Karnataka High Court
Sri.B.T.Raju vs The State Of Karnataka on 14 June, 2024
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K.Natarajan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.12037 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
SRI.B.T.RAJU
S/O B.THIMMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
ASSISTANT ENGINEER,
OFFICE OF EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
WEST DIVISION, BDA,
VIJAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU,
R/AT NO.546/N, 11TH CROSS,
VINAYAKA LAYOUT,
NAGARABAVI 2ND STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 072.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. LOKESH R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ACB POLICE,
REPRESENTED BY SP
M S BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
PRESENTLY REPRESENTED BY
LOKAYUKTA POLICE
2
STATE OF KARNATAKA
M S BUILDING,
AMBEDKAR VEEDI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2 . SRI. MANJUNATH V
S/O VENKATAMUNIYAPPA,
AGED 39 YEARS,
R/AT NO.42,
RAMASANDRA VILLAGE,
SULIKERE POST,
KENGERI HOBLI,
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK,
BENGALURU - 560 060.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B. B. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. NAGAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL
PROCEEDINGS PENDING AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN
SPL.C.C.NO.1894/2022 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 7(a) OF
P.C ACT AND AMENDMENT ACT, WHICH IS PENDING ON
THE FILES OF THE LEARNED 23rd ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU FILED BY ACB
POLICE BEGALURU.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 30.05.2024 THIS DAY, THE
COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
3
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON: 30.05.2024
PRONOUNCED ON : 14.06.2024
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., for quashing the charge sheet and criminal proceedings in Spl.C.C.No.1894/2022, registered by the then ACB, now under Lokayukta for the offences punishable under Section 7(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 & Amendment Act, 2018 (for short 'P.C. Act') on the file of 23rd Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
2. Heard the arguments of learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned Special counsel for the respondent No.2.
3. The case of the prosecution is that, the petitioner was Assistant Engineer in the office of Executive Engineer, (Additional) West Division, Jayanagar, Bangalore. That on 07.06.2022, it is alleged that the second respondent filed 4 complaint. On 07.06.2022, alleging that he has filed application for the grant of alternative land for utilisation of 33 guntas of land in survey No.206 of Kengeri village belonging to one Suwalal Jain and Suresh Chandra Jain without acquisition. In order for granting the alternative land, the petitioner said to have demanded and collected Rs.5 lakhs as advance, at that time he has been trapped. The police after registering the case, a trap was set up and while handing over the bribe amount, the police trapped him. After the investigation of the matter, the then ACB police filed the charge sheet before the Special Court, which is under challenge.
4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner contended that the owner of the land was Suwalal Jain and Suresh Chandra Jain. The complainant was only GPA holder. The land was acquired by the Karnataka Housing Board (KHB). There was dispute between the land owners and Karnataka housing board. Later, the matter went up to the Supreme Court, where they withdrawn the SLP regarding 5 challenging the acquisition. Then they had agreed to receive 50% of the share each by the KHB and the owners of the land. When the matters were already pending before the KHB, the land was acquired by the KHB. The question of filing application before the BDA, does not arises. It is further contended that the BDA has nothing to do with the concerned land and there is no work pending with the petitioner. He has no hold to play in this matter. Subsequent to the complaint, the owners have withdrawn the application. Thereby there is no work pending.
