Bangalore District Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Hombanna on 30 March, 2017
THE COURT OF LXXVI ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL AND
SESSIONS COURT AND SPECIAL COURT,
BENGALURU.
(CCH-77)
PRESENT: Smt.SHRIDEVI S. ANGADI
B.A. LL.M.,
LXXVI ADD. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE &
SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU.
DATED: This the 30th day of March, 2017.
Spl.C.C.No.189/2013
COMPLAINANT: The state of Karnataka,
Rep.by Karnataka Lokayuktha Police,
City Division, Bengaluru.
(Rep by Spl.Public Prosecutor)
V/s
ACCUSED: 1. Hombanna, S/o.Galappa,
H.Gollahalli Village,
Kengere Hobli,
Bengaluru South Taluk.
2. Panchalingaiah, S/o.Late
Venkatappa, Hemmigepura
Village, Kengeri Hobli,
Bengaluru South Taluk.
3. K.Kempashivanaiah,
2 Spl.C.C.No.189/2013
S/o.Late Kempashivnegowda,
Revenue Inspector (Retd).,
Hemmigepura Circle, Office of
the Tahashildar Bengaluru
South Taluk, Bengaluru
4. K.Sadanandappa,
S/o.Kempaiah,
Tahashildar (Retd),
Bengaluru South Taluk,
Bengaluru
5. C.Veerabhadraiah, S/o.Late
Channappa, Revenue
Inspector(Retd) Indiranagara
Circle, Bengaluru.
6. B.R.Krishnan, S/o.Late
Ramaiah, Special Land
Acquisition Officer (Retd)., BDA,
Bengaluru.
7. Ramegowda, S/o.Late Boraiah,
the then Revenue Inspector,
Office of the SLAO,BDA,
Bengaluru.
8. H.T.Ramegowda, S/o.Late
Thimmegowda, Surveyor (Rtd),
Office of the SLAO, BDA,
Bengaluru.
(Rep. By Sri. A1:P.Prasanna Kumar,
A2: I.S.Pramod Chandra,
A3 , A7 & A8 : K.Venkatesh
A4: Lokesh Bhoovanahalli
A5: K.A.Chandrashekara
A6 : C.M.Govinda Reddy
3 Spl.C.C.No.189/2013
ORDER ON APPLICATIONS U/S .227 & 239 of
CR.P.C.
Accused Nos 1 to 8 have been Charge Sheeted
by the Karnataka Lokayuktha Police for the offence
punishable under sections 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of
Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 and sections
167, 177, 465, 466, 468, 471, 472, 473, 474 r/w
section 120B of IPC.
2. The accused No.1 to 8 filed separate
application under section 227 r/w 239 of Cr.P.C.
seeking for discharge. The learned Special public
prosecutor has filed objection statement and
opposed the applications.
3. I have heard the arguments and perused
the records.
4. The points that arise for my consideration
are:
1. Whether there are sufficient
grounds to frame charge and
proceed with the trial of the
case as against accused No 1
to 8?
4 Spl.C.C.No.189/2013
2. What order?
5. My answer to the above points are as
under:
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative
Point No.2 : As per final order
for the following:
REASONS
6. POINT No.1 : I have gone through the
records of the case and documents submitted
therewith including the complaint, FIR, Charge
Sheet, witness statement. The records produced
before the Court reveal that accused No.1 & 2 are
the private persons and accused No.3 to 8 were the
public servants working in different Departments of
State Government.
