Karnataka High Court
Manjunathkorvi vs State By Karnataka Lokayukta Police on 23 February, 2024
Author: Rajendra Badamikar
Bench: Rajendra Badamikar
1
CRL.P./200757/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
CRL.P.NO.200757 OF 2023 (482)
BETWEEN
MANJUNATHKORVI S/O BASAVARAJUKORVI,
AGED 41 YEARS,
OCC: MOTOR VEHICLE INSPECTOR,
RTO CHECK POST, HUMNABAD, BIDAR,
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SHANKAR HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND
STATE BY KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA
POLICE, BIDAR,
REPRESENTED BY SPL. P.P,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI-585101.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI GOURISH S. KHASHAMPUR, ADDL. SPP)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. BY PRAYING TO,
CALL FOR ENTIRE RECORDS FROM THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER,
POLICE SUB INSPECTOR, KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA PS BIDAR;
QUASH F.I.R BEARING KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA BIDAR PS CRIME
NO.1/2023 (ANNEXURE-A), CONSEQUENTLY, PANCHANAMAS
2
CRL.P./200757/2023
DATED 30.09.2023 (ANNEXURE B AND C) REGISTERED AGAINST
THE PETITIONER FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION
7(a), 7A, 12, 13(1)(B) R/W SEC 13(2) OF THE PREVENTION OF
CORRUPTION (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2018 PENDING ON THE FILE OF
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SPL JUDGE, BIDAR.
PASS ANY SUCH ORDERS/RELIEF AS THIS HON'BLE COURT
DEEMS FIT JUST AND EXPEDIENT.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
01.02.2024 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR registered by Lokayukta Police, Bidar in Crime No.1/2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 7(a), 7(A), 12, 13(1)(b) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 (for short 'P.C. Act'), pending on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Bidar.
2. The brief factual matrix of the case are that on the basis of the credible information, the Hon'ble Lokayukta of Karnataka was pleased to issue search warrant to search Humnabad checkpost situated on NH-65. On the basis of the said search warrant, Kalaburagi Superintendent of Police, 3 CRL.P./200757/2023 Bidar Division and Dy.S.P. Bidar along with Lokayukta officials have conducted raid on the incoming and outgoing checkposts and panchanama was drawn. On the basis of this, FIR came to be registered.
3. It is alleged that the raid was held in the checkpost wherein the accused was present and there a sum of Rs.53,986/- was found in excess, which was seized by drawing a mahazar. However, no amount was found from the possession of the petitioner, but the amount was recovered from his table drawer. It is further alleged that other raiding party has also raided the other checkpost, which was also monitored by the petitioner simultaneously and Rs.1,00,550/- was said to have been recovered as per the second panchanama. Thereafter, the matter was reported to the Lokayukta and as per the instructions, the complaint was lodged. On the basis of the complaint, the crime came to be registered and a notice was also issued to the petitioner calling his explanation. The petitioner is said to have given reply, which was not satisfactory and hence, 4 CRL.P./200757/2023 the complaint came to be lodged. Being aggrieved by registration of the complaint, the petitioner is before this Court by way of this petition seeking quashment of initiation of the proceedings.
4. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel Sri Shankar Hegde appearing for the petitioner/accused and the learned counsel Sri Gourish S. Khashampur appearing for the respondent - Lokayukta. Perused the records.
5. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that no money was found in possession of the petitioner, which speaks in volume about him that he had neither demanded nor accepted any illegal gratification. It is also asserted that maintenance of cash declaration register is the responsibility of the RTO and since no money was found, maintaining the cash declaration register becomes inconsequential. He admits that a sum of Rs.1,02,890/- was found in the table drawer, where the petitioner was working, 5 CRL.P./200757/2023 but the entire amount was accounted. He would contend that mere recovery of the amount is not an offence unless there is a demand and acceptance. He would also contend that the search warrant was issued on behalf of the Lokayukta by the Senior APP, who has no power and Superintendent of Police does not have any power to issue authorization under Section 165 of Cr.P.C. It is further contended that without registration of the FIR and without permission of the Magistrate, the investigation could not have been commenced and while acting under Section 10 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, the Police Officer has no power to exercise his power under Section 165 of Cr.P.C. He would also contend that the Additional Registrar of Lokayukta has no power to issue direction to register a case and even Lokayukta has no power to issue instructions for registration of the case. He would also contend that the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lalitha Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1 were not complied with. He would contend 6 CRL.P./200757/2023 that only the material, which can be legally translatable into evidence can be considered and in the instant case, no such evidence is forthcoming. He would also contend that ingredients of Section 7(A) of the P.C. Act are not attracted. He would also contend that the presumption under Section 20 of the P.C. Act can only be applied if fundamental ingredients are forthcoming. He would contend that registration of the FIR is illegal and delay is not properly explained and the provisions of Section 17(A) of the P.C. Act are not complied with. He placed reliance on number of citations in support of his case and hence, he would seek for allowing the petition by quashing the proceedings.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent
- Lokayuka would contend that as per Section 17 of the P.C. Act authorization was given by issuing notification by the Government in the year 1991 itself and the warrant was issued by the Lokayukta under Section 10 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act and regarding delay, he would contend that the same is required to be considered only at the time of trial 7 CRL.P./200757/2023 and that cannot be a ground for quashing the proceedings. He would also contend that after the search, a show cause notice came to be issued and when the reply was not satisfactory, the case came to be registered, which cannot be termed as illegal. He would contend that though the recovery of excess amount was denied by the petitioner/accused, but he did sign the mahazar and it is not his case that his signature was obtained by force or otherwise and he did not explain the circumstances, which compelled him to sign the mahazar and the same discloses the excess amount was in his custody. It is also admitted that excess amount was found in the table drawer of the petitioner and he admits that certain amount was kept in the drawer and he is not prepared to give explanation regarding excess amount. It is further asserted that he is the custodian and in-charge of both the checkposts and it is for him to explain as to under what circumstances the excess amount was recovered. He would also assert that if the excess amount found is not a legal remuneration, then the 8 CRL.P./200757/2023 presumption under Section 20 of the P.C. Act becomes mandatory as per the Constitutional Bench decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 1960 SC 548 in the case of Sri C. I. Emden vs. The State of U. P., as well as in the case of Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Government of N.C.T. of Delhi) reported in 2022 Live Law (SC) 1029. Hence, prima facie there are sufficient materials to proceed against the petitioner and sought for dismissal of the petition.
7. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the respondent - Lokayukta has also produced the copy of the search warrant issued by the Lokayukta, which is signed by the Lokayukta himself. Further, he has also produced the notification issued by the Government in the year 1991 authorizing the Inspectors of Police in the office of the Karnataka Lokayukta to investigate the matter under Section 17 of the P.C. Act. Hence, the arguments advanced regarding authorization holds no water.
9
CRL.P./200757/2023
8. There is no dispute of the fact that the petitioner was in-charge of both the Checkposts i.e., incoming and outgoing in NH-65 on Humnabad - Molkhera (Bolkere) checkpost. One checkpost is situated on the left side of Humnabad RTO checkpost, wherein, the search was held which is also attached to NH-65 and another checkpost was on NH-65 of Humnabad-Molkhera road and two independent teams have raided these two checkposts. The main argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that there was no authorization. But, the records disclose that the search warrant was issued by the Lokayukta under Section 10 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act. Section 10 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act empowers the Lokayukta or Upa- Lokayukta to issue search warrant and it is to be treated on par with Section 93 of Cr.P.C.
9. Much argument has been advanced regarding Section 165 of Cr.P.C., but the provisions of Section 165 of Cr.P.C. cannot be made applicable as the search warrant was issued under Section 10 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act and 10 CRL.P./200757/2023 the powers under Section 93 of Cr.P.C. were conferred. Much argument has been advanced regarding bar under Section 17(A) of the P.C. Act, but the bar under Section 17(A) of the P.C. Act is pertaining to the offences relatable to recommendations made or decision taken by public servant in discharge of his official functions or duties without the previous approval. But, in the instant case, receiving gratification or securing favourable things other than the legal remuneration cannot fall under Section 17(A) of the P.C. Act so as to assert regarding the bar.
10. Further, regarding authorization to lodge a complaint and conducting investigation, the notification of the Government in the year 1991 is produced by the learned counsel for the respondent which clarifies that the Inspectors of all the Lokayukta Offices were authorized and hence, the said argument holds no water.
11. The undisputed fact is that on the basis of the search warrant issued by the Lokayukta, the search was held 11 CRL.P./200757/2023 in Humnabad-Molkhera checkpost on 30.09.2022 around 4.30 a.m. to 10.00 a.m. The mahazar also clearly discloses that no amount was found in person from the petitioner, who was present there, but in his table drawer Rs.1,02,890/- was found and in his right side table drawer a sum of Rs.1,75,480/- was also found. The total amount recovered was Rs.2,78,370/-. On verification of the receipt books from 29.09.2022 to 30.09.2022 including the payment receipt passed under online, total amount of Rs.2,24,384/- was accounted, but the total amount found was Rs.2,78,370/- and the excess amount found was Rs.53,986/- and there is no explanation on the part of the petitioner. Undisputedly, this amount was recovered from the table drawers of the petitioner. In the written submission, the recovery of Rs.1,02,890/- came to be admitted. But, the dispute was raised in respect of recovery of other amount. However, the mahazar was drawn in this regard and the entire process was video-graphed. Further, the mahazar was drawn in the presence of the petitioner and he signed on the mahazar. 12
CRL.P./200757/2023 Now the petitioner is disputing the excess amount, but the documents speak tracing of excess amount of Rs.53,986/-. Undisputedly, the petitioner was in-charge of both the checkposts.
