Karnataka High Court
Prashant Kumar S vs State Of Karnataka on 27 November, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:42936
WP No. 32667 of 2019
C/W WP No. 33048 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO.32667 OF 2019 (GM-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.33048 OF 2019 (GM-RES)
IN W.P.NO.32667 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
PRASHANT KUMAR .S
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
S/O. L. SRINIVASAMURTHY,
NO.103, RAJESHWARI MANOR
KUVEMPU ROAD, HELCHENAHALLI,
BANGALORE - 560 062. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI A. VELAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
Digitally
signed by
SUMA 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Location: THROUGH THE 'OFFICER IN CHARGE'
HIGH BHADRAVATHI RURAL POLICE STATION,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA BHADRAVATHI, SHIMOGA - 577 302
SHIMOGA DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY THE
SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA BUILDING,
BANGALORE - 560 001. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. WAHEEDA M.M., HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF THE
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
PROCEEDINGS PENDING BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:42936
WP No. 32667 of 2019
C/W WP No. 33048 of 2019
JUDGE AND JMFC, BHADRAVATHI, SHIMOGA DISTRICT, IN CASE NO.
(OLD C.C.NO.2769/2012) C.C.NO.457/2016 (ANNEXURE-D) IN
RESPECT OF THIS PETITIONER (ACCUSED NO.23) FOR THE
REASONS AND GROUNDS CITED IN THE WRIT PETITION.
IN W.P.NO.33048 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
RAVINDRA S.D.
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
S/O. S. DASAPPA
7TH MAIN, R.P.C. LAYOUT,
NEAR POST OFFICE
BANGALORE - 560 104. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI A. VELAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH THE 'OFFICE IN CHARGE',
BHADRAVATHI RURAL POLICE STATION,
BHADRAVATHI, SHIMOGA - 577 302
SHIMOGA DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY THE
SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING,
BANGALORE - 560 001. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. WAHEEDA M.M., HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
PROCEEDINGS PENDING BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, BHADRAVATHI, SHIMOGA DISTRICT IN CASE
NO.(OLD NO.CC.2769/2012) C.C.NO.457/2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-D IN
RESPECT OF THIS PETITIONER (ACCUSED NO.22) FOR THE
REASONS AND GROUNDS CITED IN THE WRIT PETITION.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:42936
WP No. 32667 of 2019
C/W WP No. 33048 of 2019
ORDER
The petitioner in W.P No.32667/2019 has challenged the prosecution launched against him in C.C.No.457/2016 pending trial before the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Bhadravathi, Shimoga District (henceforth referred to as the 'the Trial Court') for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 120B, 168, 179, 183, 186, 201, 381, 408, 411, 417, 465, 467, 468, 471, 472, 474, 475 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC') and Sections 120 and 121 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983. The petitioner in W.P. No.33048/2019 has also sought quashing of the prosecution launched against him in C.C.No.457/2016.
2. The summary of the charge-sheet filed by respondent No.2 is that the Deputy Superintendent of Police received credible information about malpractices committed by the staff of Kuvempu University in the conduct of examinations. Based on such information, the Rural Police, Bhadravathi conducted a search on -4- NC: 2023:KHC:42936 WP No. 32667 of 2019 C/W WP No. 33048 of 2019 14.05.2012 at 10.30 p.m. at the house of accused No.1, who was an attendant at Kuvempu University on contract basis. A search of his house revealed marks cards of various degrees from Kuvempu University, various degree certificates of Kuvempu University, answered and blank answer booklets, pass certificates, hologram of Kuvempu University and fake seals. They also seized a computer and printer that were used to make fake documents. Later, another house of an accused was searched on 11.06.2012, which revealed some fake blank marks sheets of Kuvempu University, degree certificates and other documents and two hard disks. Based on the information furnished by accused No.1, the house of another accused- Mr. Ramu was searched. They found 56 blank answer booklets of Kuvempu University of which the face sheet of 25 booklets were cut off. Likewise, on the information of accused No.1, the house of Shivakumar-accused No.3 was also searched, which revealed 100 answer booklets, empty answer booklets containing 2 strips of hologram and a sum of Rs.1,62,000/-. A seal of Kuvempu University was -5- NC: 2023:KHC:42936 WP No. 32667 of 2019 C/W WP No. 33048 of 2019 seized. Later, the house of one Siddacharya - accused No.4 was searched and some answer booklets and blank answer booklets containing the seal of Kuvempu University were seized. Again, on the information of accused No.1, the house of one Doodyanaik - accused No.5 was also searched, where answered booklets and blank answer booklets containing the seal of Kuvempu University and a sum of Rs.70,000/- contained in an envelope of Kuvempu University were seized. Likewise, on the information of accused No.1, the house of one Shashikumar - accused No.6 was also searched, from whom blank answer books containing the seal of Kuvempu University were recovered.
