Karnataka High Court
M/S Karnataka Power Transmission vs State Of Karnataka on 16 July, 2024
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:27657
CRL.RP No. 335 of 2018
C/W CRL.RP No. 670 of 2018
CRL.RP No. 671 of 2018
CRL.RP No.423/2019
CRL.RP No.574/2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 335 OF 2018
C/W
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 670 OF 2018
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 671 OF 2018
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 423 OF 2019
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 574 OF 2019
IN CRL.RP.NO.335/2018
BETWEEN:
1. M/S. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED,
A COMPANCY INCORPORATED UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT:
KAVERI BHAVAN, K G ROAD,
Digitally BANGALORE - 560 009.
signed by
MALATESH REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR (ADMN & HR)
KC M. RAMAKRISHNA.
Location: ...PETITIONER
HIGH
COURT OF (BY SRI. S.SRIRANGA ., SENIOR COUNSEL A/W
KARNATAKA
SRI. ARIHANT. R. SUNKAY., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SUMANA NAGANAND., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS POLICE INSPECTOR,
KARNATKA LOKAYUKTA POLICE,
CITY WING,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:27657
CRL.RP No. 335 of 2018
C/W CRL.RP No. 670 of 2018
CRL.RP No. 671 of 2018
CRL.RP No.423/2019
CRL.RP No.574/2019
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. H S MANJUNATH,
SON OF LATE SHANKARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
WORKING AS:
ASSISTANT ENGINEER BESCOM,
LINGARAJAPURAM O & M,
E-5 SUB DIVISION,
BENGALURU - 560 084.
PERMANENT RESIDENT OF:
HUNASAGHATTA VILLAGE,
TARIKERE TLAUK,
AMRUTHAPURA HOBLI,
CHIKKAMAGALORE DISTRICT - 577 228.
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT:
NO.294, 6TH A MAIN ROAD,
HBR LAYOUT, 3RD BLOCK,
NEAR GANESH TEMPLE,
BENGALURU 560 043.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VENKATESH S ARBATTI., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. AKASH R., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. VIJAYKUMAR.V.B., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS
HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 23.11.2017 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED BY THE
LXXVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS AND SPECIAL
COURT FOR PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, BENGALURU
IN SPL.C.C.NO.286/2010.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:27657
CRL.RP No. 335 of 2018
C/W CRL.RP No. 670 of 2018
CRL.RP No. 671 of 2018
CRL.RP No.423/2019
CRL.RP No.574/2019
IN CRL.RP.NO.670/2018
BETWEEN:
1. M/S KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED,
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT:
KAVERI BHAVAN, K G ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 009.
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR (ADMN & HR)
M. RAMAKRISHNA.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. S.SRIRANGA ., SENIOR COUNSEL A/W
SRI. ARIHANT. R. SUNKAY., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SUMANA NAGANAND., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS POLICE INSPECTOR,
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA POLICE,
CITY WING,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. JAIKUMAR A S,
SON OF LATE SHIVARAM,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
WORKING AS:
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BESCOM,
K-2, SUB DIVISION, BESCOM,
ANJANA NAGARA,
BENGALURU - 560 091.
RESDING AT:
NO.374, 2ND B CROSS,
4TH MAIN RAOD, 14TH BLOCK,
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:27657
CRL.RP No. 335 of 2018
C/W CRL.RP No. 670 of 2018
CRL.RP No. 671 of 2018
CRL.RP No.423/2019
CRL.RP No.574/2019
NAGARBAVI 2ND STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 072.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VENKATESH S ARABATTI., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. GURURAJ JOSHI., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS
HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 23.11.2017 (ANNEXRUE-A) PASSED BY THE
COURT OF LXXVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
COURT AND SPECIAL COURT UNDER PREVENTION OF
CORRUPTION ACT AT BANGALORE IN SPL.C.C.NO.480/2016.
