Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Thippeswamy C. vs Lokayuktha Police on 9 March, 2022
Bench: Indira Banerjee, J.K. Maheshwari
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 391-392 OF 2022
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 6608-6609 of 2021)
THIPPESWAMY C. & ANR. … Appellant(s)
VERSUS
LOKAYUKTHA POLICE … Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
These appeals are against a judgment and final order dated 15.07.2021 passed by the Kalaburagi Bench of the High Court of Karnataka dismissing Writ Petition Nos. 17212-17213 of 2017 (GM- RES) filed by the appellants.
The appellants were employed as Motor Vehicle Inspectors at the Humnabad RTO check-post in Karnataka. On or about 28.11.2012, the respondent-Lokayukta Police conducted a raid allegedly on receipt of information of illegal and corrupt practices at the said Humnabad RTO check-post.
A First Information Report was lodged under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code on 28.11.2012. The allegations in the FIR Signature Not Verified are extracted hereinbelow for convenience :- Digitally signed by GULSHAN KUMAR ARORA Date: 2022.04.07 17:22:27 IST Reason:
“Pursuant to definite information received at 0945 hour on the date: 28/11/12 that officials and staff on duty at the RTO check post of the 2 Transport Department near Gulbarga Cross in Humnabad town, together with some perivate persons were involved in taking additional money over and above fine amounts from vehicles plying on the highway, it was verified. It was found that staff were working in three shifts at the check post. They would scrutinise the documents of vehicles coming from other states and the vehicles going to other states, register cases under the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Act and levy fines. Some private persons were also working to assist IMV officials of the RTO. Some private persons were also helping the staff check vehicles that were plying on the national highway and take money in addition to fines from drivers of vehicles. Upon personal inspection, it was found that MV inspectors working at the Humnabad RTO check post in Bidar district were taking money in the form of bribes and the staff and some private persons were helping them. Thus, they were involved in misdeeds causing a loss of revenue that should have come to the government in the form of tax and fines. Therefore a case was registered against them under Sections 13(1) PC Act 1988 and 34 of the IPC on behalf of the government and an investigation was taken up.” The allegations in the FIR are, with the greatest of respect, completely vague and devoid of any particulars whatsoever. The appellant were not named in the FIR but were described by their respective ranks as on duty Motor Vehicle Inspector, on duty staff, Transport Department, RTO, Check-post Humnabad and other private persons. Ultimately, the Karnataka Police filed final report/charge-sheet under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The appellant No.1 was named Accused No.2 and the appellant No.2 was named accused No.1. The relevant part of the final report is extracted hereinbelow “It has been confirmed from investigation that accused-1 Sri Govind Rathod, motor vehicle inspector, accused-2 Sri Thippeswamy, motor vehicle inspector and accused-3 Abdul Rashid, 3 vehicle inspector misused their positions and collected bribes through private persons accused- 4 Sri Mohammad Ibrahim and Accused-4 Sri Rohith Kumar from drivers of vehicles plying on the national highway. Therefore, the charge-sheet has been filed against the accused under Sections 8, 13(1)(D) with 13(2) PC Act 1988 and 34 IPC.” Column 11 of the final report/charge-sheet contained description of material seized, reads, “An unauthorised amount of Rs.6,219/- contained in a sealed cover was found during an inspection of the check-post of the Transport Department near the Gulbarga cross on the national highway on the date 28/11/2012.
