Karnataka High Court
Munimadegowda vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 April, 2018
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.11372/2018(GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
MUNIMADEGOWDA,
S/O PUTTAMADEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
PERMANENTLY RESIDINT AT
MARAGOWDANAHALLI VILLAGE,
HALAGURU HOBLI,
MALAVALLI TALUK,
MANDYA-571421.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI GAURAV G. K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY THE
LOKAYUKTA POLICE STATION,
MANDYA-571421.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI S. RACHAIAH, HCGP)
......
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARITICLE 226
& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 22.02.2018 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
2
MANDYA, PASSING ORDERS ON CHARGE IN
SPL.C.NO.85/2014 VIDE ANNEXURE-A;
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard Sri. G.K. Gaurav, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. S. Rachaiah, HCGP appearing for respondent-State. Perused the records.
2. An application filed under Section 216 of Cr.P.C by the respondent for framing additional charge against petitioner-accused by including Sec.13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which has allowed by the trial Court is called in question.
3. It is the contention of Sri G.K.Gaurav, learned Counsel appearing for petitioner that allegations made in the complaint itself is vague and there was no necessity to frame additional charge as sought for in the application and that too at a belated stage. He would 3 also contended that despite detailed objection having been filed by the petitioner-accused, same has not been considered by the trial Court in proper prospective and as such, he prays for allowing the writ petition and rejecting the application filed by prosecution under Section 216 Cr.P.C. Per contra learned HCGP would defend the order.
4. Having heard the learned Counsel for parties and on perusal of records, it would disclose that respondent had initially registered a criminal case against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. After conducting investigation, charge sheet also came to be filed for the said offences. On account of there being material on record disclosing that a sum of Rs.4,000/- was also been found in the right side pant pocket (secret pant pocket) of the petitioner-accused and same had been 4 seized from possession of the accused and said material was though available on record and accused had failed to give satisfactory explanation with regard to possession of said money, prosecution had rightly sought to include framing additional charges for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on the ground that there was no dispute to the fact that a sum of Rs.4,000/- was found in possession of the accused during the period of his office hours which had been seized by the investigating officer during the course of trap proceedings and yet prosecution had failed to include charge against the accused under Section 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In that view of the matter, order passed by the trial Court allowing the application filed by the prosecution to include said charge cannot be found fault with and no error has been committed by the trial Court either on 5 facts or in law calling while allowing said application which calls for interference by this Court.
No grounds. Hence, petition is hereby rejected.
SD/-
JUDGE Nsu/-