3. During the course of investigation, the house of accused Nos.22 and 23 were searched on 30.06.2012. Accused No.22 was found to be in possession of fake M.B.A marks sheets while accused No.23 was found to be in possession of fake B.Sc. marks sheets. It was found that both accused Nos.22 and 23 had paid money to -6- NC: 2023:KHC:42936 WP No. 32667 of 2019 C/W WP No. 33048 of 2019 accused No.15 and had procured the fake marks sheets from accused Nos.1 and 18. The marks sheets which were seized from the accused Nos.22 and 23 were issued in the name of accused Nos.22 and 23 and the same were verified by the Deputy Registrar (Evaluation) of Kuvempu University and they were found to be fake. The petitioners along with other accused were therefore charge sheeted for the aforesaid offences. The III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC., Bhadravathi, in terms of the order dated 05.09.2012 taking into consideration the charge sheet and other materials, took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 109, 120B, 168, 179, 183, 186, 201, 381, 408, 411, 417, 465, 467, 468, 471, 472, 474, 475 of the IPC and Sections 120 and 121 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 and directed office to register criminal case, which was numbered as C.C. No.2769/2012, against the accused. The petitioners, who were arraigned as accused Nos.22 and 23 are before this Court seeking -7- NC: 2023:KHC:42936 WP No. 32667 of 2019 C/W WP No. 33048 of 2019 quashing of proceedings in C.C. No.2769/2012 (new C.C. No.457/2016).
4. Learned counsel for the respective petitioner in these petitions submits that the petitioners' are accused of commission of an offence punishable under Section 474 of IPC. He contends that for an offence punishable under Section 474 of IPC, it is not mere possession of a forged document, but there should be intention on the part of the accused to use the said forged document as genuine. He, therefore, contends that possession of aforesaid marks sheets by petitioners' itself would not amount to an offence unless the prosecution is able to establish that there was intention on the part of the petitioners' to use the same as genuine. In this regard, he relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc in the case of STATE of Washington v. Vianney VASQUEZ [No.87282-1 decided:July 25, 2013]. He invited the attention of the Court to paragraph Nos.13 and 16 of the said judgment, where it was laid as follows: -8-
NC: 2023:KHC:42936 WP No. 32667 of 2019 C/W WP No. 33048 of 2019 "13. We conclude that the record before us discloses insufficient evidence to prove Vasquez's intent to injure or defraud beyond a reasonable doubt. First, the Court of Appeals' rhetorical question, "And here why else would Mr.Vasquez have them," Vasquez, 166 Wash.App. at 53, 269 P.3d 370, infers intent from mere possession. Such an inference relieves the State of its burden to prove all elements of the crime of forgery beyond a reasonable doubt. As various cases make clear, possession alone does not support an inference of intent. Second, although Vasquez might have acknowledged ownership of the forged cards, the evidence is equivocal as to whether Vasquez intended to defraud Englund by convincing him that the cards were genuine. Equivocal evidence cannot form the basis of an inference of intent to injure or defraud. Finally, Englund's shaky recollection of Vasquez's statement from working in the area does not support an inference that Vasquez used forged cards in connection with employment. Beyond Englund's scant testimony, the State presented no evidence that Vasquez had ever worked, was working, intended to seek work in the area, or had ever used the forged cards in any way. Because the evidence presented in this case is insufficient to demonstrate Vasquez's intent to injure or defraud, -9- NC: 2023:KHC:42936 WP No. 32667 of 2019 C/W WP No. 33048 of 2019 we reverse the Court of Appeals and remand to vacate Vasquez's conviction.
xxx
16. For other crimes where possession and intent are elements of the crime, Washington courts do not permit inferences based on naked possession. Rather, this court and the Court of Appeals have consistently required the State to prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt."
He therefore contends that it was incumbent upon the prosecution to produce materials to show that the petitioners' had intention to use this document and if that was absent, their prosecution under Section 474 of IPC cannot be sustained and is not warranted. He further submits that several of the accused who were employed in the Kuvempu University were though charge sheeted, this Court in several petitions had quashed the proceedings against them as proper sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C') was not obtained. He further contends that several students who were accused of being part of the illegal activity, have
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:42936 WP No. 32667 of 2019 C/W WP No. 33048 of 2019 not been prosecuted and therefore, the respective petitioner in these petitions are selectively discriminated in being prosecuted. He also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dr. S. Dutt v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(1966) 1 S.C.R. 493]. He further contended that except the confession statement of the petitioners' in these petitions, there is no incriminating evidence seized or collected by the prosecution and the confession statements are not substantive evidence and cannot be pressed into service against the petitioners'. He submitted that if the confession statements are not considered, there is no material to prosecute the petitioners'. Hence, he contended that the prosecution has to fail. In this regard, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bheru Singh v. State of Rajasthan [(1994) 2 SCC 467]. He contended that this Court should not hesitate to exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C when it is found that there is no incriminating evidence against the petitioners'. He relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC:42936 WP No. 32667 of 2019 C/W WP No. 33048 of 2019 the cases of: Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Another v. Special Judicial Magistrate and Others [(1998) 5 SCC 749]; Anand Kumar Mohatta and Another v. State (NCT of Delhi), Department of Home and Another [(2019) 11 SCC 706]; Ashok Chaturvedi and Others v. Shitul H. Chanchani and Another [(1998) 7 SCC 698]; G. Sagar Suri and Another v. State of U.P. and Others [(2000) 2 SCC 636] and C.V.K. Balakrishnan and Anr. v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Anr. [Criminal Appeal No. of 2023 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.1733/2023].
