remaining amount of Rs. 500/- later the petitioner told the complainant that as soon as he pays the remaining amount of Rs. 500/- he would get the work done.
4. Being not satisfied with the attitude of the petitioner, the complainant went to the Lokayukta police and lodged a complaint. The Lokayukta police without registering any case on the basis of the above said allegations made against the petitioner, in order to confirm the allegations made in the complaint it appears the investigating officer sent the complainant once again along with a tape recorder the conversation between himself and the accused petitioner. It appears, the complainant went along with a micro tape and recorded the conversation between himself and the petitioner and thereafter a complaint was registered on 10.08.2010. Subsequently, the investigating officer laid a trap against the accused person and even during the course of investigation the records disclose that no amount was recovered at the instance of the petitioner. Nevertheless a person by name Nagesh who was working as a Computer Assistant in the office of the petitioner alleged to have received the said bribe amount from the complainant on behalf of the petitioner. The said Nagesh has disclosed that he received the said amount on the instructions and information given by the petitioner. Therefore, on these allegations, after completion of the entire investigation, as the investigating officer did not feel to secure any sanction due to the accused/petitioner was already removed from the service, he filed the charge sheet, before the competent Court.
5. The Special Judge after going through the contents of the charge sheet has taken cognizance and ordered process against the petitioner. In pursuance of the same he appeared before the Court contested the proceedings and filed the application for his discharge as the said application was dismissed, the present petition is filed before this Court.