IN CRL.RP.NO.671/2018
BETWEEN:
1. M/S KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED.,
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT:
KAVERI BHAVAN, K G ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 009.
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR (ADMN & HR)
M. RAMAKRISHNA.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. S.SRIRANGA ., SENIOR COUNSEL A/W
SRI. ARIHANT. R. SUNKAY., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SUMANA NAGANAND., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS POLICE INSPECTOR,
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA POLICE,
CITY WING,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:27657
CRL.RP No. 335 of 2018
C/W CRL.RP No. 670 of 2018
CRL.RP No. 671 of 2018
CRL.RP No.423/2019
CRL.RP No.574/2019
2. JAYARAM,
SON OF LATE SHIVARAM,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
WORKING AS:
JUNIOR ENGINEER, BESCOM,
ASSISTANT ENGINEER (ELE),
O & M DIVISION-8,
GOURIPALYA, W-3 SUB DIVISION,
BENGALURU - 560 026.
RESIDING AT:
NO.62/1, SUBRAMANYA TEMPLE ROAD,
VINOBA NAGARA,
TUMKUR - 572 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VENKATESH S ARBATTI., FOR R1/STATE;
SRI. C.G.SUNDAR., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS
HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 23.11.2017 (ANNEXURE A) PASSED BY THE
COURT OF LXXVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
COURT ANS SPECIAL COURT UNDER PREVENTION OF
CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 AT BENGALURU IN
SPL.C.C.NO.481/2016.
IN CRL.RP.NO.423/2019
BETWEEN:
1. M/S. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED,
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT:
KAVERI BHAVAN K.G. ROAD,
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:27657
CRL.RP No. 335 of 2018
C/W CRL.RP No. 670 of 2018
CRL.RP No. 671 of 2018
CRL.RP No.423/2019
CRL.RP No.574/2019
BANGALORE -560 009.
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR (ADMIN AND HR)
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. S.SRIRANGA ., SENIOR COUNSEL A/W
SRI. ARIHANT. R. SUNKAY., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SUMANA NAGANAND., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS POLICE INSPCTOR,
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA POLICE,
CITY WING,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. G NAGARAJ,
S/O M GOVINDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
WORKING AS:
CONTROLLER OF ACCOUNTS KPTCL,
CAUVERY BHAVAN
BENGALURU - 560 026.
RESIDING AT:
# 146/2, AKSHAYA NILAYA,
PATTABHIRAMAN ROAD,
OLD EXTENSION,
KOLAR - 563 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VENKATESH S ARBATTI., FOR R1/STATE;
SRI. C.G.SUNDAR., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRL.RP FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE
COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
09.04.2018 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC:27657
CRL.RP No. 335 of 2018
C/W CRL.RP No. 670 of 2018
CRL.RP No. 671 of 2018
CRL.RP No.423/2019
CRL.RP No.574/2019
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, KOLAR IN
SPL.C.(CORRUPTION) NO.9/2016.
IN CRL.RP.NO.574/2019
BETWEEN:
1. M/S KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED,
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT:
KAVERI BHAVA, K.G.ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 009.
REP BY ITS DIRECTOR (ADMN & HR)
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. S.SRIRANGA ., SENIOR COUNSEL A/W
SRI. ARIHANT. R. SUNKAY., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SUMANA NAGANAND., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP BY ITS POLICE INSPECTOR,
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA POLICE,
CITY WING,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. K.RAVEENDRA,
S/O KADEGOWDA,
WORKING AS:
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BESCOM,
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE),
O & M DIVISION-8,
GOURIPALYA, W-3 SUB DIVISION,
BENGALURU - 560 026.
