Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Kar) 550

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
H.B. PRABHAKARA SASTRY, J.
The State of Karnataka by The Police Karnataka Lokayuktha Bangalore Rural Police Station – Petitioner
Versus
Sri. T. Hanumanthaiah, S/o. Late Thimmaiah - Respondent
Criminal Revision Petition No.647 Of 2012
Decided On : 05-12-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Sri. B.S. Prasad.
For the Respondent: Sri. P.N. Hegde.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the decision to discharge the accused was erroneous, and the court directed the Special Court to proceed with the matter in accordance with the law.

Headnote:
Revision Petition - Challenge to Order under Cr.P.C. and P.C. Act of 1988 - Section 227 of Cr.P.C., Sections 17 and 19 of P.C. Act of 1988 - The court discussed the application filed by the accused under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. read with Sections 17 and 19 of the P.C. Act of 1988. The court analyzed the alleged income and assets of the accused, the validity of the investigation, and the authority of the investigating officers. The court found that the Special Court's decision to discharge the accused was erroneous and set it aside, directing the Special Court to proceed with the matter in accordance with the law.
Fact of the Case:

The complainant, represented by Karnataka Lokayukta, filed a revision petition challenging the order of the Special Court, which discharged the accused from the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The complainant alleged that the accused, a public servant, had amassed wealth in excess of 230.64% of his known sources of income during the check period from 03-09-1979 to 24-06-2006.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Special Court's decision to discharge the accused was erroneous and set it aside, directing the Special Court to proceed with the matter in accordance with the law.
Issues: The main issue was whether the impugned order passed by the Special Court was perverse and erroneous, warranting interference by the court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Special Court's decision to discharge the accused was erroneous and set it aside, directing the Special Court to proceed with the matter in accordance with the law.
Final Decision: The Criminal Revision Petition was allowed, the impugned order discharging the accused was set aside, and the application filed by the accused under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. read with Sections 17 and 19 of the P.C. Act of 1988 was dismissed. The Special Court was directed to proceed in the matter in accordance with the law, and both parties were directed to appear before the Special Court for speedy disposal of the matter.

ORDER :

1. The complainant – State by Karnataka Lokayukta, Bangalore Rural Police Station, has filed this revision petition, challenging the order dated 24-01-2012, passed by the Court of the Principal Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as “the Special Court”), in Special Case No.3/2010, allowing the application filed by the present respondent as an accused, under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "the Cr.P.C."), read with Sections 17 and 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as “the P.C. Act of 1988”), for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13 (2) of the P.C. Act of 1988.

2. The summary of the case of the complainant in the charge sheet filed before the Special Court was that, the present respondent, a public servant, working as a Village Accountant at Kodigehalli Grama Panchayat, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore Rural District, during the check period from 03-09-1979 to 24-06-2006 was found to have had a total income of Rs.15,80,116/-from his all known sources of income and the expenditure was assessed at Rs.6,60,194/-and that the value of his assets was arrived at a sum of Rs.36,44,490/-which was stated to be 230.64% in excess than the known sources of his income.

3. The respondent (accused) is represented by his learned counsel.

4. The Special Court's records were called for and the same are placed before this Court.

5. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the revision petitioner -Lokayukta Police and the learned counsel for respondent (accused) are physically appearing in the Court.

6. Heard the arguments from both side and perused the materials placed before this Court including the impugned order passed by the Special Court on the application filed by the accused under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. read with Sections 17 and 19 of the P.C. Act of 1988.

7. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties, the only point that arise for my consideration in this revision petition is:

Whether the impugned order passed by the Special Court on the application filed by the accused under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, read with Sections 17 and 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is perverse and erroneous, warranting interference at the hands of this Court?

8. The learned Special Public Prosecutor for the revision petitioner -Lokayukta Police, in his argument submitted that, at the stage of framing of the charge, the Court is not expected to conduct a mini trial, evaluate the merits of the case and appreciate the documents placed before it in its entirety.

Learned Special Public Prosecutor further submitted that, the alleged income of the wife of a sum of Rs.30,00,000/-was shown to have been credited by the wife’s account as a loan which is few days prior to the date of raid on the house of the respondent (accused). The alleged percentage of profit in the said investment, though in the form of a loan, was very marginal, which the Special Court failed to notice.

Learned Special Public Prosecutor also submitted that, several of the aspects considered by the Special Court like the value of the alleged building asset of the respondent (accused) and of the alleged agricultural income were all the subject matter of trial. However, without considering these aspects, the Special Court, in a hasty manner, arrived at a conclusion, which is erroneous. He also submitted that the Special Court also ignored the fact that, all the Police Inspectors, who are authorised to conduct the investigation under the Notification of the State Government of the year 1991, even after assuming that the last Investigating Officer who filed the charge sheet was not specially authorised by the Superintendent of Police, still, it has not resulted in any miscarriage of justice and no prejudice has been caused to the interest of the accused who has be