SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
M. Nagaprasanna, J.
Sri Kailash S. Raj S/o K.Sampath Raj – Appellant
versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
Criminal Petition No.3371 of 2023 C/w Criminal Petition No.3314 of 2023
Decided on 26.6.2023

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Sri Sandesh J.Chouta, Sr.Advocate A/W Sri Bharath Kumar V., Advocate
For the Respondent:Sri B.B. Patil, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
Illegal gratification – It is high time menace of corruption is plugged and nipped in bud by making bribe giver susceptible for such prosecution, like bribe taker.

Headnote:

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Sections 7(b), 7A, 8, 9 and 10 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Illegal gratification – Alleged demand for bribe for clearance of bills in future – Demand or acceptance of amount of bribe concerning first informant is clearly brought out as it concerns issue of tender between two companies – Corruption has percolated to every nook and corner of public life in country and has become an issue in all walks of life posing a grave danger to concept of constitutional governance – It is high time menace of corruption is plugged and nipped in bud by making bribe giver susceptible for such prosecution, like bribe taker – Criminal petitions dismissed. (Paras 15, 20, 22 and 23)

Result: Criminal Petitions rejected.

ORDER

Both these petitions call in question registration of crime in Crime No.15 of 2023 for offences punishable under Sections 7(b), 7A, 8, 9 & 10 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) and pending before the XXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Court under Prevention of Corruption Act, Bengaluru. Criminal Petition No.3314 of 2023 is preferred by accused Nos. 2 and 3 – one Albert Nicolas and Gangadhar. Criminal Petition No.3371 of 2023 is preferred by one Kailash S.Raj, Vinay S.Raj and Chetan Marlecha who are depicted to be owners of M/s Karnataka Aromas Company and are arrayed as accused No.5 in the aforesaid crime.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts in brief as borne out from the pleadings are as follows:

Before embarking upon consideration of the case of the petitioners, a little walk through the facts of the case is necessary. One Maadal Virupaksha, at the relevant point in time, was the Chairman of Karnataka Soaps and Detergents Limited, a Government owned Company. One Prashanth Kumar M.V. is the son of Maadal Virupaksha who is arrayed as accused No.1. The petitioners in these petitions are the other accused. The Karnataka Soaps and Detergents Limited notified a tender for Chemical oil supply for the year 2023. The tender was notified in January 2023. There were two participants in the said tender – one M/s Chemixil Corporation and the other M/s M.S. Delicia Chemicals. Participation in the said tender by the two leads to certain negotiations with accused No.1, son of the Chairman of the Karnataka Soaps and Detergents Private limited. Alleging demand of money, complainant’s representative of M/s Chemixil Corporation, one of the tenderer, registers a complaint before the Lokayukta on 02-03-2023. The allegation in the crime is of demand of Rs.81/-lakhs by accused No.1 for a smooth sailing of payment of bills pursuant to tender for supply of oil. Therefore, the tender is for supply of material and the assurance is that the bills would be cleared after the supply of material.

3. The gist of the complaint is that accused No.1 calls the complainant at his personal office in Crescent Road and negotiates with the price that is to be paid as alleged bribe for clearance of the bills in future. It is alleged that initially a sum of Rs.60/-lakhs had been demanded from the hands of the first informant to ensure that tenders are accepted and the amount released in their favour without any interference. It is further alleged that accused No.1 agreed to receive a sum of Rs.33/-lakhs and Rs.48/-lakhs on two different dates which was on a consensus. It is also averred in the complaint that against the said assurance a particular quote was to be given by the first informant at Rs.815/-per kg. for supply of 5100 kgs. of Guiacwood oil and the other participant in the tender would quote at Rs.4,349/-per kg. for the supply of 29520 kgs. of Musk to the Karnataka Soaps and Detergent.

4. The further allegation is that the competitor had quoted the price according to what accused No.1 had informed them, to submit their bids and the bids were submitted and scrutinized in terms of what was assured. Accused No.1 called the first informant to pay Rs.81/-lakhs and the informant meets accused No.1 on 08-02-2023 at 5.10 p.m. and agrees to make good the amount of Rs.81/-lakhs. The complaint narrates that at that point in time itself, the conversation is recorded in his smart watch and the conversation was that accused No.1 wanted to receive the amount on behalf of the Chairman Maadal Virupaksha. The complaint further alleges that accused No.1 repeatedly called the informant to meet him in his personal office as he had not yet made good the amount.

5. It is then the first informant approaches the Lokayukta on 02-03-2023 by registering the impugned complaint. Based upon the impugned complaint, a crime comes to be registered in Crime No.13 of 2023 initially for offences punisha

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top