RESIDING AT: BMAZ (SOUTH),
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC:27657
CRL.RP No. 335 of 2018
C/W CRL.RP No. 670 of 2018
CRL.RP No. 671 of 2018
CRL.RP No.423/2019
CRL.RP No.574/2019
ANAND RAO CIRCLE,
KPTCL,
BENGALURU - 560 009.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VENKATESH S ARBATTI., FOR R1/STATE;
SRI. C.G.SUNDAR., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS
HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 09.10.2018 (ANNEXURE A) PASSED BY THE
COURT OF IX ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
AND SPECIAL JUDGE UNDER PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION
ACT, 1988, BENGALURU IN SPL.C.C.NO.128/2016.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Since, the Lokayukta has not filed revision petition.
2. Heard on the maintainability.
3. Heard learned senior counsel Sri.S.Sriranga, Senior counsel a/w Sri.Arhant R. Sunkay, Sri.Sumana Naganand., learned counsels for the revision petitioner and Sri.Venkatesh S. Arbatti, Sri.Akash R appearing on -9- NC: 2024:KHC:27657 CRL.RP No. 335 of 2018 C/W CRL.RP No. 670 of 2018 CRL.RP No. 671 of 2018 CRL.RP No.423/2019 CRL.RP No.574/2019 behalf of Sri.Vijaykumar, Sri.Gururaj Joshi and Sri.C.G.Sundar., learned counsels for the respondent.
4. These revision petitions are filed by M/s.Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited., (in short 'KPTCL') a company incorporated under the Provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 represented by directors (Administration and HR., Sri M. Ramakrishna).
5. Brief facts of the case which are utmost necessary for consideration on the maintainability of the revision petitions are as under:
5.1. Accused persons in all these revision petitions were admittedly employees of BESCOM or KPTCL, namely Sri.H.S.Manjunath, Sri.JaiKumar A.S, Sri.Jayaram and Sri.K.Raveendra who are respondents in Crl.RP.Nos.335/2018, 670/2018, 671/2018 and 574/2019, arising out of Special C.C.Nos.286/2010, 480/2016, 481/2016 and 128/2016 respectively and Sri.G.Nagaraj
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:27657 CRL.RP No. 335 of 2018 C/W CRL.RP No. 670 of 2018 CRL.RP No. 671 of 2018 CRL.RP No.423/2019 CRL.RP No.574/2019 who is the employee of KPTCL and respondent in Crl.RP.No.423/2019, arising out of Special C.C.No.9/2016.
5.2. Lokayukta Police, initiated criminal action which were pending in Special Case Nos.286/2010, 480/2016, 481/2016, 9/2016 and 128/2016 for ready reference they have been tabulated as under:
Spl.C.C.Nos. Accused Name. Crl.RP.Nos. Amount (in Rs.) 286/2010 Sri.H.S.Manjunath 335/2018 10,000 480/2016 Sri.JaiKumar A.S 670/2018 40,000 481/2016 Sri.Jayaram 671/2018 30,000 9/2016 Sri.G.Nagaraj 423/2019 61,38,857 128/2016 Sri.K.Raveendra 574/2019 1,00,000 5.3. Learned Special Judge, took cognizance for the offences punishable under Section 7, 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the accused persons therein. When the matter was posted for framing of charge, all the accused persons raised question of proper sanction and sought for discharge by
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:27657 CRL.RP No. 335 of 2018 C/W CRL.RP No. 670 of 2018 CRL.RP No. 671 of 2018 CRL.RP No.423/2019 CRL.RP No.574/2019 filing the necessary application under Section 239 of Cr.P.C.
5.4. Lokayukta filed detailed objections with regard to the prayer made by the accused seeking discharge. Learned Special Judge in all these matters, heard the parties in detail and noted that the sanction order obtained by the Lokayukta to prosecute the accused persons is not valid and discharge the accused persons.
5.5. Thereafter, Lokayukta wrote a letter to the KPTCL (revision petitioner) seeking fresh sanction order. KPTCL has therefore challenged the order of discharge in all these revision petitions.
6. Sri.S.Sriranga, learned senior counsel representing KPTCL contended that, the sanction order issued by the KPTCL is just and proper and there is no legal infirmity in issuing the sanction order and therefore, order of the Special Judge needs revision.
