Karnataka High Court
D R Sadiq Shariff vs The State Of Karnataka on 8 January, 2013
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2458/2012
BETWEEN:
D.R.Sadiq Shariff,
Aged about 50 years,
S/o. Late Dawood Shariff,
Occ: Sr.Inspector of Motor Vehicles,
Office of Regional Transport Office,
Chamarajanagara. ... Petitioner
[By Sri.K.A.Chandrashekara, Advocate]
AND:
The State of Karnataka,
By the Police of
Lokayuktha Police Station,
Chamarajanagara District. ... Respondent
[By Sri.B.A.Belliappa, Advocate)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of
the Cr.P.C praying to quash the entire proceedings in
(Lokayuktha Police Station) Crime No.2/2012 of
Lokayuktha Police Station, Chamarajanagara District,
now pending on the file of the District and Sessions
Judge, Chamarajanagara.
This Criminal Petition coming for admission on
this day, the Court made the following: -
:2:
ORDER
In this petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner has sought for quashing the entire proceedings in Crime No.2/2012 of Lokayuktha Police Station, Chamarajanagara District, for the offence punishable under Section 13 (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short, 'P.C. Act').
2) The short question of law raised in this petition is, whether the registration of the case based on seizure mahazar conducted by the Investigating Officer without registering the case is in accordance with law and whether the further proceedings thereon are vitiated in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court as well as this Court.
3) Perusal of the copy of the FIR produced would indicate that the Dy. Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayuktha, Chamarajanagar, said to have received credible information about corrupt practices going on in RTO check-post near Panajanur Village of Chamarajanagar Taluk and the Dy. Superintendent of Police orally directed the police inspector to verify the :3: same. Accordingly, the police inspector along with his staff and panchas went to the said RTO check-post on 30.03.2012 at about 3.00 p.m. On verification he found cash of Rs.2,21,265/- in the check-post. The petitioner, working as Senior Motor Vehicle Inspector and present in the check-post was unable to give any satisfactory answer for the cash found therein. Therefore all the documents along with the cash were seized by drawing a mahazar in the presence of the panchas. The petitioner was apprehended and brought to police station, wherein the police inspector submitted a report along with the original mahazar and the seized cash as also the documents before the Dy. Superintendent of Police, who based on the said report registered the case and proceeded with the investigation. Thus, from the above, it is clear that the raid was conducted even without registration of the case and the case came to be registered only after the raid, and seizure of cash as well as other documents.
4) The question, as to 'whether such procedure adopted by the police is in accordance with law', is no more res-integra in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court reported in Samaja Parivarthan Sumudaya Vs. :4: State of Karnataka reported in 2012 SCW 3323, wherein Their Lordships in Para-17 have laid-down that the machinery of criminal investigation is set into motion by the registration of the First Information Report by the specified Police Officer of the jurisdictional Police Station or otherwise and the police officer can proceed to investigate the case only after registration of the case as required by Section 154 of Cr.P.C..
5) This Court in L. Shankaramurthy Vs. The State By Lokayuktha Police - Criminal Petition No.3213/2012 and connected matters disposed of on 03.09.2012 has ruled that the procedure followed by the police in proceeding to conduct a raid and seizure of incriminating materials without registering the case as required by Section 154 of Cr.P.C., is an abuse of the process of law.
6) In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the whole procedure adopted by the respondent in this case is not recognized by law, as such, it is illegal. The registration of the case based on the seizure mahazar is bad in law and therefore, all further :5: the proceedings pursuant to the registration of the case in Crime No.2/2012 are liable to be quashed.
7) In the result, the petition is allowed. All proceedings subsequent to registration of the case in Crime No.2/2012 by the Lokayuktha Police, Chamarajanagar District, against this petitioner, are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE KGR*