Back
2019 Supreme(Kar) 943
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
B.A. Patil, J.
A.M.R. Veeraiah - Appellant
Vs.
Central Bureau Of Investigation - Respondent
Criminal Revision Petition No. 831 of 2013, 838 of 2013
Decided On : 30-08-2019
P.N. Hegde, Adv., P. Prasanna Kumar, Adv., R. Muralidharan, Adv.
Headnote:
Constitution Of India,1950 - Article 227 - Indian Penal Code,1860 - Criminal procedure Code, 1973 - Section 227 or 239 - Prevention of Corruption Act - Section 13(1)(d) - Punishment – Quash - Criminal conspiracy with accused other accused persons committed various illegal acts and accused through accused demanded illegal gratification and was allegedly reduced give authorization of granting renewal of law course in said law college- It is further alleged that out of said amount an amount was received by accused from accused college and he was also demanding payment of remaining amount and was also threatening that he will give an adverse report against college for its closure –Held, Case and documents submitted therewith and after hearing parties may either discharge accused or where it appears to court and in its opinion there is ground for presuming that accused has committed an offence it shall frame charge - Once and ingredients of section exists then court would be right in presuming that there is ground to proceed against accused and frame charge accordingly- This presumption is not a presumption of law as such satisfaction of court in relation to existence of constituents of an offence and leading to that offence is a sine qua non for exercise of such jurisdiction - It may even be weaker than a prima facie case specific allegation made as against accused that he conspired with accused and informed accused for purpose making arrangements and payment of amount- Though it is contended counsel for accused that charge is based on speculation and not on any material when question of framing a charge arises Court is required to see prima facie evidence- In a case of conspiracy there will be no direct evidence and it has to be proved by circumstantial evidence- In order to see circumstances prosecution has to lead evidence- If evidence is required then such circumstances Court is justified in framing charge case of prosecution that an amount has been paid to accused - On going through said records and statements of witnesses if trial Court has come to conclusion that there is sufficient ground to initiate proceedings as against accused persons then can proceed to frame charge Court can discharge accused- But on perusal of entire charge sheet material and as per arguments counsel appearing for petitioners-accused who have elaborately taken me through records and various decisions that is a matter which has to be considered only at time of trial Court after scrupulously scrutinizing prosecution material has been satisfied to come to conclusion that there is sufficient material to proceed against accused persons and on basis of same it has rejected application filed by accused -In that light court of considered opinion that this case is not a rarest of rare case and there is no patent error of jurisdiction order of trial Court is neither perverse nor illegal- In that light needs to be confirmed and accordingly dame is confirmed are at liberty to urge all grounds urged before this Court during course of trial observations made during course of this order shall not be in any way influenced by trial Court while disposing of case independently on merits and in accordance with law – Petition dismissed
JUDGMENT :
B.A. Patil, J.
Since the question of law and facts to be determined are identical in both these cases, I have taken up them for consideration together and disposed of by this common order.
2. Criminal Revision Petition No.831/2013 is preferred by accused Nos.3 and 4, whereas Criminal Revision Petition No.838/2013 is preferred by accused No.2 challenging the order passed by the XLVII Additional City Civil and Sessions and Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bengaluru, in Spl.CC.No.10/2012, dated 14.8.2013 whereunder the application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioners came to be dismissed..
3. I have heard Sri P.N.Hegde for accused Nos.3 and 4-petitioners in Criminal Revision Petition No.831/2013; Sri R.Muralidharan, learned counsel for accused No.2-petitioner in Criminal Revision Petition No.838/2013; and Sri P.Prasannakumar, learned Special PP for respondent-CBI.
4. The case of the prosecution in brief is that accused No.1-R.Dhanpal Raj is a practicing advocate at Chennai. He was selected as a Vice Chairman of Bar Council of India for a period of two years from 17.4.2010. But as on the date of filing of the charge sheet he was not holding any post. Accused No.2- G.R.Ramesh Prabhu is a businessman who hails from Chennai and he was a former student of M/s.Sarvodaya Law College, Bengaluru and he is also a friend and close associate of accused No.1. They were also working for a political party. Accused No.3-A.M.R.Veeraiah is the Principal and accused No.4-K Narasimhhappa is an Administrative Officer of M/s.Sarvodaya Law College respectively. Accused No.4 was entrusted with the administration of the college including the staff, maintenance of the building, purchase of library books and other auxiliaries and he was also dealing with the financial aspects of the college. It is further case of the prosecution that in the meeting of Bar Council of India on 22.8.2010, a resolution was passed imposing a 'Moratorium on all the inspections of the Centres of Legal Education by the Bar Council of India'. After the said resolution no inspection was conducted up to October 2010. On 19.10.2010, accused No.1 issued an order by modification with a mala fide intention by using his official position directing the Secretary of Bar Council of India to start fixing the inspection of the colleges on the direction of the Chairman/Vice Chairman with immediate effect, whereunder Pending Constitution of Expert Committee, the Inspection Committee shall consist of two or more members of Bar Council of India and Bar Council of India local member of the State and Chairman of Bar Council of India or his representative. However, TA and DA, etc. in respect of Chairman or his representative and experts are to be decided in the General Council. Through the said office order, Secretary was directed to start fixing the inspection of colleges on the direction of the Chairman/Vice Chairman with immediate effect. It is further alleged that accused No.1 fraudulently induced the Secretary of Bar Council of India and got issued the office order falsely representing that he had discussed the matter with the then Chairman of Bar Council of India and it is issued with his approval. He also informed another signatory to the office order Sri Rajendra Singh Rana that he had discussed the issue with the Chairman of Bar Council of India and in that light he put him on a wrong direction and induced him to sign the office order. Though he has not discussed the issue with the Chairman, he has got approved the process of resumption of inspection. Even the said office order was not brought to the notice of the Chairman or it was not rectified. It is further alleged that there was no procedure for nomination of the inspection committee. Accused No.1 issued instructions to the Secretary as to who should be the members of the inspection team. On the basis of instruction of accused No.1, Secretary issued notices to four law colleges, including M/s.Sarvodaya Law College, Be