5. It is further contended that there is no demand and acceptance by the petitioner. The complainant forcefully kept the money without the knowledge of the petitioner. It is further contended that as on the order sheet of the BDA, the file was lying with the Assistant Executive Engineer as on 03.01.2022. There is no file sent to the petitioner at all. Such being the case, the petitioner is not aware of the filing of the application by the complainant. It is further contended that the file was seized 6 from the Office of the BDA, but not from the custody of the petitioner. The file was seized from the office of AEE on 09.06.2022, which reveals no file and work was pending with the petitioner. The complainant was a real estate person, but he has falsely implicated the petitioner. Therefore, conducting the trial against the petitioner is nothing but abuse of process of law. It is also contended that the case worker was outside the office and not in the work place, that too in the car of the petitioner. Therefore, prayed for allowing the petition. Also contended that there was Memorandum of Understanding between the KHB and the owners of the land. Only 9 guntas of land was left over, out of 2 acres and 31 guntas. Therefore, question of claiming 33 guntas, does not arises.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents seriously objected the petition, contending that there was a conversation between the petitioner and the complainant. They had demanded Rs.1 crore and settled for Rs.60 lakhs and while handing over Rs.5 lakhs, the accused was 7 trapped. The same was seized from the car of the accused, which was kept in the dashboard. There is a clear case of demand and acceptance. The BDA had acquired land for road, therefore, application was filed for granting alternative site. The file was seized from the custody of the petitioner. charge sheet already filed therefore prayed for dismissing the petition.
7. Having heard the arguments and perused the records, the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has not demanded any bribe from the complainant and there is no demand and acceptance which is sine qua non for constituting the offence punishable under Section 7(a) of P.C. Act and further contended that there is no work pending with the petitioner who is Assistant Engineer in BDA. The file also did not come to him in order to show that work is pending with him for the purpose of demanding any bribe. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the land was acquired by KHB (Karnataka Housing Board) and the same was challenged by 8 the owners of the land i.e., Suwalal Jain and Suresh Chandra Jain. The matter went up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court where both of them were decided to share 50% each i.e., for land owners 50% and for KHB 50% and the matter is pending with the KHB, therefore, the question of demanding any bribe by BDA, which has nothing to do with the said land which belonged to KHB. In this regard, it is an admitted fact that the land in question belong to the owners i.e., Suwalal Jain and Suresh Chandra Jain in Sy.No.206 of Kengeri Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore Dakshina Taluk has been acquired by KHB and the acquisition has been challenged up to the Supreme Court and finally, it is an admitted fact that they had withdrawn the SLP by sharing 50% each of the land by the KHB and owners. It is a case of the prosecution that some of the portion of land has been used by the BDA for the formation of a road, therefore, the land owners want an alternative land from the BDA, therefore the owners have given GPA to the complainant. Accordingly, he has approached the BDA for an alternative site/land. Therefore, the accused-petitioner demanded 9 bribe. The petitioner has produced an Annexure-E (the file of BDA), where there were note sheet in respect of filing the application by the Suwalal Jain and Suresh Chandra Jain and it was referred to Assistant Land Acquisition Officer for preparing sketch and by survey report on 4.11.2020. Later, the file was sent back to the concerned case worker, again sent to the Assistant Land Acquisition Officer on 28.12.2021. Thereafter, the same was forwarded to the Executive Engineer (West) and thereafter, it was referred to the AEE on 03.01.2022, later the file required to be sent to the petitioner who is Assistant Engineer-1. In the meanwhile, the trap was made. Later, the file was seized by the police. It is pertinent to note that the file was seized from the office of BDA, but not from the custody of the petitioner which means that the file was not yet received by the petitioner by signing the file even as on 03.01.2022. Though there is some telephonic conversation held between the petitioner and complainant, but there is no demand by this petitioner for any bribe for doing the work. The file was already with the other officers i.e., the Assistant Engineer and Assistant 10 Land Acquisition Officer, who required to pass the order, but not this petitioner who is only an Assistant Engineer.
8. The learned counsel for the respondent tried to show that petitioner demanded money etc., but there is no material placed on record to show that the petitioner has demanded bribe and work is pending with him as on the date of filing complaint or trap.