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:27657 CRL.RP No. 335 of 2018 C/W CRL.RP No. 670 of 2018 CRL.RP No. 671 of 2018 CRL.RP No.423/2019 CRL.RP No.574/2019
7. Right of KPTCL in challenging the order discharging the accused and maintainability of the revision petitions by the KPTCL was raised before this Court. Sri.S.Sriranga, learned senior counsel contented that if there is an order, which has been passed illegally, having regard to the language employed in Section 397 of Cr.P.C, the Court can suo-moto take cognizance of such illegal order and exercise its power of revision in setting aside the said order and therefore, there is no bar for the third party to bring it to the notice of the Court about the illegal order and therefore, revision filed by the KPTCL is very much maintainable and sought for considering the matter on merits.
8. In support of this arguments, he has relied on the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Honnaiah T.H. V/s State of Karnataka and Others, reported in (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1011, K Pandurangan V/s S.S.R Velusamy and Another, reported in (2003) 8 SCC 625 and abdul Wahab K. V/s
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:27657 CRL.RP No. 335 of 2018 C/W CRL.RP No. 670 of 2018 CRL.RP No. 671 of 2018 CRL.RP No.423/2019 CRL.RP No.574/2019 State of Kerala and Other, reported in (2018) 18 SCC 448 and other matters.
9. He also pointed out that in the ordinary course, the revision petitioner would not have troubled this Court with the revisional jurisdiction; but there are good number of cases where the KPTCL has issued similar sanction orders which has been subject matter of several revision petitions before this Court and upheld by this Court. Therefore, the order that would be passed in this case in the event upholding the impugned order would have a adverse effect in respect of other pending prosecutions and prosecutions which have already concluded and are pending at the different levels and sought for admitting the revision petitions.
10. Counsel for accused have questioned the maintainability of the revision petition and also opposed the revisional grounds on merits.
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:27657 CRL.RP No. 335 of 2018 C/W CRL.RP No. 670 of 2018 CRL.RP No. 671 of 2018 CRL.RP No.423/2019 CRL.RP No.574/2019
11. When the matter stood thus, the Karnataka Lokayukta who is the first respondent in all these revision petitions has now filed the revision petitioners in Crl.RP.No.889/2024 to 892/2024 and along with Crl.RP.No.344/2022. In other words, there is already a challenge to the impugned order by Lokayukta who is the complainant before the Special Court.
12. In the light of the above factual aspects of the matter, learned Senior counsel Sri.S.Sriranga contended that these revision petitions may be tagged along with the revision petitions filed by the Lokayukta, so that the KPTCL may very well assist the Court in arriving at a just decision.
13. Having heard the arguments of Sri.S.Srirange, learned Senior Counsel and the counsels for the accused, this Court has bestowed its best attention with regard to the rival contentions of the parties. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties it is just and necessary
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:27657 CRL.RP No. 335 of 2018 C/W CRL.RP No. 670 of 2018 CRL.RP No. 671 of 2018 CRL.RP No.423/2019 CRL.RP No.574/2019 for this Court to cull out Sections 397 of Cr.P.C and also 401 of Cr.P.C the same reads as under:
"Section 397. Calling for records to exercise powers of revision. (1) The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court, and may, when calling for such record, direct that the execution of any sentence or order be suspended, and if the accused is in confinement, that he be released on bail or on his own bond pending the examination of the record.
and Section 401. High Court's powers of revision.-
(1) In the case of any proceeding the record of which has been called for by itself or which otherwise comes to its knowledge, the High Court may, in its discretion, exercise any of the powers conferred on a Court of Appeal by sections 386, 389, 390 and 391 or on a Court of Session by section 307 and, when the Judges composing the Court of revision are equally divided in opinion, the case shall be disposed of in the manner provided by section 392.
