Karnataka High Court
Sri.Jathanna R.V. vs State Of Karnataka on 15 October, 2015
Author: Rathnakala
Bench: Rathnakala
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE RATHNAKALA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2623/2015
BETWEEN:
SRI JATHANNA R.V.,
S/O V.D.JATHANNA
AGED 54 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.76,
BADAGUBETTU
BAILUR,
UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 101
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI M.VINOD KUMAR, ADV.)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY BUNTWAL TOWN POLICE STATION
BANGALORE
REPRESENTED BY
THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
VIDHANASOUDHA
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. SRI REDDY NAYAK
ELECTION OFFICER
BUNTWAL MUNICIPALITY
BUNTWAL
2
DAKSHINA KANNADA
NOW THE TALUK SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER
BUNTWALA TALUK - 574 211
BUNTWALA,
DAKSHINA KANNADA.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.R.KESHAVMURTHY, SPP. FOR R1;
R2 - SERVED)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C., PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.1080/2013,
(CR.NO.43/2013) OF BUNTWAL TOWN P.S., PENDING IN THE
FILE OF THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BUNTWAL,
FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 177(B), 177(E) OF IPC AND SEC.129
OF THE REPRESENTATION OF PEOPLE ACT 1951.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
The petitioner herein is charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Section 117(B) and (E) of IPC r/w. Section 129 of Representation of People Act, 1950.
2. That attack on the charge sheet is:
The petitioner being the public servant within the meaning of Section 21 of IPC, he could not have been prosecuted without the previous permission under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. The petitioner was not the Election Officer and the allegation of the 3 prosecution is on behalf of the Town Municipality; he distributed the cupboards to the beneficiaries; but the decision of the distribution of cupboards was with the Municipal Counsel and the cupboards were distributed by the suppliers directly and he has no role in the alleged act of distribution of cupboards by violating the code of conduct during the election period.
3. Learned State Public Prosecutor No.2 appearing for the State submits that the petitioner has approached this Court without working his remedy before the trial Court for the discharge / dropping the procedure and the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court cannot be invoked when the remedy is available for him before the trial Court.
4. Section 171 (B) of IPC pertains to 'Bribery', it is not the allegation of the prosecution against the petitioner and Section 171(E) of IPC is a non-cognizable offence. Another provision invoked is, Section 129 of Representation of People Act, 1950, which pertains to the Election Officer and obviously it is not the 4 case of the prosecution that the petitioner was designated as an Election Officer during the relevant period. Petitioner being a public servant, requirement of sanction from the concerned authority having not been obtained to prosecute him, the entire charge sheet and the consequential proceedings are vitiated and it is abuse of process of law to continue the criminal proceedings.
6. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The proceedings in C.C.No.1080/2013 on the file of Additional Civil judge and Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bantwal, is quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE nvj