Karnataka High Court
Sri H R Balaraj vs The Police Inspector on 4 February, 2019
Author: John Michael Cunha
Bench: John Michael Cunha
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA
WRIT PETITION NO.61575 OF 2016 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI H R BALARAJ
S/O LATE H.N.RANGE GOWDA,
AGED 54 YEARS,
WORKING AS JUNIOR ASSISTANT,
KARNATAKA FOOD & CIVIL SUPPLIES
CORPORATION (SOUTH),
KADARENAHALLY,
BENGALURU. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI: VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE POLICE INSPECTOR
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA,
TUMKURU,
TUMKURU DISTRICT-572 101
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
TUMKURU DISTRICT,
TUMKURU-572 101 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI: VENKATESH S ARABATTI, SPL PP FOR R1
R2-SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)
---
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
R/W SECTION 482 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE PRAYING TO CALL
FOR RECORDS RELATING TO ISSUE OF THE IMPUGNED CHARGE-
2
SHEET FILED BY THE R-1 IN SPECIAL C.C.NO.178/2013 [CRIME
NO.8/2012] ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, TUMAKURU DISTRICT, TUMAKURU VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND
AFTER PERUSAL SET ASIDE THE SAME
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
A short question that arises for consideration in this petition is, Whether the prosecution of the petitioner for the offences punishable under sections 7, 13(1)(c) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is barred on account of the specific provisions contained in the Essential Commodities Act, 1955?
2. Petitioner was working as a Junior Assistant and Depot Manager in Karnataka Food & Civil Supplies Corporation, Chikkanayakanahalli, Tumakuru District. Trap proceedings were initiated against the petitioner based on the complaint lodged by one Dhananjay alleging that petitioner herein was demanding a sum of Rs.800/- per bag for unauthorized sale of rice bags meant for distribution under the public distribution system. Petitioner was caught red-handed and bribe money was 3 recovered from his possession and proceedings were launched against the petitioner for the offences punishable under sections 7, 13(1)(c) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to clauses 18 and 19 of the Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Control Order 1992 ("Control Order"
for short), would submit that exhaustive procedure has been laid down in the aforesaid Control Order for seizure of the commodities as well as for prosecution of the offenders and therefore, initiation of action against the petitioner under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is impliedly barred. In support of his argument, learned counsel has referred to para 102 of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in STATE OF HARYANA & Others vs. BHAJAN LAL & Others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent however disputes the above submissions and contends that no such bar is engrafted either in the Prevention of Corruption Act or under the Control Order referred to above 4 by the learned counsel for the petitioner and hence there is no reason to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner.
5. Considered the submissions and perused the material on record. The material on record indicates that the petitioner herein was caught red-handed while accepting bribe and a case is registered against the petitioner under sections 7, 13(1)(c) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The charges framed against the petitioner in the said proceedings read as under:
CHARGE I K.S.Bharath Kumar, II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru, do hereby charges you-
H.R.Balaraju S/o H.N.Rangegowda, 50 years, Godown Manager, Food and Civil Supplies Corporation, C.N.Halli.
As follows:
1. That you accused being the Godown Manager, Food and Civil Supplies Corporation, C.N.Halli Tumakuru District, and as such being public servant, on 22.9.2012 in the Godown Food and Civil Supplies Corporation, C.N.Halli, received bribe of Rs.4,000/- from CW.1 in the presence of CW.2 and illegally sold 4 bags of Rice which 5 was lying in the Godown meant for distribution to the consumers through the society, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Sec.7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and within the cognizance of this court.
Secondly that on 22.09.2012, you being the public servant, abusing your official position obtained for yourself a pecuniary advantage to the tune of Rs.4,000/- from the complainant by demanding and accepting the same as an illegal gratification and committed criminal misconduct and thereby committed an offence punishable under Sec.13(1)(d) R/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and within the cognizance of this court.
And I hereby direct that you be tried by this court on the above said charge.
Dated 27th December 2016.
Sd/-.
6. The provisions of the Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Control Order, 1992 deal with a totally different situation concerning civil supplies and co-operation. Clause 18 of the Control Order 1992 prohibits unauthorized sale of food grains and essential commodities 6 issued through public distribution system. Clause 19 thereof deals with the powers of entry, search, seizure, etc.
7. Though the alleged offences are said to have been committed by the petitioner in respect of the food grains covered under the aforesaid Control Order, yet specific charge against the petitioner is for the offences under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Control Order does not contain any bar for prosecution of the petitioner under any other law or statutes. In the absence of any express bar engrafted either in the Prevention of Corruption Act or in the Control Order referred to above, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that on account of the provisions of Clause 18 and 19 of the Control order the prosecution of the petitioner for the offence under Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be accepted. Even though learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is prosecuted for the violation of provisions of the Control Order, the said offences are independent of the offences for which he has been tried under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
7
8. Section 300 Cr.P.C., is also not applicable to the facts of this case. Section 300 Cr.P.C. prohibits trial of a person for the same offence. As per the said provision, a person who has once been tried by a court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and convicted or acquitted of such offence shall, while such conviction or acquittal remains in force, not be liable to be tried again for the same offence.
9. In the instant case, undisputedly the charges levelled against the petitioner are punishable under Prevention of Corruption Act and not under the Essential Commodities Act. In the absence of any specific bar in any of the above statutes, prosecution of the petitioner for the offences punishable under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act do not fall within the mischief of section 300 Cr.P.C. Therefore, I do not find any justifiable ground to quash the proceedings.
Consequently, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Bss