Karnataka High Court
The State Through Lokayukta Police vs Santosh S/O Sangappa Gornal on 4 September, 2014
Author: N.Ananda
Bench: N.Ananda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
GULBARGA BENCH
DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.200021/2014
BETWEEN
The State through Lokayukta Police
Bijapur, Represented by Special
Public Prosecutor, Lokayukta,
High Court of Karnataka
Gulbarga. ... Petitioner
[By Sri S.S.Kumman, Spl. PP. for Lokayukta)
AND
Santosh S/o Sangappa Gornal
Age: 30 years, Occ: Busineess
R/o Muddebihal
Dist: Bijapur -586101. .. Respondent
[By Sri Ashok R. Kalyanashetty and
Sri S.S. Mamadapur, Advocates]
This Criminal Revision petition is filed under Section
397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C., to set aside the order passed by the
Special Judge/Principal Sessions Judge, Bijapur, dated
25.09.2013 in Special Case No. (LOK) 18/2012 discharging
the accused of an offence P/U/S 8 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act and etc.
This Petition coming on for Admission this day, the
Court made the following:
2
ORDER
The respondent was arrayed as accused no.3 in Special Case (LOK) No.18/2012 pending on the file of Principal Sessions Judge at Bijapur.
2. The learned Sessions Judge has discharged the respondent (accused no.3) on the ground that final report does not disclose that accused no.3 had accepted or obtained from the complainant for himself or for any other person, any gratification as a motive or reward for doing any official act by public servant namely accused no.2.
3. I have heard learned counsel for parties.
4. As per final report, the complainant had approached accused no.1- Sub inspector of Muddebihal Police Station for getting his Tum Tum goods vehicle released from the police custody as the same was involved in an accident. Accused no.2 was working as Constable Muddebihal Police Station. Accused no.3 (respondent herein) was running a hotel in front of Muddebihal Police Station.
3
5. It is the case of prosecution that complainant had approached accused no.1 and 2 for release of his vehicle (Tum Tum goods vehicle). Accused no.1 and 2 told the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as illegal gratification to accused no.3 for release of his vehicle. It was made clear to complainant that accused no.3 would receive bribe amount on behalf of accused no.1 and 2.
6. The complainant not willing to pay the bribe amount approached Lokayukta police and a trap was laid. The complainant approached accused no.3 with illegal gratification of Rs.10,000/- (tainted currency notes). Accused no.1 and 2 had directed the complainant to pay illegal gratification to accused no.3 who would receive the same on their behalf. Accused no.3 readily accepted a sum of Rs.10,000/- (tainted currency notes) from the complainant and told that Sub-inspector (accused no.1) would do his job.
During trap, the entire conversation between accused no.1 as also between complainant and accused no.3 was tape-recorded. The tape-recorded version would reveal that 4 accused no.3 (respondent) had abetted accused no.1 and 2 to commit offences punishable under Sections 7, 8, 13 (1) (d) r/w 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The omission on the part of investigation officer to mention Sections 7 and 11 would not absolve criminal liability of respondent under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
7. The learned Special Judge has not noticed that offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 should be tried as a warrant case instituted upon a police report.
8. Under Section 240 Cr.P.C., if the magistrate is of the opinion that there is ground for presuming that accused has committed an offence alleged against him, the magistrate shall frame in writing a charge against the accused.
9. In the case on hand, the learned Special judge has not gone through contents of final report. The learned Special Judge has not considered whether there is ground to 5 presume that accused has committed offences alleged against him. The learned Special Judge has failed to notice that accused can plead for discharge only if the charge against accused is groundless. At the time of framing charge, it is not necessary for the learned Magistrate to ensure that the case would end in conviction.
10. Therefore, I pass the following:
ORDER The petition is accepted. The impugned order is set aside. The learned Special Judge is directed to reconsider the question of framing charge or discharging the accused in the light of observations made herein and in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE Np/-