7. The materials on record reveal that CW1-
G.N.Sadanandaswamy lodged a private complaint
under section 200 Cr.P.C. against Hombanna-
accused No1 and 4 others alleging that the
Government Gomal land bearing Sy.No.6 measuring
4 acres situated at Lingadheeranahalli village,
Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru was acquired by the BDA
5 Spl.C.C.No.189/2013
under preliminary Notification dated 15.11.2000
and Final Notification dated 21.08.2001 for the
purpose of forming residential sites of
Banashanakari 6th Stage Layout. The accused No.1
in connivance with the other accused hatched a
criminal conspiracy and forged the public records
viz; Saguvali Chit dated 23.06.1954, Mutation
Extract, RTC Extract, Index of Land etc., in respect
of land measuring 4 acres in Sy.No.6 of
Lingadheeranahalli Village and on the basis of the
forged records, he filed false claim petition before
BDA for compensation claiming ownership over the
said land and got released the compensation
amount of Rs.33,52,453/- apart from 4 sites
measuring 40 X 60 ft. each. It is further alleged that
accused No 2 who is the brother-in-law of accused
No1 was an instrumental in ensuring creation and
concoction of documents. It is further alleged that
other accused, who were the public servants in
connivance with accused No1 & 2 hatched a
criminal conspiracy in order to forge and fabricate
the public records by misusing their official position
6 Spl.C.C.No.189/2013
and by receiving illegal gratification and thereby
lead a role in grabbing the Government land and
caused loss to the State exchequer.
8. My Predecessor-in-Office, by an Order dated
10.02.2012 referred the complaint to the
Lokayuktha Police under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.
for investigation and to report. Pursuant to the said
Order, the Lokayuktha Police registered a case in
Crime No.14/2012. After the completion of the
investigation, the Lokayuktha Police have filed the
Charge Sheet against the accused No.1 to 8 for the
offences punishable under sections 13(1)(d) r/w
13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 and
sections 167, 177, 465, 466, 468, 471, 472, 473,
474 r/w section 120-B of IPC.
9. The leaned Advocate appearing for the
accused No1 to 8 argued that the accused persons
are innocent, the Investigating Officer has not
properly conducted investigation, there is no link or
evidence to connect the accused to the crime, the
accused persons have been falsely implicated, there
7 Spl.C.C.No.189/2013
are no sufficient grounds to frame charge.
Therefore, they have urged for discharge of the
accused.
10. In support of the argument, the learned
counsel appearing for the accused No1 has placed
reliance on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court;
1) Dilawar Balu Kurane -Vs- State of
Maharashtra; (2002)2 Supreme Court
Cases 135
2) P.Vijayan -Vs- State of Kerala & Another;
(2010)2 Supreme Court Cases 398
3) L.Krishna Reddy -Vs- State by Station
House Officer & Other; (2014) 14
Supreme Court Cases 401
11. I have gone through the aforesaid
decisions. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid
down the position of law regarding the duty of the
Court in exercising powers under section 227 of
CrPC and considering question of framing the
charges. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in
exercising jurisdiction under section 227 of CrPC,
the Judge can not act merely as a post office or a
8 Spl.C.C.No.189/2013
mouth piece of the prosecution, but has to consider
the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of
the evidence and the documents produced before
the Court, but should not make a roving enquiry
into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the
evidence as if he was conducting a trial.
Further the Hon'ble Supreme court has
observed that;
" at the stage of Section 227, the Judge
has merely to sift the evidence in order to
find out whether or not there is sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused.
In other words, the sufficiency of ground
would take within its fold the nature of
evidence recorded by the police or the
documents produced before the court which
ex facie disclose that there are suspicious
circumstances against the accused so as to
frame a charge against him. If the Judge
comes to a conclusion that there is sufficient
ground to proceed, he will frame a charge
under Section 228 CrPC , if not, he will
discharge the accused. This provision was
introduced in CrPC to avoid wastage of
public time when a prima facie case was not
disclosed and to save the accused from
avoidable harassment and expenditure."