(2) No order under this section shall be made to the prejudice of the accused or other person unless he has had an opportunity of being heard either personally or by pleader in his own defence.
(3) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorise a High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction.
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:27657 CRL.RP No. 335 of 2018 C/W CRL.RP No. 670 of 2018 CRL.RP No. 671 of 2018 CRL.RP No.423/2019 CRL.RP No.574/2019 (4) Where under this Code an appeal lies and no appeal is brought, no proceeding by way of revision shall be entertained at the instance of the party who could have appealed.
(5) Where under this Code an appeal lies but an application for revision has been made to the High Court by any person and the High Court is satisfied that such application was made under the erroneous belief that no appeal lies thereto and that it is necessary in the interests of justice so to do, the High Court may treat the application for revision as a petition of appeal and deal with the same accordingly."
14. On careful reading of the above provisions, it is crystal clear that the power of revision can be exercised by the Court suo-moto. However, having regard to the scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure, especially when it comes to the question of challenging the each and every order which is not Interlocutory in nature, it is only the parties to the proceedings, who has sought right to challenge the order passed by the Trial Court which needs be revised. Admittedly role of KPTCL in the case on hand is only issuing the sanction order. Validity of the sanction order has been questioned by the accused for further
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC:27657 CRL.RP No. 335 of 2018 C/W CRL.RP No. 670 of 2018 CRL.RP No. 671 of 2018 CRL.RP No.423/2019 CRL.RP No.574/2019 prosecuting the matter in view of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
15. Learned Special Judge heard the parties in detail and came to the conclusion that the sanction order given by the KPTCL is invalid. If at all, if anybody is aggrieved by the said order, it is the complainant- Karnataka Lokayukta.
16. For the reasons best known to the Karnataka Lokayukta, they did not challenge the impugned order at the first instance. On the contrary, they corresponded with the KPTCL to issue fresh sanction order.
17. In other words, by corresponding with the KPTCL, Lokayukta deemed to have accepted the impugned order. Be it what it may, since the Lokayukta has now filed revision petitions has aforesaid challenging the impugned order, the validity of the impugned order will have to be decided in the revision petitions filed by the Lokayukta.
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC:27657 CRL.RP No. 335 of 2018 C/W CRL.RP No. 670 of 2018 CRL.RP No. 671 of 2018 CRL.RP No.423/2019 CRL.RP No.574/2019
18. If the grievance of the KPTCL is that, the order rejecting the validity of the sanction order is illegal, it is always open for the Lokayukta to substantiate the same in the revision petitions that has been pending before this Court filed by Lokayukta. In those revision petitions, necessarily the Court will have to consider the validity of the sanction order issued by the KPTCL. As discussed above, the role of KPTCL in the case on hand is only that of a witness. As per charge sheet who has obtain sanction order to prosecute the accused.
19. Whether a witness even before his examination before the Trial Court, having only supplied a document (in the case on hand sanction order) at the request of the prosecuting the agency, has got a right to challenge the order of the special Judge insofar as rejecting the sanction order on the question of the authority is a question that has to be gone into by this Court.
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC:27657 CRL.RP No. 335 of 2018 C/W CRL.RP No. 670 of 2018 CRL.RP No. 671 of 2018 CRL.RP No.423/2019 CRL.RP No.574/2019
20. Admittedly, role of the witness in a criminal prosecution stops with furnishing the information to the prosecuting agency. Thereafter, if summoned before the Court, witness is required to depose about the document. Beyond that a witness has no role to play in the criminal trial having regard to the scheme of Code of Criminal Procedure.
21. Needless to emphasize that, the scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure would envisage certain rights to the accused as well as the complainant and the prosecuting the agency.
