Back
2017 Supreme(Kar) 1411
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
RAVI MALIMATH, JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA, JJ.
Sri Abdul Kareem Telgi - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Karnataka - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No.1187, 1123, 1241 of 2007
Decided On : 11-07-2017
For the Petitioners:Sri M.T. Nanaiah, Senior Advocate Along With Sri Balasubramanya B.N., Advocate.
For the Respondents: Sri P. Prasanna Kumar, SPL.PP
Headnote:INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 [C.A. NO. 45/1860] - Section 120-B - PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 [C.A. NO. 49/1988] - Sections 7, 13 (1)(d) - Illegal gratification - Accused and co-accused, doctors allegedly demanding illegal gratification from associates of convict, for issuance of medical certificates for securing bail - No allegations against prison authorities regarding their involvement in conspiracy - Witness, Police escorting convict to hospital categorically deposed that convict produced before Superintendent of hospital upon instruction of Jail Authorities - Held, Merely because accused persons examined convict and issued medical certificate, it cannot be held that they did so pursuant to conspiracy or upon receipt of illegal gratification - Failure of prosecution to prove ingredients of Section 120-B of Penal Code or Section 7 or 12 or 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act - Conviction held, improper.
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 [C.A. NO. 49/1988] - Sections 7, 13(1)(d) - Illegal gratification - Testimony of sole eye-witness - False medical certificates alleged to have been issued by accused, Medical Officer after receiving illegal gratification from convict for securing bail - Sole witness stating about receiving illegal gratification on behalf of accused - Evidence of sole witness found vague, full of improvements and omissions, seriously affecting case of prosecution - Absence of material to show that sole witness worked as attender in office of accused, at relevant point of time - No attendance register produced to show that sole witness was on duty on date of issuance of certificates - Evidence of sole witness unreliable to prove receipt of illegal gratification by accused.
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 [C.A. NO. 49/1988] - Sections 7, 13(1)(d) - Illegal gratification - Plea of prosecution that amount received from convict for issuing false medical certificate remitted by accused, Medical Officer to Bank towards repayment of loan, indirectly proving receipt of illegal gratification - Such assumption is far-fetched - Even on assumption that accused being public servant found in possession of property and assets disproportionate to his known source of income does not lead to inference of demand and receipt of illegal gratification.
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 [C.A. No. 2/1974] - Sections 156, 157 - Initiation of criminal proceedings - Delay - Calls made by convict from prison regularly monitored by prison authorities - Alleged conversation between associates of convict and accused Doctors recorded in year 2002 - Convict already under investigation, hence Investigating Agency could have acted on basis of recorded conversation in year 2002 itself - Evidence collected in year 2002 however used in year 2004 when case was handed over to CBI, for building offence of criminal conspiracy - Criminal proceedings initiated against accused, belatedly - Accused is entitled to acquittal.
INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 [C.A. NO. 45/1860] - Sections 120-B - Criminal conspiracy - Accused, Medical Officers allegedly entering into criminal conspiracy with associates of convict for issuing fake medical certificates - Transcripted conversation between accused and associates of convict relied on to prove criminal conspiracy - Associate of convict neither identified nor examined to prove conversation or agreement between accused and convict - Evidence relating to Transcripted conversation, not supported by corroborative evidence - Charges of criminal conspiracy, held, not proved.
1. These three appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction dated 19.6.2007 and the order of sentence dated 21.6.2007 passed by the XXXV Addl. City Civil and Special Sessions Judge and Special Sessions Judge (Special Court-To try fake stamp paper cases) Bengaluru in Spl.C.C.No.213 of 2004. The accused are convicted for the offence punishable under section 7, 12, 13(1)(d) r/w. section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act (for short “P.C. Act”) and section 120-B of Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC") and are sentended as under:
The appellants/accused Nos.1, 37 and 38 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years for offence under section 7 of P.C. Act, 1988 r/w. Section 120-B of the IPC. Accused No.1 is directed to pay a fine of Rs.5 lakhs. Accused No.37 and accused No.38 are directed pay a fine of Rs.3 lakhs each.
Accused Nos.1, 37 and 38 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years for the offence under section 12 of P.C. Act, 1988 r/w. section 120-B of the IPC. Accused No.1 is directed to pay a fine of Rs.10 lakhs. Accused Nos.37 and 38 are directed to pay a fine of Rs.5 lakhs each.
Accused Nos.1, 37 and 38 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence under section 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act, 1988 r/w. section 13(2) of P.C. Act r/w. section 120-B of the IPC. Accused No.1 is directed to pay a fine of Rs.5 lakhs. Accused Nos.37 and 38 are directed to pay a fine of Rs.3 lakhs each.
Accused Nos.1, 37 and 38 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years for offence under section 120-B of the IPC. Accused No.1 is directed to pay a fine Rs.5 lakhs. Accused Nos.37 and 38 are directed to pay a fine of Rs.3 lakhs each.
2. Hereinafter the appellants will be referred to as accused Nos.1, 37 and 38 respectively.
3. The facts leading to these appeals are as follows:
A case was registered against Accused no.1, Sri. Abdul Kareem Telgi, in Parappana Agrahara Police Station, Bengaluru in Crime No.545 of 2000, on the accusations that he was involved in large scale manufacture and circulation of fake stamps and stamp papers. The investigation was entrusted to STAMP IT.
4. During the investigation, PW-18 a Police Inspector attached to STAMP IT got credible information that Accused no.1, was continuing his illegal activities from Central Prison through his associates. The calls made by Accused no.1 were monitored. The investigating team bumped upon a conversation between one Dr. Agnihotri and Accused no.38 on 20.09.2002. Since this conversation disclosed the commission of cognizable offence, PW-18 prepared an information report on 05.10.2002. Based on the said report, a complaint was registered by Madiwala Police in Crime No.1100 of 2002, against Accused no.1 and others for the offences punishable under Sections 255, 258, 259, 260, 468, 420 of IPC, read with Section-120-B of IPC and under Section-63 of Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, read with Section-120 B of IPC.
5. After completing the investigation, on 04.01.2003, PW-19 another officer of STAMP IT laid the charge-sheet against Accused no.1 and others in the above Crime No.1100 of 2002, and the Court took cognizance of the same and accordingly registered C.C.No.37 of 2003. After filing the charge-sheet, PW- 19 applied to the Court under Section-173(8) of Cr.P.C., to permit him to continue to investigate the case against other Accused. The permission was granted.
6. In the meanwhile, pursuant to the order passed by the Apex Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.522 of 2003, dated 15.03.2004, the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as ‘CBI’ for short), took over further investigation of the case in Crime No.1100 of 2002.
7. After the CBI took over the investigation, on 05.07.2004, PW-20; Sri.V.Nava Raju, the then Police Inspector, CBI at Bengaluru operated the computer/monitor at MO-2 and the CPU at MO-3, wherein the conversations between Dr.Agnihotri and other accused were recorded. Further on 14
