Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs C.Narayana on 3 April, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:14093
CRL.RP No. 1239 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1239 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY BENGALURU METROPOLITAN
TASK FORCE, POLICE STATION,
C.I.D., BENGALURU.
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560 001.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP)
AND:
1. C.NARAYANA,
Digitally signed by S/O. CHENNAPPA,
HARIKRISHNA V
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF RETIRED EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
KARNATAKA RAJARAJESWARINAGAR DIVISION,
R/AT NO.5/15, II MAIN ROAD,
BYATARAYANAPURA,
BENGALURU-560 026.
2. L.K. SHIVANANDA,
S/O KEMPEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
RETIRED ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
R/AT NO.405, 11TH CROSS,
14TH MAIN ROAD, J.P.NAGAR, II PHASE,
BENGALURU-560 078,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:14093
CRL.RP No. 1239 of 2024
3. B.P PARAMESH,
S/O B.K. PUTTEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
ASSISTANT ENGINEER
RAJARAJESHWARINAGARA SUB-DIVISION,
RAJARAJESHWARINAGARA DIVISION, BBMP,
PRESENTLY J.E ARMY WING,
NEAR CHINNASWAMY STADIUM,
RAJ BHAVAN ROAD,
BENGALURU-01.
R/AT NO.3009, 13TH MAIN ROAD,
RPC LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 040.
NATIVE OF BOODANURU GRAMA,
KERALAPURA, ARAKALGUDU TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT-573 102.
4. S.D. SHASHIKUMAR,
S/O DEVEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
NO.45/E 14TH MAIN ROAD,
5TH BLOCK, VIJAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 040.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PARAMESHWAR N HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R1,
SRI. P.M. GOPI, ADVOCATE FOR R2,
SMT. KEERTHANA B.P, ADVOCATE FOR R3,
SRI. R SWAROOP, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 OF CR.PC (FILED
U/S 438 R/W 442 BNNS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 15.12.2023 PASSED IN SPL.C.C.NO.523/2018 ON THE
FILE OF COURT OF LXXVII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE AND THE SPL.JUDGE FOR TRYING OFFENCES UNDER
THE P.C. ACT AT BENGALURU CITY BY ALLOWING THIS RP.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:14093
CRL.RP No. 1239 of 2024
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL ORDER
This revision petition is directed against the discharge order dated 15.12.2023 passed in Spl.C.C.No.523/2018 by LXXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and the Special Judge for trying offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act at Bengaluru City (CCH-78), whereby the trial Court, acting under Sections 227 and 239 of Cr.P.C., discharged the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 409, 465, 468, 477A of the IPC and Sections 13(1)(c)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'PC Act').
2. I have heard learned HCGP for the revision petitioner so also learned counsel for the respondents.
3. Learned HCGP submitted that there are as many as 145 similar special criminal cases registered by the CID (Bengaluru Metropolitan Task Force [BMTF]) against public servants, who were entrusted with allotting, overseeing and checking the civil work undertaken for the year 2009-2010 in the Rajarajeshwari Nagar Ward of BBMP in respect of asphalting of roads, constructions of drains etc., by shirking their responsibility by not properly holding periodical -4- NC: 2025:KHC:14093 CRL.RP No. 1239 of 2024 inspections in order to assess the progress of civil work and its quality of the civil work undertaken, helped the private civil contractors in drawing the contract amount which was far more than what was agreed upon. The FIR came to be registered against the respondents and others for the aforementioned offences.
4. After submission of the charge sheet by the CID Police (BMTF) against the accused, the trial Court took cognizance of the offence and posted the matter for hearing before framing of charge. The respondents-accused, raised a contention before the trial Court that 145 standalone charge sheets are not maintainable on account of the fact that all of them have been registered on the basis of the common complaint and FIR registered. Further, since the public servants in the case are facing charges leveled both under the Indian Penal Code and PC Act, the prior sanction as contemplated under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. and Section 19 of the PC Act is a must. It is also contended by the respondents that the original Technical Vigilance committee cell report is not filed and admitted by the prosecution that they don't have the original of the said document. Accordingly, based on such plea, the trial -5- NC: 2025:KHC:14093 CRL.RP No. 1239 of 2024 Court suo moto passed an order on sustainability of the charge sheet and on assessment of the materials, discharged the accused-respondents acting under Sections 227 and 239 of Cr.P.C.
