Karnataka High Court
Sri S A Muhamed Mohideen, B.E., vs State Of Karnataka on 17 September, 2009
Author: Mohan Shantanagoudar
Bench: Mohan Shantanagoudar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 17*" my OF SEPTEMBER,
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE MoI--gA"r§n }§H.ANTA'E~3AA':e3--Qtj:D:)§V§§E'7
wan P§TITION Nos.1eo53--1eC>55oF 2ooe.a e(6iU\~a:LA)EA
BETWEEN:
1. S.A. Muhamed M0hiCi'e_en,_"B.E7,'*- _
Aged about 49 years" ' '-- 1
S/0 A.K. Shaik _
2A, Jamais Ashiyan.-at' A
No.14, Appa G_ai'der1_Strcet '
Kilpaulgwi" ;heri;1a_i--€:Q0_ 0 1.0. 7 .
2. E11ass_A."-{,3-Lima.E,J "
Aged abmzet. 42 years ' » "
S/Q_M--_.A. Latiff " E ' ~
No. I 12,. ChoIairf1edu.._
High Road., C'her:r;ai59-4.
3. 3 L_3¥.S.eABasap 13.15;". MBA,
~ about 47' years
'A S,/0' kate "LXI, Nagappa
T E¥JQI3§3; 2"? Block
'._Gi:*iné1ga1=.,. Bangalore. . Petitioners
Sr1._"C.'V;"'Nagesh, Sr. Counsel)
;- State of Karnataka
By the Chief Secretary
DJ
3
Government of Karnataka
Vidhana Soudha
Bangalore.
2. The Secretary
Home Department
Government of Karnataka
Vidhana Soudha
Bangalore.
3. The Deputy Superintendent
of Police, City Division
Kamataka Lokayuktha V
Bangalore. 'Lg 9 2. Respondents
(by Sri N.B. Viswanath,-r¥l_CG R, 'R2;
Sri BA. Belliappa, Adv.;.._fcr_l4{;'3) "
Vlxese», wi-it petitions filed ui1de'r'Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution -I;nd1a;,--..pr*aying'~to call for records in crime
No.79/2008. r:_e-giistered._ "at g_ Lokayuktha. City
Divisiovn-,i----Banga1ore_for»offences----.punishabie under Section 7,
i3(i)(<{i) readflvvitii.' Section 13(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption' Aetfitlae" Filrstinforrnation Report of which is
submitted to the ieajrne'd_«_XXl'II Add}. City Civil and Sessions
Judge, Bangalore. _ '
.. 'petitioriahaving been heard and reserved for
"V-.order's ion 3??' September, 2009, and on this day the 17*" of
. Septen_iber--2_00$3. this Court pronounced the following-
ORDER
Petitioners have sought for quashing the First Ch Enforrnation Report and the investigation of the case in Crime "~1.\io-.7§/ 2008 registered by the Deputy Superintendent of V)
-3_ Police, Civil Division, Karnataka Lokayuktha, Bangalore, in so far as it relates to the petitioners are concerned. in these writ petitions. The said crime is registered for;*the';o.ffeIncei punishable under Sections 7, 13[1}(d). l._1/zW.l Section 12 of the Prevention of hereinafter referred to as the :'Act') against and these petitioners.
2. The First Inforrnati.on. that, on getting credible information:-"" the Deputy Supeiintenrleiit staff, Went to RMV Extensionqlfiangalopre, raid on House No.73.