5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that four marks sheets in the names of accused Nos.22 and 23 were recovered from their possession. She submits that the petitioners' had obtained these fake marks sheets from the accused No.15 who acted as a middle man between them and accused Nos.1 and 18. She pointed out to the role of accused No.1 and contended that the accused No.1 along with accused
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC:42936 WP No. 32667 of 2019 C/W WP No. 33048 of 2019 Nos.15, 18 and 19 had stolen the blank degree certificates, blank marks sheets, holograms, fake seals of various colleges, various officers of Universities and with the help of accused No.18, they used to get the fake marks sheets printed and had parted the same in favour of accused Nos.22 and 23 for consideration. She also pointed out to the statement of Mr. S.A. Javed - CW.42, who had verified the marks sheets that were seized from the custody of accused Nos.22 and 23 and who stated that the marks sheets that were seized were all fake. She, therefore, submits that there is ample material to establish that the petitioners' were in possession of the fake marks sheets and the role of accused Nos.1, 15, 18 and 19 in fabricating the fake marks sheets in favour of accused Nos.22 and 23 is writ large on the record. Therefore, she contends that the petitioners' are also involved in commission of an offence punishable under Section 474 of IPC. She contends that the Trial Court has already framed charge sheet against the petitioners' for the offence punishable under Section 474 of IPC. She contends that
- 13 -
NC: 2023:KHC:42936 WP No. 32667 of 2019 C/W WP No. 33048 of 2019 the fact that the marks sheets are issued in the name of the petitioners' goes to show that these marks sheets were obtained from accused Nos.1, 15, 18 and 19 to be used by the petitioners'. She contends that the question whether there was intention on the part of the petitioners' to use the marks sheets or not is a matter of trial and the petitioners' have to establish their innocence before the Trial Court and not in a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. She, therefore, prayed that the petitions may be dismissed.
6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners' as well as the learned High Court Government Pleader and also perused the charge sheet and the documents attached to it.
7. The material placed along with the charge sheet indicates that the petitioners' with an intention to obtain fake marks sheets in their names, contacted the accused No.15, who acted as a middle man between accused Nos.1, 18 and 19 to fabricate the fake marks sheets in the
- 14 -
NC: 2023:KHC:42936 WP No. 32667 of 2019 C/W WP No. 33048 of 2019 names of the petitioners'. The fact that the marks sheets so obtained were fake is evident from the statement of CW.42, who is the Registrar (Evaluation), Kuvempu University. These fake marks sheets were recovered from the house/s of the petitioners'. A charge sheet is filed which discloses that these marks sheets were brought about by the accused No.1 in conspiracy with the other accused. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners' that mere possession of a forged document is not an offence, but there should be some material to indicate that the petitioners' had intention to use the said documents as genuine is a fact that has to be established by the petitioners' before the Trial Court. The very fact that the fake marks sheets are brought about in the name of the petitioners' gives an impression that the petitioners' had obtained these fake marks sheets from the other accused with an intention to use the same as genuine. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners' that an offence under Section 474 of IPC is not made out cannot be accepted. In so far as the judgment of
- 15 -
NC: 2023:KHC:42936 WP No. 32667 of 2019 C/W WP No. 33048 of 2019 the Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, that was a case where the Court after a trial found that there was no intention on the part of the accused to use the product of crime. In that context, the Court held that mere possession of document would not be sufficient unless there is physical evidence to show that there was intention on the part of the accused to misuse the document. In so far as the power of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings, the position of law is as old as the hills. This Court would not hesitate to exercise jurisdiction wherever it is found that the investigation is done prejudicially to the interest of the accused or that a perusal of the entire charge sheet material does not constitute an offence complained by the prosecution. In the case on hand, there is evidence on record which discloses that the respective petitioner in these petitions and the other accused had all conspired to bring about various documents in the name of the Kuvempu University and the petitioners' herein knowing fully well that they had
- 16 -
NC: 2023:KHC:42936 WP No. 32667 of 2019 C/W WP No. 33048 of 2019 not passed M.B.A. and B.Sc. examinations, had obtained fake marks sheets in their names. Therefore, the question whether the petitioners had these documents for the sake of it or whether they had intention to use it as genuine has to be established by the prosecution before the Trial Court and this Court cannot prejudge the issue by holding that mere possession of the document cannot constitute an offence punishable under Section 474 of IPC.
8. In that view of the matter, both these petitions lack merit and are dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE para Nos.1 and 2 - MBM from para No.3