12. The other raiding party has conducted simultaneous raid on the other checkpost and there also the amount was found in the table drawer and some private persons were also found possessing some amount. For this mahazar also, the petitioner has signed and it is not his case that he was forced to sign or his signature was obtained by any coercive methods. Interestingly, after the search and seizure, except the accounted amount, rest of the amount was seized and the matter was reported to the Lokayukta. Thereafter, considering the entire report, the Lokayukta instructed to lodge a complaint. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is a delay in lodging the complaint, but for quashing the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the delay cannot be a ground 13 CRL.P./200757/2023 and the same is required to be considered only during the course of trial.
13. The other contention raised is regarding investigation being undertaken without authorization, but as observed above, the investigation was undertaken on authorization only and further as per the notification of the Government, the complainant is authorized in this regard.
14. The other contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is clear violation of the mandate as held in the Constitutional Bench decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Lalitha Kumari's case (supra) as the investigation commenced before registration of the FIR, but there are certain exceptions carved out in Lalitha Kumari's case (supra), which is referred there itself and under such circumstances, considering the nature of the offences, the said principles cannot be directly made applicable to the case in hand.
14
CRL.P./200757/2023
15. The learned counsel for the petitioner asserted that the material collected prior to registration of the FIR cannot be a ground and it needs to be excluded and in this context, he placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of L. Shankaramurthy vs. State by Karnataka Lokayukta reported in 2012 SCC OnLine Kar. 8923 and Babulal Parasurampuria vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2015 SCC OnLine Kar. 5233, but the facts and circumstances of the said cases are entirely different. Further, this issue has been again dealt in detail by the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Neeraj Dutta vs. State (Govt. of N.C.T. Delhi) reported in 2022 Live Law (SC) 1029, wherein, certain exceptions were carved out and it is further observed that the complainant as well as the prosecution to make sincere efforts to ensure that the corrupt public servants are brought to book and convicted so that the administration and governance becomes unpolluted and free from corruption as observed in by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of 15 CRL.P./200757/2023 Swatantar Singh vs. State of Haryana and Others reported in (1997) 4 SCC 14. Hence, the material initially connected cannot be termed as an investigation and it is only a preliminary enquiry as certain complaints were received by the Lokayukta and he wanted to get it verified by issuing search warrant, which ended in positive results.
16. The learned counsel for petitioner further placed reliance on the decisions in Criminal Petition No.11477/2011 (Hemanth Kumar vs. State by Karnataka), Criminal Petition No.10442/2013 (Somashekharappa vs. State by Karnataka Lokayukta), Criminal Petition No.7611/2010 (Nagashetty vs. Karnataka Lokayukta) and Criminal Appeal No.391-392/2022 (Thippeswamy C. and Another vs. Lokayukta Police), wherein, this Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court have quashed the proceedings. But, the facts and circumstances in the said cases are entirely different and in the said cases the amount was recovered from the third persons and hence, the principles thereunder will not assist the petitioner in any way.
16
CRL.P./200757/2023
17. He further placed reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Lalitha Kumari's case (supra) as well as in the case of Hasmukhlal D. Vora vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1732 regarding delay in registration of FIR, but those aspects are required to be tested only during the course of trial and this issue has been elaborately considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Neeraj Dutta's case (supra) and in the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., it cannot be looked into.
18. The learned counsel for the petitioner further placed reliance on an unreported decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP No.3508/2013 dated 24.09.2014 in the case of State of Karnataka vs. N.A.Ramesh along with L. Shankaramurthy's case (supra), Babulal's case (supra) and an unreported decision of this Court in the case of Somashekharappa vs. State by Karnataka Lokayukta passed in Criminal Petition No.10442/2013 and argued that seizure in the absence of FIR is illegal. But, that fact has been considered in detail by the Hon'ble Apex Court in 17 CRL.P./200757/2023 Neeraj Dutta's case (supra) as well as in Lalitha Kumari's case (supra) and exceptions are carved out and same rule cannot be made applicable to all the facts and circumstances. He would contend that the material collected prior to registration of FIR is not legally translatable into evidence, but this issue is required to be tested only during the course of trial.
