IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
L. NARAYANA SWAMY, J.
Christy Fried Gram Industry, Bangalore and another - Petitioners
Vs.
State of Karnataka and others - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 6225 of 2014
Decided On : 30-10-2015
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 - Sections 154, 156, 460, 461: [L. Narayana Swamy, J] FIR - Registration of - Investigation and preliminary enquiry before registration of FIR - Validity - Held, The prosecution is not justified in conducting investigation before registration of FIR in the guise of preliminary enquiry and investigation for a period of about 18 months is beyond the 7 days period said to be permissible. Delay in lodging the FIR, loses the advantage of spontaneity, danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of large number of consultations/ deliberations. Promptly lodged FIR reflects first hand information as to what has happened, and who was responsible for such an offence.
The plea that any violation of provisions of Section 154 do not make entire proceedings illegal as Section 154 is not included in Sections 461 and 460 not tenable. Section 460 provides that if any Magistrate not empowered to do an act, does it in good faith, his proceedings shall not be set aside merely on the ground that he was not empowered. Section 461 the Code provides that if any Magistrate not being empowered by law to do certain acts as detailed therein does any of the acts, his proceeding shall be void. Therefore, the prosecution cannot take shelter under the said provisions to save the present proceedings.
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 - Section 432: [L. Narayana Swamy, J] Abuse of process of law - Breach of contract for supply of substandard food by petitioners - Held, Breach of contract for supply of substandard food amounts only to civil in nature for which arbitration proceedings for determining the illegalities of either side is pending. Hence the prosecution launched against the petitioners is abuse of process of law, cannot be sustained.
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - Article 21: [L. Narayana Swamy, J] Fair investigation and fair trial - Offence under Prevention of Corruption Act - Held, There is no compelling reason for Lokayukta or Lokayukta Police to take each and every complaint and launch a criminal prosecution. The investigating agency must avoid entirely any kind of extraneous influence, and investigation must be carried out with equal alacrity and fairness irrespective of the status of the accused or the complainant, as a tainted investigation definitely leads to miscarriage of criminal justice, and thus deprives a man of his fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Thus, every investigation must be judicious, fair, transparent and expeditious to ensure compliance with the rules of law, as is required under Articles 19, 20 & 21 of the Constitution. Fair investigation and fair trial are concomitant to preservation of fundamental right of an accused under Article 21. A victim of a crime, thus, is equally entitled to a fair investigation.
FOOD SAFETY & STANDARDS ACT, 2006 - Sections 42 & 47: [L. Narayana Swamy, J] Food related offences - Investigation and initiation of proceedings by Lokayuktha Police without following procedure prescribed under FSS Act would be without jurisdiction and authority of law. Invoking provisions of Penal Code, is not proper.
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 - Section 17: [L. Narayana Swamy, J] Investigation - Section 17 permits police to investigate offence punishable only under the Act - Investigation by police into other offences viz. under IPC without obtaining permission from Special judge would be Illegal.
W. P. No.6225-26/2014 is filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash the complaint dated 9.2.2012 at Annexure-A and FIR dated 8.3.2012 at Annexure-B, issue direction to the Lokayuktha that M/s. Pristine Laboratories report dated 10.4.2012 shall not be looked into and shall not be considered and that the certificate dated 10.4.2012 issued by M/s. Pristine Laboratoriies shall not be used in evidence in court of law or in advertising media.
2. W. P. Nos.2172-73/2015 is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution r/w Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to issue writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to act upon the Final Report in Crime No.20/2012 of Lokayukta Police at Annexure-G dated 8.3.2012 on the ground the same is violative of Section 4(2) r/w Section 5 of Code of Criminal Procedure and the special procedure provided for enquiry, investigation and prosecution as envisaged under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and alternatively quash the final report of Lokayuktha at Annexure-G dated 8.3.2012 in Crime No.20/2012.
3. Criminal Petition Nos.7997/2013 and Criminal Petition No.815/2014 are filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash First Information Report in Crime No.20/2012 dated 8.3.2012 registered by the Respondent Police.
4. Criminal Petition No.7996/2013 is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash the FIR in Crime No.25/2012 dated 26.3.2012 registered the Respondent Police at Annexure-A.
5. Facts of the case to be stated in brief in W. P. Nos.6225- 26/2014 are that the first petitioner is the sole proprietor of a proprietary concern, Christy Fried Gram Industry and second petitioner is its General Manager.
6. The Government of Karnataka through its Women and Child Welfare Department floated a project called, Mahila Supplementary Nutrition Production and Training Centres (MSPTC for short), which was initially for setting up of 27 MSPTCs in the State and later it was revised to 137, duly ratified by the cabinet.
7. The final product was prepared by the women groups and payment was made to the petitioner by the women groups for the services rendered and materials supplied by the petitioner and not by the Government or the Department.
8. That an anonymous letter dated 5.10.2010 said to have been received by Lokayuktha office making frivolous allegations against the petitioners in the writ petitions and the then Director of Department of Women and Child Welfare. The petitioner’s employee Ms. Priya Udupi who was removed from service of the petitioner concern on 10.10.2009 joined hands with vested interests and concocted story of supply of substandard food and payment of bribery amount to Child Development Project Officers/Deputy Directors, etc.
9. The first information report was registered on 8.3.2012 by Lokayuktha Police alleging supply of substandard food by the petitioner, paying bribe to officers and officials for showing undue favour to the petitioners. A search warrant was obtained on 8.3.2012 and search was conducted on the office of the petitioners on 9.3.2012.
10. The contentions raised by the petitioners in W. P. Nos.6225-26/2014 are as follows:
(1) That Lokayukta Police encroached the jurisdiction of Lokayuktha as anonymous complaint was made to Lokayuktha.
(2) That investigation was done for about 18 months prior to registration of FIR. Delay in registration of FIR is not explained.
(3) Eighteen months preliminary enquiry cannot be termed as discreet enquiry.
(4) Investigation report is taken as FIR in gross violation of procedure contemplated under Section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(5) On plain reading of FIR, no case has been made out against the petitioners who are not public servants.
(6) Search warrant is issued in violation of Section 93 r/w Form 10 of Cr. P. C. vitiating all further proceedings.
(7) The charges of supply of substandard food is not maintain
State of UP v. Bhagwant Kishore Joshi
Rajeevan v. State of Kerala reported in AIR 2003 SC 1813
Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P. & others
State of M.P & others v. Shri Ram Singh
Niranjan Singh & others v. State of U.P. reported in AIR 1957 SC 142
Umesh Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Ajmer Singh etc. v. Union of India & Ors. (1987) 3 SCC 340; AIR 1987 SC 1646
Yunus Zia v. State of Karnataka & another
Calcutta Municipal Corporation v. Pavan Kumar Saraf
State of Gujarat v. Naro Hambhai Chaganalal Thakkar & others
R. S. Raghunath v. State of Karnataka & another
Commercial Tax Officer, Rajasthan v. Binani Cements Ltd. & another
Jeevan Kumar Raut & another v. Central Bureau of Investigation
V. S. Kuttan Pillai v. Ramakrishnan
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 Para 102; AIR 1992 SC 604
gpt-4
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.