Karnataka High Court
Sri N Najundaiah vs By Karnataka Lokayuktha Police on 25 April, 2017
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25th DAY OF APRIL 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
WRIT PETITION No.56909 OF 2013(GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
Sri. N. Najundaiah,
Aged about 62 years,
S/o. Nanjundaiah,
Motor Vehicle Inspector, (Retired)
R/o. No.6., 1st Cross, 14th Main,
(Agromore Layout), Attiguppe,
Chandra Layout, Vijayanagar,
Bangalore - 560 040.
Bangalore District.
... Petitioner
(By Shri. H. Subramanya Jois, Senior Counsel for
Shri. K. C. Shantha Kumar, Advocate)
AND:
By Karnataka Lokayukta Police,
City Division, Bangalore City,
Bangalore Urban District,
Represented by
Deputy Superintendent of Police. ... Respondent
2
(By Shri. Mallikarjun C. Basareddy, Advocate
for Respondent No.1)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India read with 482 of CRPC, 1973, [1] FIR
dated 18.12.2007 registered in Cr.No.29/2007 for Offences U/S
13[1][E] R/W Sec. 13[2] of Prevention of Corruption Act,
issued by R-1 as at Annexure-A and etc.,
This Writ Petition coming on for Orders this day, the
court made the following:
ORDER
Heard Shri Subramanya Jois, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. It is noticed that he had remained absent on the previous occasion as well. The learned Senior Advocate would insist that the matter stands squarely covered by a judgment of this court and having regard to the facts and circumstances, would have to be summarily allowed. The facts in the present case are that the petitioner is said to have joined service as a Motor Vehicle Inspector in the year 1978 and served at various places without any blemish. When 3 the petitioner was said to be working as a Senior Motor Vehicle Inspector at Koppal, a First Information Report dated 18.12.2007 in crime No.29/2007 was said to have been registered by the Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta, Bangalore Rural District against the petitioner under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'PC Act', for brevity), allegedly on the basis of suo motu collection of Confidential Source Report prepared by the complainant and investigation was started by conducting the house search. The original first information report was sent to the jurisdictional District and Sessions Court at Bangalore Rural District. Thereafter, on 16.2.2008, that is two months after the registration of the first information report, the second first information report was registered against the petitioner for the very same crime alleging the very same offences as per the order of the Additional Director General of Police, Lokayukta, Bangalore and investigation was continued.
4To compound this, yet another third first information report in Crime No.65/2008 was registered by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bangalore dated 16.10.2008, against the petitioner for the very same crime alleging the very same offence. While briefly stating the facts that the above accused being a Government Servant has earned income of Rs.35 lakh during his tenure and spent Rs.16,50,000/- and acquired assets to the tune of Rs.1.46 crore and thereby had amassed wealth disproportionate to his known sources of income. On 2.4.2008, the Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta is said to have submitted before the Principal Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District, a letter and requested for the transfer of the case records and the properties in FIR No.29/2007 to the Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta, Koppal District for further investigation on the point of jurisdiction. A notice was issued to the respondent and the case was even posted on 9.5.2008. The petitioner had appeared and filed objections. Thereafter, a charge sheet has 5 been filed in Crime No.65/2008 before the City Civil and Sessions Judge, 23rd Court, Bangalore, for the offences punishable under sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the PC Act. In the charge sheet, there is no disclosure about the earlier two FIRs except enclosing copies in the list of documents. It is alleged in the charge sheet that the petitioner being the accused joined service and had alleged therein that the petitioner had acquired assets disproportionate to the known sources of income to the extent of Rs.110.9% during the check period from 1.1.1994 to 18.12.2007 and had committed the above offences. It is in this background that the present petition is filed.
2. The learned Senior Advocate would point out that it is well settled that after registering the First Information Report in respect of the same crime, making a fresh investigation is irregular and contrary to law. It is squarely covered by a judgment in T.T.Anthony vs. State of Kerala, (2001)6 SCC 181 and that therefore the present petition would have to be 6 allowed on that ground alone. Insofar as the successive FIRs are concerned, significantly, by way of additional grounds, in terms of I.A.1/2016, it is contended that the impugned action of the respondent, Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta, Bangalore Rural District was the same person who prepared the suo motu source report on 17.12.2007 and also registered a case against the petitioner on the same day and conducted investigation and carried out search and seizure of the properties belonging to the petitioner, which is in violation of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The respondent is said to have prepared the source report after conducting investigation before registering a complaint as FIR in respect of the alleged commission of a cognizable offence by the petitioner under the PC Act which is contrary to law. Reliance is placed on Lalita Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh, (2014)2 SCC 1wherein at paragraph 120, it is laid down as follows:
7
"120.1. The registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation.
120.3. If the inquiry disclosed the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one week. If must discloses reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further.
120.8 Since the General Dairy/Station Dairy/Daily is the record of all information received in a Police station, we direct that all information relating to cognizable offences, whether resulting in registration of FIR or leading to an inquiry, must be mandatorily and meticulously reflected in the said Dairy and the decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry must also be reflected, as mentioned above."
It is hence contended, before proceeding to conduct a preliminary inquiry and prior to the registration of source report as FIR, there is no indication that there were any entries made in the station house diary and as such, on the face of it, there was violation of mandatory procedure. Further, since the 8 complainant himself is an interested witness, could not have been permitted to carry out further investigation is concerned, has been answered by the apex court in the case of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2015 SC 1206, following the judgment in S.Jeevanathan vs. The State, (2004)5 SCC 230. It is also pointed out that this court in WP 21782/2014 in the case of C.Mruthyunjayaswamy vs. The State, Karnataka Lokayukta Police, dated 22.8.2016 has applied the above proposition and held that the proceedings were vitiated. Hence, the learned Senior Advocate would contend that the petition be allowed on these primary grounds.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent in furtherance of the statement of objections filed would point out that the crime which was registered before the Bangalore Rural Lokayukta Police was transferred to the Koppal Police and the said crime number was transferred to Bangalore further investigation since the properties of the petitioner was also stationed at Bangalore and there should be no bar in conducting 9 investigation against the petitioner under the PC Act under those circumstances. It is contended that insofar as the successive FIRs being registered is concerned, the same would not squarely apply to the present case on hand. Though it is admitted by the learned counsel that there were indeed 3 FIRS successively filed and since there is single charge sheet now filed in respect of allegations in the said 3 FIRs, there is no infirmity and that the proceedings could go on. Insofar as the second ground raised by the petitioner by way of additional grounds, the learned counsel has no answer.
In that view of the matter, the petition is summarily allowed. The application in I.A.1/2016 is formally allowed. The petitioner to carry out the amendment of the petition and file the amended petition within one week.
Sd/-
JUDGE nv