Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Anand Byrareddy, J.
Dr. Y. Manjunath and another - Petitioners
Versus
State of Karnataka - Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 7053 of 2013 connected with Criminal Petition No. 5821 of 2013. Decided on : 25-10-2016.
Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 91,92,93(1)(c),94,95,96,97,98,154,290,460,461,537,530,162,172,139,112- Police Act, 1861 - Section 44 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 13(1)(d) and 13(1)(e) ,13(2),30 - Petitioner in first of these petitions was said to be working as Deputy Commissioner of Excise arrayed as accused and petitioner in second of these petitions was said to be working as an Inspector of Excise and in-charge Additional Deputy Superintendent of Excise Mysore arrayed as accused - Whether entire proceedings are vitiated on account of non-registration of FIR before the search? Whether General Diary entries made prior to search proceedings could be treated as FIR? - Whether a cognisable offence has been committed - But if information given clearly mentions commission of a cognisable offence there is no other option but to register an FIR forthwith - Whether information is genuine whether information is credible etc - Whether information given ex facie discloses commission of a cognisable offence - Whether information furnished provides a reason to suspect commission of an offence which police officer concerned is empowered under Section 156 of Code to investigate - Whether report is true whether it discloses full details regarding manner of occurrence whether accused is named and whether there is sufficient evidence to support allegations are all matters which are alien to consideration of question whether report discloses commission of a cognisable offence - Even if information does not give full details regarding these matters Investigating Officer is not absolved of his duty to investigate case and discover true facts if he can - Whether FIR is to be registered in FIR book or in the General Diary - Whether cognisable offence is disclosed or not - Whether information reveals any cognisable offence - Whether any error omission or irregularity in any proceeding under this Code has occasioned a failure of justice Court shall have regard to fact whether objection could and should have been raised at an earlier stage in proceedings - Held, It is well-settled that a first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to offence reported - An informant may lodge a report about commission of an offence though he may not know name of victim or his assailant - He may not even know how occurrence took place - A first informant need not necessarily be an eye-witness so as to be able to disclose in great detail all aspects of offence committed - What is of significance is that information given must disclose commission of a cognisable offence and information so lodged must provide a basis for police officer to suspect commission of a cognisable offence - At this stage it is enough if police officer on basis of information given suspects commission of a cognisable offence and not that he must be convinced or satisfied that a cognisable offence has been committed - If he has reasons to suspect on basis of information received that a cognisable offence may have been committed he is bound to record information and conduct an investigation - At this stage it is also not necessary for him to satisfy himself about truthfulness of information - It is only after a complete investigation that he may be able to report on truthfulness or otherwise of information - Similarly even if information does not furnish all details he must find out those details in course of investigation and collect all necessary evidence - Information given disclosing commission of a cognisable offence only sets in motion investigative machinery with a view to collect all necessary evidence and thereafter to take action in accordance with law - True test is whether information furnished provides a reason to suspect commission of an offence which police officer concerned is empowered under Section 156 of Code to investigate - Petitions dismissed
Anand Byrareddy, J.
1. These petitions are heard and disposed of by this common order, as the petitions are filed challenging the same proceedings.
2. The facts are stated to be as follows. The petitioner in the first of these petitions was said to be working as the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, arrayed as accused 8 and the petitioner in the second of these petitions was said to be working as an Inspector of Excise and in-charge Additional Deputy Superintendent of Excise, Mysore, arrayed as accused 4.
3. It transpires that the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Lokayukta, Mysore, on receiving information of certain corrupt practices in the Office of the Inspector of Excise, Range I and IV, Mysore, is said to have obtained a search warrant from the Court of the District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Mysore, to conduct a search of the said offices. Accordingly, he is said to have proceeded with his staff and other panch witnesses to the Office premises of the Deputy Superintendent of Excise and the office premises of the petitioners. Both the offices were said to be situated in the same building. The raiding party is said to have reached the said offices at about 12.40 p.m. on 27-2-2012. It transpires one Dakshinamurthy, Sub-Inspector of Excise was present, who was said to have been served with the search warrant. The Inspector of Excise was not to be found in the office. The search party had then entered the room where Nagesh, a Second Division Assistant (accused 2) and one Rajappa, an Excise guard (accused 3) were said to be present. On enquiry with them as regards applications for renewal of licences filed by M/s. SB Wines Corner and M/s. Gandharva Wines, accused 2 is said to have produced two files and an amount of Rs. 41,000/- each, which was to be handed over to the Excise Inspector and which was said to have been handed over by one Yogesh. The said amount of Rs. 82,000/- which was not towards any legitimate fee or charges was said to have been seized and the particulars noted.
Thereafter, the search team had gone to the Office of Excise Zone I and found one person who is said to have come there in connection with renewal of licence pertaining to M/s. Maruthi Wines and another licence of his friend pertaining to M/s. Aditya Wines and he had informed that cash of Rs. 1,23,000/- had been handed over to Chowda Naik, an excise guard (accused 5) on the instructions of the petitioner in the first of the petitions (accused 8). On enquiry with Chowda Naik, he is said to have produced the files and cash amounting to Rs. 1,23,000/- and also reported that a sum of Rs. 41,000/- had been handed over to one Eshwarappa, an excise guard (accused 6), who in turn is said to have handed over the amount to another guard, Umesh (accused 7). The said amount also having been recovered, a mahazar is said to have been drawn in this regard. The explanation of Thammanna (accused 4), the petitioner in the second of these petitions, was said to have been obtained. As well as that of his counterpart, Susanna (accused 1) of Range IV was said to have been obtained.
Thus, after recording the explanatory statements of the accused and seizure of cash amounting in all to Rs. 2.46 lakhs, as well as two compact discs containing the alleged conversation between the petitioner in the first of these petitions and one Chandrashekar, all the accused were said to have been taken into custody and produced before the Court. They had been subsequently released on bail.
4. Aggrieved by the registration of a case in Crime No. 11 of 2012 for offences punishable under Section 13(1)(d) and 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the present petitions are filed.
5. The learned Senior Advocate Sri C.V. Nagesh, appearing for the Counsel for the petitioner in the first of these petitions, would contend that the registration of criminal case is without any basis. It is pointed out that when a case is to be registered against a person fo
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