19. It is to be noted hear that the corruption is going rampantly in the public offices especially in Sub-Registrar Office, Commercial Tax Office and RTO including the Checkposts. The Court cannot be a mute spectator as the corrupt officials are availing the services of third private persons for collection of illegal gratification by unofficially engaging them in order to get the benefit of the technical lacunas in the statute. In the instant case, the amount was recovered from the drawer of the accused and he is required to explain, but he does not want to explain anything except formal denial that too by a reply notice issued after nine months later on.
18
CRL.P./200757/2023
20. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that for incorporating the offence under Section 7(A) of the P.C. Act, there should be a specific demand. The offence is not registered only under Section 7(A) of the P.C. Act, but it is also registered under Sections 7(a) of the P.C. Act. The Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sri C. I. Emden's case (supra) has held that if it is shown that the stated amount was found in possession/custody of the accused and if it is not a legal remuneration, then the presumption is mandatory. The said principle is reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision reported in 1964 AIR 575 in the case of Dhanvantrai Balwantrai Desai vs. State of Maharashtra and again it is reiterated in the case of N.Narsinga Rao vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in AIR 2001 SC 318. Further, in Neeraj Dutta's case (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down certain guidelines and it is held that the demand and acceptance need not be proved by direct evidence and it can be inferred from the circumstances also. Admittedly, in the instant case, 19 CRL.P./200757/2023 prima facie there is material evidence to show that the excess amount was found in the table drawer of the accused, which is not accounted for and that too the petitioner was present in the checkpost and he was the head of the checkpost during the relevant time. Hence, it is for the petitioner to explain, but he is not prepared to explain anything.
21. No doubt, the petitioner is not obliged to give explanation in respect of money recovered from other people, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Thippeswamy C. and Another vs. Lokayukta Police in Criminal Appeal No.391-392/2022 arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos.6608-6609/2021 and he is required to give explanation in respect of the amount found in his possession, but he did not gave any explanation. When the amount was found in his custody, which he has not accounted for, then the presumption under Section 20 of the P.C. Act becomes mandatory.
20
CRL.P./200757/2023
22. The learned counsel further argued that trap protocol is required to be followed, but it is not a case of trap and it is the case of raid. Hence, the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court relied in this regard in the case of Girish Chandra vs. State by Lokayukta reported in ILR (2013) KAR 983 and this Court in Criminal Petition No.7611/2010 dated 23.12.2010 in the case of Nagashetty vs. Karnatka Lokayukta cannot be made applicable to the case in hand.
23. The learned counsel further argued that mere recovery of the money is not an offence and in support of his contention, he placed reliance on the decisions of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.200473/2023 in the case of Prakash Halabutti vs. State of Karnataka and in Criminal Petition No.200589/2017 in the case of Latif vs. State of Karnataka. But, the said preposition is completely against the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sri C. I. Emden's case (supra) and in Dhanvantrai's case (supra) and it is for the petitioner to 21 CRL.P./200757/2023 give explanation for unaccounted amount. Hence, the said principles cannot be made applicable to the case in hand.
24. Much arguments were advanced regarding non applicability of Section 7(A) of the P.C. Act. However, as observed above, the prosecution is not only under Section 7(A) of the P.C. Act, but also under Sections 7(a), 12, 13(1)(b) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act. Section 7(a) of the P.C. Act deals with obtaining illegal gratification, which can be inferred even by circumstances and Section 12 of the P.C. Act deals with the punishment for offences and Section 13 of the P.C. Act is pertaining to public servant committing criminal misconduct by enriching himself illicitly during the period of his office. These ingredients are prima facie attracted in the instant case. Hence, the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 (1) SCC 355 in this regard does not have any assistance to petitioner. 22
CRL.P./200757/2023
25. The learned counsel further submitted that non following of the mandatory provisions is prejudice and placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Singhara Singh reported in AIR 1964 SC 358 and in the case of Babu Verghese and Others vs. Bar Council of Kerala and Others reported in (1999) 3 SCC 422 and an unreported decision of this Court in Criminal Petition Nos.2906/2019, 2932/2019 and 2950/2019 in the case of O.Srinivasa Rao vs. State of Andhra Pradesh. But, in the instant case, the authorization was issued by the Lokayukta by issuing search warrant and hence, the said principles cannot be made applicable to the case in hand.
