Karnataka High Court
Smt. Shashikala vs State Of Karnataka on 22 January, 2013
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA
CRL.P.No.1329/2012
C/W
CRL.P.No.5095/2011
BETWEEN:
Smt. Shashikala,
Aged 50 years,
W/o. Sri V.N. Nagarathnaiah,
Residing at "Sriranga",
2nd Cross, Someswarapura,
Tumkur. ... Petitioner
(Common in both Petitions)
[By Sri. R.B. Sadasivappa, Advocate]
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
By Lokayuktha Police,
Represented by
Public Prosecutor for Lokayuktha,
High Court of Karnataka Building,
Bangalore.
2. Sri. Narayanaswamy,
Police Inspector,
Bureau of Investigation,
Karnataka Lokayuktha,
Bangalore 560 001. ... Respondents
(Common in both Petitions)
[By Sri.B.A.Belliappa, Advocate for R-1]
These Criminal Petitions are filed under Section
482 of the Cr.P.C., praying to quash the order dated
:2:
15.02.2012 passed by the II Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Tumkur on the application filed by the
petitioner under Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption
Act in Special Case No.255/2008 and consequently
dismiss the case in Special Case No.255/2008 against
the petitioner herein which is pending on the file of the II
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumkur.
These Criminal Petitions coming for admission on
this day, the Court made the following: -
ORDER
The common petitioner in these two petitions has been arraigned as accused No.2 in Special C.C. No.255/2008 pending before the Special Court constituted under the Prevention of Corruption Act ( for short, 'P.C. Act') and II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Tumkur, for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of P.C.Act and Sections 168 and 109 of IPC. The petitioner is the wife of accused No.1 in the case by name V.N. Nagarathnaiah.
2) According to the case of the prosecution, accused No.1 being a public servant working as Superintendent in the Office of Lokayuktha, Tumkur, has amassed assets disproportionate to his known sources of income and that he has acquired various assets benami :3: in the name of his wife, the 2nd accused and in that act, the petitioner has abetted the commission of offence by her husband-accused No.1.
3) Upon her appearance before the special Court pursuant to the summons issued, the petitioner filed an application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. seeking discharge. The said application was opposed by the prosecution. The learned Special Judge by considered order, dismissed the said application. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner presented Criminal Petition No.5095/2011. Thereafter, the petitioner filed another application under Section 19 of the P.C. Act seeking dismissal of the complaint against her for want of sanction. The said application was also opposed by the prosecution and thereafter, the learned Special Judge rejected the said application. Against the said order, the petitioner has presented Criminal Petition No.1329/2012. Upon service of notice of these two petitions, the respondent has entered appearance through counsel.
:4:
4) I have heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides. Perused the orders impugned in this petition and other materials made available.
5) As noticed supra, the allegation against accused No.1, a public servant, is that he has amassed assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. It is also the allegation that he has acquired various assets benami in the name of his wife, the petitioner herein. The accusation against this petitioner is that, she being a public servant engaged herself in trade by running the commercial vehicles on hire and thereby has abetted the commission of the offence by accused No.1, as such, she is guilty of offences punishable under Sections 109 and 168 of IPC.
6) Reading of the allegations in the charge sheet and other materials produced along with the charge sheet does not indicate any circumstance specifying as to how this petitioner has abetted the commission of the offence by accused No.1. It is an admitted fact that this petitioner is also a public servant working as a Lecturer in the Government Junior College, Tumkur. She joined :5: the service as an Assistant Head Mistress in Government School on 27.09.1987 on contract basis, which was later regularized with effect from 17.03.1992 and later w.e.f. 27.09.1995, she is serving as a Lecturer. Thus, the petitioner is also drawing salary. To attract the offence under Section 168 of IPC, the accused must be a public servant, he must be legally bound not to engage in trade and he must have engaged in trade. The copies of documents produced by the petitioner and also the report of the Investigating Officer clearly indicates that the competent authority concerned granted permission to the petitioner to purchase the commercial vehicles and also to run them on hire. There is no evidence to indicate that the petitioner is barred from engaging in trade. On the other hand, she sought permission to run the vehicles on hire and she was permitted to do so. Therefore, the ingredients of Section 168 of IPC not attracted. Thus, the very basis of abetment as alleged in the charge sheet does not exist. Even otherwise, it is open to the prosecution to establish that the assets standing in the name of this petitioner were acquired from the money :6: provided by the 1st accused and accused No.1 would have opportunity to show that they were not acquired from the money provided by him, but, on the other hand, they were acquired by this petitioner from her own sources. In the absence of any prima-facie materials to indicate that this petitioner in any way abetted the commission of the offence by accused No.1, the prosecution launched against her is without any basis and it is nothing but abuse of the process of the Court and the law. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the learned Special Judge is not justified in holding that there are sufficient materials to proceed against this petitioner. Even if the materials on record are translated into legal evidence and remains un-rebutted, in my opinion, it does not lead to conviction of this petitioner for any of the offences alleged. Therefore, no case is made-out against this petitioner for the offences alleged. In this view of the matter, the prosecution launched against this petitioner is liable to be quashed without going into the question as to whether the sanction for prosecution was necessary or not.
:7:
7) In view of the above, the petitions are disposed of. The prosecution launched against this petitioner in Special C.C.No.255/2008 pending before the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumkur, is hereby quashed. It is made clear that the prosecution may proceed against accused No.1 Sd/-
JUDGE KGR*