Another total amount of Rs 20865 which was not accounted for was found with the ARTO and two MVIs, ARTO driver who was on duty and two private persons. Out of the total bribe money found during the inspection, there were 06 banknotes of the denomination of Rs 1,000, 31 banknotes of Rs 500 denomination, 53 banknotes of Rs 100 denomination, 01 banknote of Rs 50 denomination, 04 banknotes of Rs 20 denomination, 21 baniknotes of Rs 10 denomination and 03 banknotes of Rs 5 denomination. There was a total of Rs 27,155/-. The banknotes were put in a cover and sealed with the English letters ‘TP’. It is identified as Object-1 and a computer-typed note with the signature of the investigating officer has been stuck to it.” The appellants were governed by an office circular which required all employees and officers to declare cash in their possession in a register at the time of entry for joining duty. From a table annexed to the application being IA No. 114616/2021, it appears that the appellant No.2 who had declared Rs.2,700/- in 4 the office register was found in possession of Rs.500/-. He explained that he had spent Rs.2,200/- on medical treatment. A sum of Rs.500/- in his possession was returned to him. The appellant No.1 was found in possession of Rs.630/- whereas he had declared Rs.2,800/- in the office register. He claimed that he had spent Rs.2,170/- on personal expenses. Rs.630/- was returned to him. A sum of Rs.1,700/-, not declared, was seized from one Abdul Rashid, driver of Abdul Wazid, who had been arrayed as the third accused and is not party to these appeals and a sum of Rs.13,000/-, not declared, was found in possession of a private driver Md. Ibrahim also not party to this appeal. Further one Rohit Kumar, private driver of the appellant No.1 who had not declared any amount was found in possession of Rs.5,115/- and one Abdul Wazid arrayed as accused was found in possession of Rs.1,050/- which had not been declared.
Proceedings against Abdul Wazid were quashed by the High Court. The private driver of the Accused No.2 and the other private driver arrayed as the fourth accused were obviously not required to make any declaration as they were not employees of the Motor Vehicles Department.
So far as these appellants are concerned, the appellant No.2 was in possession of Rs.500/- out of Rs.2,700/- which he had declared and the appellant No.1 was in possession of Rs. 630/- out of Rs.2,800/- that was declared and Rohit Kumar, the accused No.6, not a party to these proceedings, said to be a private driver of the Appellant No.2 had Rs.5,115/-.
5
By an order dated 04.03.2017, the Court of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bidar took cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and registered Special Case (PC) No. 24/2017.
The appellants filed an application in the High Court under Article 226 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking to quash the charge-sheet in the aforesaid Special Case (PC) No. 24/2017 pending on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bidar.
By the impugned judgment and order, the application filed by the appellants under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been dismissed. As recorded by the High Court, as per the allegations and Mahazar, at the time of raid, the Police and others, namely, Md. Ibrahim, Rohit Kumar, Assistant Regional Transport Officer, Abdul Wazid, Jeep driver of Abdul Wazid, Abdul Rashid were present. Rs.4,700/- was found near the table of the check-post. On enquiry, the appellant No.2 confirmed that the amount had been recovered by way of penalty. On verification, the amount was not tallying with the receipts as the receipts disclosed Rs.6,800/- and there was shortage of Rs.2,100/- for which there was no explanation. A private person by the name Md. Ibrahim was found with Rs.13,000/- in the pocket of his trousers for which he had no explanation and one Rohit Kumar, private driver of the appellant No.2 was in possession of Rs.5,115/- for which he did not give explanation. 6 These amounts were not declared. The ARTO Abdul Wazid, who had pleaded ignorance was found in possession of Rs.1,050/- which had not been declared. When the appellant No.2 was searched, he was found in possession of Rs.630/- while he had declared Rs.2,800/- and he only asserted that the balance amount had been spent by him but he had not given any details in this regard. Rs.500/- recovered from the appellant No.1 was returned to him as it had been declared. Cash amount of Rs.2,45,784/- was found in the pocket of one R.C. Kulkarni who is not a party to this appeal. The amount was accounted for and was accordingly returned. Similarly, another amount of Rs.12,000/-was found from one Shankar Rao Kulkarni was returned as he produced receipt to show that he had withdrawn that money.
The High Court took note of the fact that the Investigating Officer had found that the amount with the RTO officials had properly been explained but Rs.13,000/- recovered from a third person and Rs.5,115/- from the private driver had not been accounted for. The amount was seized by the Investigating Officer by preparing the Mahazar. Upon investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted a report to the effect that the accused had committed offences punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The learned Magistrate had taken cognizance after perusing the papers.