22. There was an amendment to the Code of Criminal Procedure in the year 2009 where under for the first time in the Code of Criminal Procedure, other than the complainant and the accused, a right was granted to a victim by amendment Act of 5/2009 which came into the effect on account on 31.12.2009 Section 2(w)(a) defines
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC:27657 CRL.RP No. 335 of 2018 C/W CRL.RP No. 670 of 2018 CRL.RP No. 671 of 2018 CRL.RP No.423/2019 CRL.RP No.574/2019 who is a victim for ready reference the same is culled out here under:
"victim" means a person who has suffered any loss or injury caused by reason of the act or omission for which the accused person has been charged and the expression "victim" includes his or her guardian or legal heir."
23. It is pertinent to know that even after incorporating the definition of the victim as is referred to in 2(w)(a) Supra, no right of revision was carved out by amending Section 397 of Cr.P.C. If the legislature had intention that even a victim has got a right to challenge each and every order that has been passed by in a criminal trial which are not interlocutory in nature, there should have been an amendment to Section 397 of Cr.P.C as well.
24. Non amending Section 397 of Cr.P.C even after incorporating the definition of victim as referred to supra, clearly shows that right of the revision stood unaltered even after the amendment that took place in the year 2009.
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC:27657 CRL.RP No. 335 of 2018 C/W CRL.RP No. 670 of 2018 CRL.RP No. 671 of 2018 CRL.RP No.423/2019 CRL.RP No.574/2019
25. Then what for the word victim was defined as referred to supra can be seen and the intention of legislature there under in carving out of a right of appeal for the victim. Appeal by the victim can be entertained by the Court as per the amendment and for the discussion of present case, it is unnecessary to going to the details of the same.
26. Thus, the intension of legislature is very clear that only after the conclusion of trial, a valuable right has been carved out to a victim in filing the appeal for different contingencies and not allowed to challenge each and ever order that is passed by the learned Trial Judge.
27. Therefore, when the intention of the legislature is clear that the revisional powers are maintained even after the amendment in the year 2009 and in the year 2013, other than the complainant or the accused, there cannot be any revision petition at the instance of the third party.
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC:27657 CRL.RP No. 335 of 2018 C/W CRL.RP No. 670 of 2018 CRL.RP No. 671 of 2018 CRL.RP No.423/2019 CRL.RP No.574/2019
28. Having said thus, the suo-moto power is always available to the Court, if it comes to its notice, about illegal order. At the most the revision petitioner in all these revision petitions has triggered such revisional power by filing the revision petitions.
29. Therefore, as an interested party to serve the cause of justice, a party may bring it to the notice of the Court to exercise the suo-moto power even if the revision petition is not maintainable. To that extent the revision petitioner has succeeded in the case on hand in as much as Lokayukta has now challenged the impugned orders.
30. Having said thus, having traced the powers of revision even after amendment to the Cr.P.C in year 2009 and 2013, this Court is of the considered opinion that a revision petition at the instance of a third party; in the case on hand a witness to the criminal trial as per the chargesheet is definitely not maintainable. Therefore, the revision petitions need to be dismissed.
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC:27657 CRL.RP No. 335 of 2018 C/W CRL.RP No. 670 of 2018 CRL.RP No. 671 of 2018 CRL.RP No.423/2019 CRL.RP No.574/2019
31. Now coming to the decisions relayed on by the counsel part revision petitioners is concerned, has been rightly argued on behalf of the accused, that all the decisions that has been relayed on by the revision petitioner, the parties are not alien to the criminal trial and they are the complainants.
32. None of the decisions referred to supra deals with the situation where a witness to the criminal trial is the party who has been given the right by the Hon'ble Apex Court to challenge the order passed by the Trial Judge.
33. The principle behind allowing the defacto complainant to contest the case are question the validity of the order passed by the Trial Judge is that, a complainant cannot be kept out of the developments in a criminal trial which ultimately may result in an injury to the rights of the complainant.