26. Learned counsel further argued that Senior APP has no power to issue search warrant and placed reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Additional Tahsildar vs. Urmila G. reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1613 and the decision of this Court in W.P.No.7122/2022 in the case of Karnataka Lokayukta vs. 23 CRL.P./200757/2023 State of Karnataka. But, the documents produced by the learned counsel for the respondent - Lokayukta clearly disclose that the search warrant under Section 10 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act was issued by the Hon'ble Lokayukta himself and not by Senior APP as asserted. Hence, the said argument holds no water and the citations do not assist the petitioner in any way.
27. He further placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 1960 SC 866 in the case of R.P.Kapur vs. State of Punjab, in the case of Suresh Budharmal Kalani @ Puppu Kalani vs. The State of Maharashtra reported in 1998 (7) SCC 337 and in the case of State of Maharashtra and Others vs. Arun Gulab Gawali and Others reported in 2011 CRI L.J. 89 and argued that the materials, which are legally translatable into evidence can be looked into even at the stage of considering the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. But, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision reported in AIR 2021 SCC 1918 in the case of M/s.Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., 24 CRL.P./200757/2023 vs. State of Maharashtra and Others has held that the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the investigation at the preliminary stage is required to be used very sparingly and in exceptional cases only. This case does not fall under any of the exceptions and only on the basis of certain technicalities, the petitioner wants to get rid of the proceedings without giving proper explanation for excess amount. Hence, the said principles cannot be made applicable to the case in hand.
28. The learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Criminal Petition No.2458/2012 dated 08.01.2013 (Dr.Sadiq Sharief vs. State of Karnataka), Criminal Petition No.7094/2012 dated 27.08.2013 (Dr.Raviprakash vs. State of Karnataka) and Criminal Petition No.9347/2009 (Ikram Pasha vs. State of Karnataka) regarding quashment. But, the facts being entirely different and in view of the clarification issued by the Hon'ble Apex in Neeraj Dutta's case (supra) and considering the Constitution Bench decision of the Hon'ble 25 CRL.P./200757/2023 Apex Court in M/s.Neeharika's case (supra) describing the powers of the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the said principles cannot be made applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand.
29. The learned counsel further placed reliance on a decision of this Court in W.P.No.5633/2023 dated 20.12.2023 (Madal Virupakshappa vs. State of Karnataka) and argued that there is non compliance of the provisions of Section 7(A) of the P.C. Act. Admittedly, there is compliance of Section 17 of the P.C. Act and Section 17(A) of the P.C. Act is not applicable to the case in hand as the petitioner was not authorized to secure illegal gratification and that cannot be held as exceeding the duty and it is not a case of offence relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by a public servant and it is a case of illegal gratification. Hence, the said principles are also not applicable to the case in hand.
26
CRL.P./200757/2023
30. All along there is an argument regarding accountable amount of Rs.1,02,890/- only, but no arguments advanced pertaining to additional amount of Rs.1,75,480/- and recovery of additional amount of Rs.1,75,480/-. The argument in this regard was silent and the records disclose that the total accountable amount is Rs.2,24,384/-, but the recovered amount is Rs.2,78,370/-, which is excess pertaining to first raid, which was held in the presence of the petitioner and the amount was recovered from table drawer of the petitioner itself. The petitioner cannot disown the said amount as it was found in his table drawer and he admits portion of amount, but did not specifically dispute the recovery of the other amount. He simply asserts that there was no excess amount. However, he is the signatory to both the panchanamas and the one panchanama regarding excess amount of Rs.53,983/- which was done in his presence and he is expected to give proper explanation, but his reply given after more than six months speaks a different story after issuing the show cause notice 27 CRL.P./200757/2023 and when there is no reply, the complaint was lodged and the conduct of the petitioner disentitles him from claiming any discretionary order under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashment of the proceedings without proper explanation. He cannot take advantage of technicalities at this juncture and the corruption mania is required to be eradicated and by quashing the proceedings at the initial stage, the Court cannot encourage the corrupt officials and if the petitioner has got proper explanation, he can do so during the course of trial by putting forward his case and proving his innocence. Hence, the petition seeking quashment is not at all sustainable and the citations relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be made applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand.
31. Further, it is evident that no cash declaration register is maintained in spite of specific directions by the State Government. The argument that it is to be maintained by RTO cannot be accepted since the petitioner was in- 28
CRL.P./200757/2023 charge of checkpost and intentionally violating directions of State disclose the mens rea.
32. The learned counsel for the respondent - Lokayukta has further placed reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of V.D.Jhangam vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 1966 AIR 1762, wherein again the Hon'ble Apex Court has considered the relevancy of the presumption.
33. Considering these facts and circumstances, the petition filed for quashing the FIR and panchanamas is without any merits and needs to be rejected. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE SRT