State By Lokayuktha vs B S Anand Kumar S/O Late S A Srinivasa ... on 2 November, 2012

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

State By Lokayuktha vs B S Anand Kumar S/O Late S A Srinivasa ... on 2 November, 2012

Bench: A.N. Venugopala Gowda

                                                       1




  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

     DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2012

                       BEFORE

  THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. VENUGOPALA GOWDA

       CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.258/2012


BETWEEN:

State by Lokayuktha,
Bangalore.
                                          ... PETITIONER

(By Smt. T.M.Gayathri, Adv. )

AND:

B.S. Anand kumar
S/o Late S.A.Srinivasa Murthy
Aged about 27 years
Junior Engineer (O&M) 20
BESCOM, Byatarayanapura Unit
Sahakara Nagara
Bangalore
R/at No.1998/2, Complainant Block
28th D Cross, 2nd Main
Sahakara Nagara
Bangalore.
                                         ... RESPONDENT

(By Sri C.G.Sundar, Adv.)

      This Crl.R.P. is filed under S.397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C.
praying to set aside the order dated 24.10.2011 passed by
the Special Judge, Bangalore Urban District, Bangalore in
Spl.C.C.No.91/2011 and direct the Trial Court to proceed
                                                              2




with the trial in accordance with law, in the interest of
justice.

      This Crl.R.P. coming on for admission this day, the
Court made the following:

                         ORDER

Assailing an order of discharge passed by the learned Trial Judge, prosecution has filed this Criminal Revision Petition.

2. Sri C.G.Sundar, learned counsel for the respondent filed a memo and submitted that this petition does not survive for consideration in view of the petitioner submitting the charge sheet based on a fresh sanction order obtained, i.e., after passing of the impugned order.

3. Heard the learned counsel on both sides and perused the record.

4. Petitioner prosecuted the respondent for the offences punishable under Ss.7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. At the stage of framing charge, considering the objection raised by the 3 accused and finding that the sanction order produced has not been issued by the competent authority, the learned Trial Judge passed the impugned order. However, prosecution was set at liberty to obtain sanction order from the competent authority and proceed in the matter.

5. In pursuance of the impugned order, the petitioner having approached the concerned authority, sanction for prosecution having been accorded, charge sheet was filed which has been registered as C.C.No.168/2012.

Keeping in view the said subsequent event, the grievance of the petitioner does not survive for consideration and this petition has rendered itself unnecessary.

In the said view of the matter, this petition is disposed of as not surviving for consideration. The contentions raised in the matter are left open for consideration. The petitioner is at liberty to proceed with 4 the matter in C.C.No.168/2012. The learned Trial Judge to consider the matter in accordance with law.

Ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

JUDGE ca

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court