Occupied Bshivashankar (not a party to and seized the amount of Rs.2l§),l)0.000/n?" an unaccounted amount of » Rp's--;l,69;,5.00:/'=--.under the mahazar. As could be seen from staff along with the panchas went and wctited"----near.V' the house of the first accused. At about 3.15 l p.in_., on 6.11.2008, three persons (petitioners) alighted from 'njyota Corolla Car, bearing Regn.No.TN--O1--ALB«~3686 and F/> went to the house of the first accused. One of the three persons was holding a plastic carry bag. At about those three persons came out of the house.-3l_o.f'the---- accused and were watching for themcar near"the'_vvgate."_The" Deputy Superintendent of Police, aiong:'wit'h 'the panchas went inside the house. of Vtlielxfirstrlaccpusyed with those three persons. saw: accused counting currency 'A (in the first accused informed the vp.o1i:c_e. [petitioners herein) gave then asked the petitioners€'aVbCut*;the"money found in the house of the _thelllpetitioners told the police that accupsedl I\7o_._.l1'.l the clearance of the bills pending before t'1'l':l'§1 relating to the work executed by M/s. . Ea"s--tC'C--oast' ..Construction and Industries Limited of which thyey'»--covncerr_ied. The said company has executed certain ci'\rilbcon.tra"c*tslV'and that the bills had to be cleared by the first accus'ed_A.'1~ in order to get the bills cleared at an early date, thellapetitioners stated that, they had to pay the amount that l izéras found in the house of the first accused as illegal' ix/5 I14 5 _
4. At this stage, it is relevant to note the provisions of Sections 12 and 24 of the Act, which read thus:--
"Section 12. .Punishment;~~-- I "
abetment of offences Sections 7 or 11:- _Wh_oeve'rh offence punishable iinde-r ' 'V A = S A' Section 11 whether o1i'not.. thatgoffen'ce is; committed in '».,conseqt1en.Ce-- that:
abetment,__ sha11___._VVb*e__ 'wpunishable livvith imprisonin_eig.i.t for Vter_1_nTVvhich shall be not less .Aitg'i1t'_'fNhich may extexicl togjfiyei shalialso be liable to « S Statement by bribe giverf 'Sn/ot»-- him to prosecution:-
in Nvotwithsttanwding anything contained in A. anyV'iaW'Vfor the time being in force, a '«.._Astatement made by a person in any broceeding against a public servant for an offence under Sections 7 to 11 or under Section 13 or Section 15, that he offered or agreed to offer any gratification (other than legal remuneration} or any valuable i~/> thing to the public servant, shall not subject such person to a prosecutio"n~., under Section 12."
5. In the matter relating tooffering 'bribe'_':tol'a vpublicu " . servant, the relevant question is "tl_1e accused when he offered bribe}. hasvnothinfg: * question, whether the public to vrrhomvfithelfibribe was offered, was or was or not to do the act for whichuthe matter, it is alleged that who had to clear the petitioners' company.
Theses pe_titions;~¢»_ entered the house of the first accused and were out of the said house by Thus, within a span of fifteen minutes, pletitlioners are stated to have handed over cash to the first accused. Admittedly. the first accused is a Government Servant and the petitioners are employees or concerned with the company M/s.East if =.VlC»oa:st Construction and Ir'd}.is>tries Limited, which was f yr -9-
6. It is no doubt true that the provisions of Section 24 of the Act mandates that the statement made by theplerson in any proceeding against the public servant punishable under Sections 7 to 11 or under, under Section 15 of the Act that of_fered"'«or any gratification to a pu'o1ic_s_ervant-- yifill not :S"iL1bj€Ct himi any prosecution under Section'=i:2»of the"Act'. thismmatter, V the prosecution appea:rs..p_to ~launche'd,°not on the basis of statements of is based on the panchanqmq ..p';:€*';.I;§1':ired:A__on' police authorities. The panchas as well as the near the house of the fiI'St accuseds'avir going inside the house of the first ..acciisedV wi'thA°.abvhplastic carry bag. Immediately 'l V. pther'eafter;l-- the policewent inside the house of accused No.1 panchas and seized Rs.20,00,000/- which beingilicoliinted by the first accused in his house. These facts facie reveal the complicity of these petitioners. A Acpli/fair be the statements made by the petitioners before the lfpolice shall not subject the petitioners to prosecution under N'?
- A accoiflinglgzg same are dismissed. _ 10 _ Section 12 of the Act. But in this matter, as aforementioned, the prosecution is not based on the petitioners' statements before the police, but appears to be materials. Under such circumstances, at. preliminary stage, it cannot be said that no canibe against the petitioners. V l i i V K V The investigation is progreisisif Llltiiiiately, it is for the investigatingauthoritv"to_iilethe after due investigation against *the'viiiv-estigation reveals the case. . "
f-of thiséourt is of the opinion that it is notza 'the proceedings at this preliminary stage. Hence; petitions are liable to be dismissed and Sd/-~ JUDGE *ck/'b_sr:--