Karnataka High Court
Sri.S.H.Lingegowda vs State By Lokayuktha Police on 21 November, 2013
Author: H.S.Kempanna
Bench: H.S.Kempanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.KEMPANNA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.856/2013
BETWEEN
1. SRI S.H. LINGEGOWDA
S/O HANUMANTHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
INSPECTOR, HIRIYUR DN
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT
PRESENTLY WORKING AT
EXCISE COMMISSIONER OFFICE
MADDUR TALUK
MANDYA - 571 428.
2. MR. RUDRESHI
S/O HANUMANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
DAILY WAGER IN EXCISE DEPARTMENT
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 001.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. BHASKAR C.R, ADV.)
AND
STATE BY LOKAYUKTHA POLICE CHITRADURGA
OFFICE OF THE LOKAYUKTHA
M.S. BUILDING
BANGALORE - 01.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.B.VISWESWARAIAH - HCGP)
2
THIS CRL.R.P IS FILED U/S.438 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 30.08.2013 PASSED BY
THE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
CHITRADURGA IN SPECIAL CASE (P.C.A) NO.6/2012
HOLDING THAT THE CHARGE CAN BE FRAMED AGAINST
THE PETITIONERS NO.1 AND 2 FOR THE OFFICES
PUNISHABLE UNER SECTION 13 (1) (D) R/W SECTION 13
(2) OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 AND
SECTION 34 OF IPC, THEREBY ALLOW THIS PETITION.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON
FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING :
ORDER
This revision petition is directed against the order dated 30.8.2013 passed in Special C (PCA) No..6/12 by the Principal Dist. and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Chitradurga partly allowing the application filed by the petitioners u/s.227 of Cr.P.C. and holding that there are material to frame charge against the petitioners for the offences u/s.7 and u/s.13(1)(d) r/w.13(2) of PC Act, 1988 r/w.S.34 of IPC.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that on a complaint filed by CW1-Sadashiva against the first accused-Lingegowda, the respondent-Lokayuktha laid a trap on 12.10.2010 at Challakere and recovered tainted 3 money of Rs.26,700/- from the second petitioner/A2 herein. It is alleged by the complainant that the first accused being the Excise Inspector of Hiriyur Excise Sub Division was in the habit of collecting Rs.1300/- from each Brandy Shop and was also demanding money from him at the time of renewing the licences of the Brandy shop. The complainant is the proprietor of the two Brandy Shops situated at Challakere and was also managing seven other Brandy Shops belonging to one Rudramuniyappa. The first accused was insisting to pay him a sum of Rs.11,700/- every month from 9 brandy shops which he was managing and was also demanding Rs.3,000/- for renewal of licence of every Brandy Shop. The complainant paid to the first accused in respect of the four brandy shops and got the licences renewed. For renewing licences of other five brandy shops, first accused demanded a sum of Rs.15,000/- and also threatened the complainant that he would prosecute him in case money was not paid to him. Since A1 went on insisting him payment of Rs.26,700/- 4 being the amount inclusive of Rs.11,700/- to be given to him usually every month and Rs.15,000/- for renewal of licences, the complainant filed the complaint before the Lolayuktha. When the trap was laid by the respondent/Lokayuktha in the presence of the independent witnesses, the first accused had asked the second accused to receive the tainted money from CW1 and thus the Lokayuktha has recovered the tainted money from the second accused. Thereafter on completion of the investigation they have submitted the final report. After the final report was filed, the petitioners appeared before the Special Judge in response to the summons directed to them and thereafter filed application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. seeking for discharging them in the case.
In the application inter alia among other things it was contended no offence is made out for the offences alleged against them. A false complaint has been filed by the complainant in order to wreck vengence against them on account of A1 having registered case against 5 him under the Karnataka Excise Act. There was no official act that was to be performed by them to show any favour to the complainant on the date of the trap. The complainant is also particeps criminis because he himself offered to pay bribe to A1. No money has been recovered from the possession of A1. On these grounds he contended since there are no sufficient grounds to proceed against him, he be discharged in the case.
The application filed by the petitioner was opposed by the Special Prosecutor representing the Lokayuktha.
The trial Court on a consideration of the entire material on record came to the conclusion the material on record viz. the final report placed under Section 173 of Cr.P.C., make out a prima facie case against both the accused and as there are sufficient grounds to proceed against them came to the conclusion that the petitioners/accused are not entitled to a total discharge. Accordingly, by the impugned order directed to frame 6 charge for the offences under Section u/s.7 and u/s.13(1)(d) r/w.13(2) of PC Act, 1988 r/w.S.34 of IPC.
3. The petitioners being aggrieved by the said order are before this Court in this revision.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would contend no trap has been laid in the office of the petitioners. No money has been sized from the possession of the first petitioner. According to the prosecution the money was received by the second accused. Since no money has been seized from the possession of A1 at the time of trap and as the trap has been laid at the public place at Challakere where A2 has received the amount on behalf of A1 at which point of time petitioner No.1 was not present, in view of the fact that the first petitioner had registered cases against the complainant under the Excise Act, as a counter blast to the same, a false complaint has been filed against him to wreck vengeance. The learned trial Judge without looking into these materials has committed an error in 7 dismissing the application filed by the petitioners and directing to order for framing charges for the aforementioned offences.
5. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Special Judge indicates the petitioner No.1 was demanding a sum of Rs.1300/- per month for each of the brandy shop which was run by the complainant. In all he was demanding a sum of Rs.11,700/- every month from brandy shops which was managed by the complainant. It is further seen the first petitioner was also demanding a sum of Rs.3,000/- for renewal of licences of every brandy shop. The material on record reveals the first accused on the date of the trap directed the complainant to pay bribe amount to the hands of A2 who was working under him. Immediately on receipt of the amount, trap has been laid. That money has been received by A2 for and on behalf of A1. Therefore, the Special Judge has come to the conclusion the materials on record at this stage prima facie make out a case as against both the accused for the offences for which 8 charge is ordered to be framed and as there are sufficient grounds to proceed against them, he has proceeded to order to frame charge for the offences u/s.7 and u/s.13(1)(d) r/w.13(2) of PC Act, 1988 r/w.S.34 of IPC. The impugned order of the learned Special Judge on a close scrutiny does not warrant interference as it does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity calling for interference. Accordingly, there is no merit in this petition and it is dismissed.
(Sd/-) JUDGE rs