9. On perusal of the record, admittedly, the trap was laid by the police. The complainant and his friend went to the BDA office, later the accused said to be came only from the office, where the complainant and his friend Shashi Kumar followed the accused. They went inside the car but the complainant not went inside the car where Shashi Kumar went inside the car and immediately the complainant gave signal, the police went and trapped. The trap was held outside the compound of the BDA but not in the office. The amount that was seized in the car belongs to the petitioner but there is no evidence to show that the complainant handed over money to the accused-petitioner, but he did 11 not enter the car, whereas, one Shashi Kumar went inside the car and immediately, the police trapped and seized the amount from the dashboard of the car. There is every chances of Shashi Kumar, the friend of the complainant keeping the cash in the dashboard is not ruled out in order to implicate the petitioner-accused in this case.
10. It is also pertinent to note that the owners of the land i.e., Suwalal Jain and Suresh Chandra Jain have already withdrawn their application for seeking alternative land and the same has been revealed from the records. The petitioner is not the Authority to provide alternative land and he is not the SLAO or Additional SLAO in order to demand any money for passing any order.
11. It is well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NEERAJ DUTTA Vs. STATE (GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI) reported in (2021) 17 SCC 624 that the demand and acceptance are sine qua non for establishing the case under Section 7(a) of P.C. Act. Even the amount which is seized from the accused or mere 12 acceptance is not an offence punishable under Section 7(a) of P.C. Act without any demand and acceptance which is sine qua non for constituting the offence. This court in catena of decisions in the case of Neeraj Dutta stated supra has held that the demand and acceptance are sine qua non for establishing the offence is 7(a) of P.C. Act. Mere demand and the failed trap charges are not sustainable and mere acceptance without any demand also the offence cannot be held established.
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Shanthamma vs. State of Telangana reported in (2022) 4 SCC 574 has held that demand and acceptance is sine qua non for establishing the offence under Section 7 of P.C. Act and has held at paragraph Nos.10 and 11 which are as under:
"10:- We have given careful consideration to the submissions. We have perused the depositions of the prosecution witnesses. The offence under section 7 of the PC Act relating to public servants taking bribe requires a demand of illegal gratification and the 13 acceptance thereof.. The proof of demand of bribe by a public servant and its acceptance by him is sine qua non for establishing the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act.
11:-In P. Satyanarayana Murthy Vs State of A.P. this Court has summarised the well settled law on the subject in para 23 which reads thus: (SCC p.159) "23. The proof of demand of illegal gratification, thus, is the gravamen of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and
(ii) of the Act and in absence thereof, unmistakably the charge therefore, would fail.
Mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof, dehors the proof of demand, ipso facto, would thus not be sufficient to bring home the charge under these two sections of the Act. As a coroilary, failure of the prosecution to prove the demand for illegal gratification would be fatal and mere recovery of the amount from the person accused of the offence under Sections 7 or 13 of the Act would not entail his conviction there under."
13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Neeraj Dutta stated supra, has held as under: 14
"88.1. (a) Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue by the prosecution is a sine qua non in order to establish the guilt of the accused public servant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act."
14. This Court in the case of N.Thejas Kumar vs. State of Karnataka and Another in W.P.No.915/2022 and in the case of L.Sathish Kumar vs. State by Lokayuktha and Another in W.P.No.15314/2022 (GM- RES), have taken similar view that demand and acceptance is sine qua non for establishing the offence under section 7 of PC Act. Here in this case, the petitioner is not an Authority for granting any alternative land or site to the complainant and he has not received the file to his table and it was with the Assistant Executive Engineer. Such being the case, the work is also not pending with him, therefore, question of conducting investigation and filing charge sheet against the petitioner does not arises and the investigation and filing charges itself is not sustainable and it amounts to abuse of process of law as held by the Hon'ble Supreme 15 Court in the case of State of Haryana and Others vs. Bhajanlal and Others reported in 1992 SCC (Cri) 426.
15. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The criminal proceedings against the petitioner in Spl.C.C.No.1894/2022 pending on the file of XXIII Additional City Civil Sessions Judge and Special Judge for P.C. Act, Bengaluru, arising out of Crime No.49/2022 by the then ACB and now Lokayukta, is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE AKV/GBB CT:SK