Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 191
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR, J
SRI. SHREKRISHNA RAMESH @ SREEKI – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
WP 15943/2024
SRI. ARUNA SHYAM, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. DILIPKUMAR GOWDA R, ADVOCATE; SRI. SANDESH J.CHOUTA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. SUNIL KUMAR.S., ADVOCATE; SRI. SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY, ADVOCATE GENERAL A/W SRI. RAHUL CARIAPPA, AGA
The court ruled that for invoking KCOCA, prior charge sheets must exist within ten years of the offence's commission date, not from its detection.
Headnote:(A) Karnataka Control of Organized Crimes Act, 2000 - Section 3 and 24(1)(a) - Petitioners challenge the approval granted to invoke Section 3 against them in Crime No.85/2017. The court held that mandatory requirements for invoking KCOCA were absent as no charge sheets had been filed within 10 years prior to the date of commission of the offence. The invocation of KCOCA was deemed without jurisdiction. (Paras 11, 12, 30)
(B) Jurisdiction - The court emphasized that the date of commission of the offence must be considered for the invocation of KCOCA, not the date of detection. (Paras 20, 30)
(C) Approval - Prior approval under KCOCA pertains to the offence and not the individual offenders, focusing on the crime committed rather than the accused. (Paras 27, 30)
Facts of the case:
The case involves two petitioners accused of organized crime under KCOCA, with prior criminal proceedings initiated against them. The approval for invoking KCOCA was granted after a significant delay, raising questions about its validity.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the invocation of KCOCA lacked jurisdiction due to the absence of requisite charge sheets.
Issues: The primary issues were whether the approval to invoke KCOCA was valid and whether the necessary conditions for invoking the act were met.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the invocation of KCOCA requires prior charge sheets and cognizance within ten years preceding the offence's commission date.
Result: The impugned order was quashed.
Both these petitions takes exception to the impugned order at Annexure-A dated 20.05.2024 passed by the 2nd respondent - Deputy Inspector General of Police (EO), CID, Bangalore, granting approval / permission to the 3rd respondent – Deputy Superintendent of Police / Investigating Officer to invoke Section 3 of the Karnataka Control of Organized Crimes Act, 2000 (for short ‘the KCOCA’) against Sri. Krishna Ramesh @ Shriki, the petitioner in W.P.No.15943/2024 as well as against one Robin Khandelwal, son of Sri.Naresh Kumar Khandelwal, petitioner in W.P.No.15622/2024.
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petitions are as under:-
- On 17.07.2017, pursuant to the complaint lodged by one Harish B.V., the Director of Uno Coin Technologies Pvt. Ltd., the Tumakuru Police Authorities registered criminal proceedings in Crime No.85/2017 against unknown persons for offences punishable under Sections 66, 66(c), 67, and 68 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (for short ‘the I.T.Act’) r/w Section 420 of IPC before the Magistrate. The said case was transferred to the Cyber Economics Narcotics Police Station, Tumakuru, for further investigation.
2.1 On 13.09.2019, the I.O. submitted a ‘C’ final report (undetected) which was accepted by the court on 25.10.2019. NC: 2024:KHC:25174 WP No. 15943 of 2024 C/W WP No. 15622 of 2024 Subsequently, the I.O. submitted a request dated 22.01.2021 seeking permission to reopen and continue the investigation in the case which was accepted by the court on 28.01.2021 which granted permission to continue with the investigation and the case continued to remain undetected upto 30.06.2023 when the State Government formed a Special Investigation Team (SIT), to which, the instant case was handed over for further investigation on 14.07.2023. On 01.03.2024, the case was handed over to the I.O. and without the charge sheet being filed, the petitioner in W.P.No.15943/2024 was arrested on 07.05.2024, while the son of the petitioner in W.P.No.15622/2024 was arrested on 23.05.2024 and both of them were arrayed as accused Nos. 1 and 2 respectively.
2.2 Meanwhile, the following criminal proceedings were initiated against both the aforesaid accused persons as hereunder:-
- Crime No.9/2019 dated 07.08.2019 Sections 43, 66 and 66(c) of I.T.Act r/w Sections 120B, 379, 411, 414, 201, 204, 34, 35 and 37 of IPC.
- Charge sheet filed; however, cognizance is not taken so far.
- Crime No.91/2020 dated 04.11.2020 Sections 20b, 23b, 24, 25, 27, 27A and 29 of NDPS Act r/w Sections 37, 109, 119 and 201 IPC.
- Charge sheet filed on 01.12.2021; cognizance taken on 09.02.2022; Addl.charge sheet filed on 15.06.2024 and cognizance taken on 15.06.2024. Crime No.287/2020 dated 19.11.2020 Sections 403, 406 and 34 IPC Charge sheet filed and cognizance taken on 10.02.2021; Addl. charge sheet filed and cognizance taken on 23.04.2024. NC: 2024:KHC:25174 WP No. 15943 of 2024 C/W WP No. 15622 of 2024 Crime No.153/2020 dated 27.11.2020 Sections 66(c) and 66(d) of the I.T.Act r/w Section 34, 465, 468, 471, 419, 120B, 379, 420 and 384 IPC.
- Charge sheet filed on 22.02.2021 and cognizance taken on 01.03.2021. Crime No.45/2020 dated 23.12.2020 Sections 66(c) and 66(d) of the I.T.Act r/w Section 420 IPC.
- Charge sheet filed and cognizance taken on 23.02.2021.
2.3 It is an undisputed fact that in all the aforesaid cases, both accused persons have been enlarged on bail and Section 3 of KCOCA was not invoked by the respondents against the accused persons.
However, for the first time on 17.05.2024, the 3rd respondent – I.O. submitted an application under Section 24(1)(a) of KCOCA to the 2nd respondent seeking approval / permission to invoke Section 3 of KCOCA against the accused persons in the very first Crime No.85/2017 lodged against unknown persons. The said application was allowed by the 2nd respondent – competent authority vide impugned order dated 20.05.2024 passed under Section 24(1)(a) of KCOCA, thereby granting approval / permission in favour of
