Back
2016 Supreme(Kar) 185
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Rathnakala, J.
Lakshmikantha S.G. - Appellants
Vs.
The State and Ors. - Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 3750/2013
Decided On : 11-02-2016
For the Appellant : M.S. Bhagwat, Adv.
For the Respondent: B.S. Prasad, Spl. PP
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the registration of FIR is mandatory for proceeding with the investigation, and any investigation prior to FIR registration is illegal. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the procedural requirements of the Code.
Headnote:
Investigation - Preliminary Enquiry - Prevention of Corruption Act - Section 154 of Cr.P.C - [CONVERSATION] - [PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT] - [Section 154 of Cr.P.C] - The court discussed the legality of recording conversations of the accused prior to the registration of FIR and its implications on the investigation. It highlighted the mandatory requirement of FIR registration and the steps involved in investigation as per the Code. The court emphasized the distinction between preliminary enquiry and investigation, and the admissibility of recorded conversations as evidence.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Junior Engineer/Section Officer, was accused of demanding illegal gratification from a contractor. The contractor approached the Lokayukta Police, recorded conversations with the accused, and a FIR was registered. The petitioner challenged the legality of the FIR registration and subsequent investigation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the investigation commenced prior to the registration of the FIR, which violated the mandatory provision of Section 154 of Cr.P.C. It concluded that the material collected before the registration of the case was improperly blended with the trap mahazar, vitiating the entire investigation. The court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR.
Issues: The key issue was whether the recording of conversations of the accused prior to the registration of FIR amounted to preliminary enquiry or investigation, and the legality of the FIR registration and subsequent investigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the registration of FIR is essential for proceeding with the investigation, and any investigation prior to FIR registration is illegal. It discussed the steps involved in investigation as per the Code and distinguished between preliminary enquiry and investigation. The court also highlighted the admissibility of recorded conversations as evidence.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the FIR in Crime No. 3/2013 was quashed.
Rathnakala, J.
1. A nice question of law is raised which arises for consideration in this petition is, Whether conversation of the accused recorded in support of the allegation for the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, prior to registration of FIR amounts to preliminary enquiry or investigation?
2. Undisputed facts of the case, the petitioner is working as Junior Engineer/Section Officer in Chamundeswari Electricity Supply Company Limited.
Respondent No. 2 is the defacto complainant who is Class-I Electrical Contractor (for brevity, Contractor). As per his complaint allegation, in respect of works order allotted by the Company, Contractor insisted for indent in respect of a converter of 25kv, accused dodged the issue for about two months. The Contractor had already given Rs. 3,500/- to the accused, but the accused demanded a gratification of Rs. 10,000/- to give indent for 2 TCs. The Contractor approached the Lokayuktha Police on 26.03.2013 and divulged the alleged demand of the accused. On that information, IO handed over a voice reorder to him with an instruction to record the conversation of the accused while he is demanding illegal gratification. On 28.03.2013, the contractor met the accused in his office and dragged him to conversation. During the course of conversation, the accused demanded Rs. 10,000/- to allot indent, however, finally, he came to the terms of Rs. 8,000/-. The Contractor produced voice recorder before IO and FIR was registered on 28.03.2013. IO procured the panch witnesses and conducted the entrustment conducted ride with panch witnesses and his staff mahazar, the accused was trapped while he was receiving tainted currency notes from the Contractor, and Trap mahazar is drawn thereby incorporating the transcription of conversation between the accused and contractor.
3. Sri. M.S. Bhagawat, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that FIR registered on the basis of the conversation recorded in the voice recorder alleging that the accused demanded illegal gratification from the contractor is wholly illegal and against mandatory requirement under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. and it amounts to investigation. Before registering the FIR, no investigation is permissible. Consistently, this Court has held that conducting of search/raid prior to registration of FIR is illegal. Since IO commenced investigation even before registration of FIR, entire proceedings is vitiated. The allegations made in the complaint taken on its face value do not constitute any offence against the petitioner. There is no demand or acceptance of illegal gratification. Mere proof of receipt of money will not make out an offence under the provisions of PC Act. Inherent power of this Court may be exercised to quash the criminal proceeding which is illegally initiated against the petitioner.
4. In reply, Sri. B.S. Prasad, learned Special Public Prosecutor for Lokayukta/Respondent No. 1 submits that it is true, the contractor approached the Lokayukta police for action against accused on 26.03.2013 and IO in accordance with guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of U.P and others. (2014) 2 SCC 1, handed over the voice recorder to the contractor to record the conversation about demand of bribe money. Consequently, the contractor recorded the conversation between himself and the accused and produced the same before IO. On being satisfied about involvement of the accused in the offence alleged, case was registered. IO procured two official witnesses to his offence, applied sodium carbonate powder to currency notes under entrust mahazar and then proceeded to the office along with complainant/contractor, official witnesses and his staffs. The complainant approached the accused in his office and the accused demanded the bribe money of Rs. 8,000/- and placed the same in the pocket of his shirt and same was witnessed by the shadow witness. After getting signal from the complainant, IO went insid