5. The issue involved in the present petition is directly and squarely covered by the decision/order passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.RP.No.975/2024 and connected matters.
6. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.RP.No.975/2024 and connected matters pertaining to the same charges against the other accused observed in paragraph Nos.77 and 78 as under:
"77. In the case on hand, charge-sheets are filed and cognizance was taken, even charges are framed and trial has been commenced in some of the case. The learned Trail Judge relied upon the evidence of half baked meal of the prosecution and not allowed to complete the process of full baked meal by recording the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and interdicted the proceedings considering the grounds urged by the accused persons in the absence of any application for discharge. The procedure adopted by the Trial Court -6- NC: 2025:KHC:14093 CRL.RP No. 1239 of 2024 is unknown to law. I have already pointed out that the mode adopted by the Trial Court is erroneous. I have already considered the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ratilal Bhanji Mithani (supra) and this judgment was followed through out till date regarding invoking of Sections 239 to 249, 401 and 300 of Cr.P.C. It is also held that 'discharge' and 'acquittal' are distinct concepts. After framing of charge, there cannot be a 'discharge', but only an 'acquittal' based on a finding of not guilty turning on the merits of the case. It is also held that the High Court could rightfully interfere in revision under Section 439 with an order of discharge passed after the framing of charge, and order re-trial.
78. Having considered the factual aspects of the case, the material on record and the principles laid down in the judgments referred by the State as well as the learned counsel for the respondents and the judgments referred by this Court, no doubt, there is no dispute that when there was no sanction, there cannot be any continuation of proceedings as contemplated under Section 197 as well as Section 19 of PC Act. I have already pointed out that the High Court quashed the proceedings and liberty was reserved to the State to proceed against the accused persons to obtain the sanction and time bound direction was given to consider the sanction. The -7- NC: 2025:KHC:14093 CRL.RP No. 1239 of 2024 State also placed on record the sanction given in some of the cases and also rejection in some of the cases as contended by the respondents counsel. When such being the case, the Trial Court committed an error in interdicting the proceedings without allowing the prosecution to lead further evidence including secondary evidence as observed above as well as only non-production of original TVCC report, the proceedings was interdicted and the procedure adopted by the Trial Court is unknown to law. Hence, it requires interference of this Court by exercising the revisional jurisdiction. Hence, I answer the point in the affirmative in coming to the conclusion that the matter requires to be interfered with by this Court by exercising the revisional jurisdiction and this Court has already made a chart above in respect of cases in which the accused persons have been discharged in interdicting the proceedings."
7. On collocating the facts and circumstances of the present case to the order passed by the co-ordinate Bench in the above revision petitions, the issue decided by the co-ordinate Bench is one and the same. Hence, there is substantial force in the submission raised by the learned HCGP. -8-
NC: 2025:KHC:14093 CRL.RP No. 1239 of 2024 In that view of the matter, this revision petition also deserves to be allowed.
8. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The criminal revision petition is allowed.
(ii) The order passed by the Trial Court is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Trial Court to consider the matter afresh.
(iii) The Trial Court is directed to consider the sanction order given by the State to continue the proceedings against the accused where the proceedings have already been quashed by giving liberty to file sanction order and continue to proceed against them from the stage of taking cognizance.
(iv) If no such sanction is given in respect of the accused persons, which have been relied upon by the respondents, there cannot be any proceedings against those accused persons.
(v) In the absence of original TVCC report, if any secondary evidence is placed, if the same is admissible and reliable as observed by the -9- NC: 2025:KHC:14093 CRL.RP No. 1239 of 2024 Apex Court in the judgment referred in Crl.RP.No.975/2024 and connected matters, the Trial Court is directed to permit the prosecution to place on record all the material recording the evidence of witnesses both oral and documentary evidence in full and then dispose of the matter on merits in accordance with law.
SD/-
(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE VM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4