The proceedings against Abdul Wazid had been quashed. There is no reason why the proceedings against the appellants should not be quashed. It was argued that there was no allegation against 7 these appellants of demand or acceptance of any amount by way of bribe. The Magistrate concerned issued process without application of mind. Though the charge-sheet had been filed for offences punishable under Sections 8, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, process was issued under Section 13(1)(e). A typographical error does not vitiate the proceedings. Section 13(1)(e) was mentioned in the order obviously by way of typographical error.
On behalf of the respondents, it was contended that raid had been conducted after registration of the FIR. All the issues raised before this Court had been considered and rejected by the Trial Court by its order dated 20.02.2015. These issues could not be raised again. We need not go into the circumstances in which proceedings against Abdul Wazid were quashed. The said Abdul Wazid is not party to these appeals.
The question is what was found against these appellants, on the basis of which it would reasonably be inferred that the appellants had committed the offences alleged. There may not have been direct evidence of demand and acceptance of bribe amount. In our considered view, direct evidence of making a demand or actual acceptance of bribe is not imperative for initiation of proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act, if demand and acceptance can reasonably be inferred, having regard to the circumstances of the case.
However, so far as the appellants are concerned, they had 8 declared more money in the register than what was found with them. It is not as if they had any excess money. They had less money. They had spent money which they were perfectly entitled to do. At the highest, the appellant No.1 had permitted his personal driver to enter the office, which prima facie does not constitute offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is not necessary for this Court to go into the question of whether the appellant No.1 has committed any act which constituted an act of misconduct or has breached office discipline, in these proceedings. It is preposterous that officials should be charged with offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act for undeclared amount found in the possession of a driver who was not required, in law, to make any declaration. There were no materials whatsoever to suggest that the appellant had anything to do with the money found in the possession of the private driver.
There can be no dispute with the proposition of law laid down in the judgments of this Court cited in the judgment and order impugned, namely, the judgment in Dhaneshwar Narain Saxena vs. The Delhi Administration reported in AIR 1962 SC 195; C.I. Emden vs. State of U.P. reported in AIR 1960 SC 548; Dhanvantrai Balwantrai Desai vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1964 SC 575. Those judgments, however, have no application in the facts and circumstances of this case as there is nothing to show that the accused persons had accepted any money. They were not even in possession of money in excess of what they had declared. We agree with the finding of the High Court that the entire proceedings 9 cannot be quashed only because of a typographical error or of a wrong provision of statute being adverted to. However, the materials disclosed clearly do not make out any offence insofar as these appellants are concerned. Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the High Court has the discretion to interfere and quash proceedings which are harassive and/or in abuse of the process of law. It is well settled that where discretion is conferred, discretion has to be exercised in the manner warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. In the considered view of this Court, the High Court should have exercised its discretion to quash the criminal proceedings in so far as the appellants herein are concerned.
The appeals are, accordingly, allowed. The impugned judgment and order of the High Court insofar as it relates to these appellants is set aside and the proceedings against the appellants stand quashed.
………………………………………………………,J.
(Indira Banerjee) ………………………………………………………,J.
(J.K. Maheshwari) New Delhi;
March 09, 2022.
10
ITEM NO.5 COURT NO.8 SECTION II-C
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CRL.) NO.(S)6608-6609/2021 (Arising out of the impugned judgment and final order dated 15.07.2021 passed by the High Court of Karnataka Bench at Kalaburagi in Writ Petition No.17212-17213 of 2017 (GM-RES)) THIPPESWAMY C. & ANR. Appellant(s) VERSUS LOKAYUKTHA POLICE Respondent(s) (IA No. 114620/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT IA No.109856/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT IA No. 109850/2021
- EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IA No.114618/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 109854/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 114616/2021 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES) Date : 09-03-2022 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. MAHESHWARI
For Appellant(s) Mr. R. Basant, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Nishanth Patil, AOR
Ms. Malvika Kala, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Shubhranshu Padhi, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
The appeals are allowed in terms of the signed order.. The impugned judgment and order of the High Court insofar as it relates to these appellants is set aside and the proceedings against the appellants stand quashed.
Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.
(GULSHAN KUMAR ARORA) (MATHEW ABRAHAM)
AR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
(Signed order is placed on the file)