9 Spl.C.C.No.189/2013
12. The advocate for the accused No7 has
argued that Sanction Order has not been obtained
from the Competent Authority to prosecute the
accused No7 prior to his arrest. Therefore,
cognizance taken against the accused No7 is not
proper. In support of the argument, the learned
Advocate appearing for accused No7 has placed
reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of N.K.Ganguly -Vs- CBI, New Delhi;
(2016)2 Supreme Court Cases 143. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court while deciding the Special Leave
Petition as against the Order of the Hon'ble High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissing the
application filed under section 482 of CrPC to quash
the Criminal Proceedings as well as summoning
Order passed by Special Judge, Anti-Corruption,
CBI held that;
" For the purpose of obtaining
previous sanction from appropriate
Government under section 197
CrPC, it is imperative that alleged
offence is committed in discharge
of official duty by accused. It is
10 Spl.C.C.No.189/2013
also important for the Court to
examine allegations against
accused to decide whether previous
sanction is required to be obtained
from appropriate Government
before taking cognizance of alleged
offence against the accused."
13. I have gone through the aforesaid decision.
I respectfully agree with the ratio laid down in the
said decision. In the present case, Sanction Order
to prosecute the accused No7 was obtained and
produced along with the Charge Sheet. My
Predecessor-in-Office after going through the
records took the cognizance against the accused
No7. There is no law as such that
Sanction Order be obtained from the Competent
Authority prior to the arrest of the accused.
Further, the stage of taking cognizance is already
over. Now the stage is Hearing Before Charge.
Therefore, the aforesaid decision is not applicable to
the facts of the present case, while deciding the
application under section 227 of CrPC.
11 Spl.C.C.No.189/2013
14. The power of the Court under section
227/239 of CrPC, while considering the question of
framing the charges is very limited to see as to
whether a prima facie case against the accused has
been made out. At the time of framing of charge, it
is not necessary for the prosecution to establish
beyond all reasonable doubt that the accusation is
bound to be brought home against them. The
purpose of sections 227 and 228 is to ensure that
the Court should be satisfied that the accusation is
not frivolous and there are some materials for
proceeding against them.
15. In the present case, the materials placed
before the Court reveal that the accused No1 & 2 in
connivance with accused No3 to 8 hatched a
criminal conspiracy and in furtherance of criminal
conspiracy had fraudulently and dishonestly
counterfeit the seal of the Tahasildar for the
purpose of forging and fabricating the public
records viz; Saguvali Chit, Mutation Extract, RTC
Extract, etc; furnishing false information to the
12 Spl.C.C.No.189/2013
public servant by knowing that it is false, used the
forged documents as genuine for the purpose of
getting compensation from BDA in respect of the
Government land and thereby caused loss to the
State exchequer. Accused No3 to 8 being the public
servants by misusing and abusing their official
position had actively involved in creating and
concocting the forged documents and hand in glow
with the accused No1 & 2 in grabbing the
Government land. The charges leveled against the
accused No.1 to 8 are serious in nature.
16. The evidence collected by the prosecution
and produced before the Court can not be
meticulously analyzed at this stage. The merits and
demerits of the prosecution case can not be
appreciated at the stage of deciding the application
under sections 227 & 239 of CrPC. The defense set
up by the accused can be appreciated only after the
evidence is recorded and it is a matter of trial. After
going through the entire materials placed on record,
I am of the considered view that there is sufficient
13 Spl.C.C.No.189/2013
ground to frame the charge and proceed with the
trial of the case against accused Nos.1 to 8. At this
stage, I am satisfied that the accusation made
against accused Nos.1 to 8 is not frivolous and
there are some materials for proceeding against
them. Hence, I answer point No1 in the
Affirmative.
17. Point No.2:- In view of the above
discussion, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The applications filed by the accused Nos.1 to 8 under section 227 & 239 of CrPC are dismissed.
(Dictated to the Judgment-writer directly on the computer, after transcription, corrected by me and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30th day of March, 2017.) (SHRIDEVI S. ANGADI) LXXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Bengaluru.(CCH-77) 14 Spl.C.C.No.189/2013 (Orders pronounced in the open court, vide separate orders) ORDER Accused present The applications filed by the accused Nos.1 to 8 under section 227 & 239 of CrPC are dismissed.
(SHRIDEVI S. ANGADI) LXXVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE & SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU.
15 Spl.C.C.No.189/2013