- 24 -
NC: 2024:KHC:27657 CRL.RP No. 335 of 2018 C/W CRL.RP No. 670 of 2018 CRL.RP No. 671 of 2018 CRL.RP No.423/2019 CRL.RP No.574/2019
34. In the case of Honnaiah T.H. supra Honb'le Apex Court after surveying the case laws including the judgment of the Honb'le Apex Court in the case of V.C.Shukla, in paragra No.16 while considering the maintainability of the revision at the instance of the appellant has dealt in detail about the revisional powers called out by the legislation under Section 401 of Cr.P.C which is akin to Sections 397 of Cr.P.C.
35. While so dealing with the power, their lordships has held that suo-moto power when it exists in the Court, there cannot be any bar for the third party invoking the revisional jurisdiction and inviting the attention of the Court for exercise of the power of revision.
36. This Court has therefore, dealt in detail that the revision petitioner is successful in inviting the attention of this Court and filing of the revision by the Lokayukta. As such, the role of the revision petitioner in the considered opinion should end there.
- 25 -
NC: 2024:KHC:27657 CRL.RP No. 335 of 2018 C/W CRL.RP No. 670 of 2018 CRL.RP No. 671 of 2018 CRL.RP No.423/2019 CRL.RP No.574/2019
37. In the case of K. Pandurangan which has been relied on by the revision petitioner is referred in the case Honnaiah T.H. supra and therefore, no further discussion on the said their decision necessary.
38. Order of learned Coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.RP.No.2301/2013 connected with Crl.RP.No.2144/2013 and Crl.RP.No.2145/2013 dated 21.04.2023 is also relied on by the revision petitioner which could not in the considered opinion of this Court advance the case of the revision petitioner in accepting the maintainability issue.
39. The next decision on which the learned counsel for the revision petitioner placed reliance is the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ventakeshmurthy supra.
40. Their lordships while considering the relevant aspects of the matter has held that failure of the justice is the requirement that needs to the considered before
- 26 -
NC: 2024:KHC:27657 CRL.RP No. 335 of 2018 C/W CRL.RP No. 670 of 2018 CRL.RP No. 671 of 2018 CRL.RP No.423/2019 CRL.RP No.574/2019 nipping at the bud a request under the revisional jurisdiction.
41. Since, the revision petition is now filed by the Lokayukta which would be considered on merits, the decision of Venkateshmurthy supra will not be of any use for the revision petitioners to maintain the revision petitions.
42. Likewise, in the judgment of Gangadhar Maratte and Padmanabam and other decisions relayed on by the revision petitioners would not advance the case of the revision petitioners in accepting their request for maintainability of the writ petition.
43. Since, the validity of the sanction order is to be decided in the revision petitions filed by the Lokayukta further discussion on those aspects of the matter is unnecessary. More so when this Court is of the opinion that the revision petitions by KPTCL is not maintainable.
- 27 -
NC: 2024:KHC:27657 CRL.RP No. 335 of 2018 C/W CRL.RP No. 670 of 2018 CRL.RP No. 671 of 2018 CRL.RP No.423/2019 CRL.RP No.574/2019
44. Accordingly, viewed from any angle, this Court is of the considered opinion that right and earnest intention of the KPTCL in bring into the notice of the Court about the illegality in the impugned order having been achieved inasmuch as the Lokayukta has know challenged the impugned order in the revision petitions referred to supra, this Court is of the considered opinion that the revision petitions are to be dismissed as not maintainable.
45. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER i. Criminal Revision Petitions are dismissed as not maintainable.
ii. However, the grounds of the revision that has been raised by the revision petitioners may be of assistance to the Court while deciding the revision petitions are filed by the Lokayukta on merits.
- 28 -
NC: 2024:KHC:27657 CRL.RP No. 335 of 2018 C/W CRL.RP No. 670 of 2018 CRL.RP No. 671 of 2018 CRL.RP No.423/2019 CRL.RP No.574/2019 iii. Therefore, office is directed to keep the above revision petitions filed by the KPTCL along with revision petitions filed by the Lokayukta for reference.
Sd/-
JUDGE KVR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10