L C Hussain vs State Of Karnataka on 28 May, 2009

[Cites 2, Cited by 4]

Karnataka High Court

L C Hussain vs State Of Karnataka on 28 May, 2009

Equivalent citations: 2010 CRI. L. J. 1036, 2009 (6) AIR KANT HCR 61, (2009) 3 KCCR 1973, (2010) 1 ALLCRILR 475, (2010) 1 KANT LJ 141, (2010) 1 CURCRIR 282, (2010) 1 CRIMES 1002

Bench: H N Nagamohan Das

  

 

E

 mg m<i«!;~1<:0:,2*§z.':* 92:5' E«iA.RE€A'11AKA. sag' '3A:€<;_A.LQ:zg_..«j  L f 5..  '  

}}.~*1'§'F;B T}ﬂS TQHE 28m }3AY 0? MAY, EGG?)

EEFGRE   

§:£(j>N"BLE MR, J{..?STEC,E 1-ms. *>.2x7:§»;x:x;::{;;%é'A.:%:»§§;x,;$:"   *«

CRIMINAL APPE;§L'.1ﬁ1ﬁ§2ﬁQ;§ V

 :

unneuvnuncunnw-vonw¢1n(nn'uv

:;g~i.:Tﬁ.{:,§~i2;ssa:?>'§ .. 

S.:'{'}.£7E§.9\E'sﬁ£,»%NS;%.B   '

AGEIESEYEARS      

FEST QERAQE RE'5:;§3::¢{;:i" }§fsi;P:1C'ZT_QR _  " 

'§am22~£ m3:x?:c.n?:2x:T, a;;x:3L1z-;:s:?;:_3,     »
CE-§'YR.»'%§L*RGA  *  '   'a  

13:9 :?:--§'§R,%:T:U:2:;;s:3 2:,      APPELL-AN"1"

2:33: sag. §<_gxs§:i?:~,:.¥;f§~£é:%,§€ai%"9;%;*f§*1§;';#23329;

. ..... ...m.'a«.a-ms

$*:*L.sX§*E,_T.:§}? 
BY E'£T}§;1§$Ei ::»2's;;§>F,<:;§":;:)9.

  Li)E{A,'ETUK?'E£\A §~'{_)LI{3E

5£fE§I"R5¥;a")§JEE\{%;5;, " iii , 3{~Z§iE§£>ii>E*~3}Ei¥l"§'

 ' '  :§:~f;, ._ 4SK{t§_;"§¢:.;'£1:«:1';§_g:. Rmm: Sm. <':<:,s2::":\:$'§:§w.} I

'§}§S ﬁféiém-*L ifé FELEEE Ef§Z'a;"§E§.. 3E€f"§f§{}?=f'4§ $34 {:f.P.C.

  ";%.{§vz§i3~E§"§ 'E'§'§§ 3§,,?§}£'%§a;'&',?€"E" §3¥f§;I3 l3.€36.2£}€E3 ?;§S5IsE;1} BY TEEE

$3323  {ff-§ETRA§}EE§;{.};%  Sf. E'$§{:a 15%. 993 :"~J£'~H} ETC
THIS; éf3R§.";&, EAR' §EiEl°*~3 §'§Eiz%Rl} :'§,?'EE§ §¥3iSEiR'J§i§ E"{}R

3é'.§_}{}'I%z1EL'E*§"§} "EYES §}3£A':Z 'f€5%.Gs1?:?i£3%§;-£3" EEAS § PR€:}'f*=E€T}L'3§"~E{f':E,§_"} TEE":
E?€'}ET,i,{}i%?iE\?'{}

QM/\;\_



2

JUDGMENT

This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 13.06.2003 in Special case No. 751998 passed Principal Sessions Judge at Chitradurga.

2. The appellant is the accused and the resptx-1':denf::i'isi"t£1e<--A complainant before the Sessions Court. In this _§u};i_g3neni:.z ibirieemgenieneei T-T A' the parties are referred te their status before' the SesSiens"Cou1*:, 'VA V' i

3. The accused was working as F Revenue'V.I:i':3peeto£ in the Teem iiiivthe mcmth of February, 1998. The eonipleitzani ~+v an application to the Town Municipai Council V_ei':2-zige ef iéiiéita ef property bearing No. 1060 giﬁiated «of C11iekpet;'{3hiu'adurga town in his name frem the nainei of eﬁe as per Ex.P.7. The concerned Revenue Ofﬁeer V' . gg P.W..5 Apéséed on 12.92.1998 directing the accused is inspect the draw ia sketch and ta subtxiii a report. Thereafter C.W.i :a4'pnt}e.3ehed«..¢t%1eiiaccused on 131311998 requesting him to expedite the that time the accused demandeﬁ iliegai gratiﬁcation of hi ' w. i{3,ii1i};§Gi0{}i~' After negotiations, the bribe axnount was settled ait Rsi5,(}O0,!'-. Since C,W.} was not inelined to pay the bribe axnount te the accused? he ledged 3 coznpiaint with the Lnkayuktha peiice on 1'?.{')2,}.9§8 as per EXVPBII The Lokayuktha peiiee erganised a nap. C.W.i and the sihadew"

in ii/'V/\~ "gags: 'is; ihﬁ eﬁéeét gﬁ" 553$ azaaussd wétéz §iEiI"i'€€d e1;:'m:m:§; g:-';::.{sa:%; szyf R.~:~;.:'::,é'.2{}{%,-'~ amé gm e:*:ag!;:i2";: &E'?§§L'i§ the prengzrssss méaéing 3.2"

§:'a;a>'i::g up sf 3323:1323: and §s:%3mi'g"é§:§g a 3'c§3m"t, §'§;.{: accused 3%.-,;:i:i C. 'V' wéaaztéaez Ex: $233 bmughi ﬁzz: a§.z:e>a1z:§ <2? Kg-5aQ{}§;.ﬁ<,__$¥%%%E$ﬁ {T-."§¥,'§ =;§§;:::%§é:'r.¢a7v _ §@§%:.é:.:'a%§; iézsa aacugaé iaeie; {",J':§J.§ as team §»~§i;':_§és€§¢"'E$'3i§g§€2_ A' siiaaéa aégasisni 12> 22$ eﬁisa. Aa:c.€s;'d%.::g?j§f 9:3. éiié 'ééfﬁané :§'2§;f:

zgcaazsaéﬁ {f.'s%r'.E gzaéé taisﬁaé a:!;;r§snc:: xrzf» him. §s::z:::€éi:1£e§.'j«; iiﬁésraafiea 0:: Ehs " the Lgkggmhg peliwa %§1'{$§'éEé mam 14 {ff .Ex2fajest§;.2a$g§t.af';§;$ ;i?'.3.I'E'ﬁfE€'j£ gates ef R3.3r§{}f-- in the .::;v:;§:§:§;;3s3:1...;€né tbs ramainirag meant :3? Rs.é¥,?€xZ%.§i~'i:. "':i::ej; "E5 the aiscusad. Aim' inz*as*£§gai§e?;_i€he agzgaémé {ha accuseé it: ggscéaé §am§sh:a'i:§$ %.§E1d6'§.' Seaiiﬁn 'Z3', §E§{E}{&'j: 335% E3{'?, §4"§{' §§:%;V'§~?r;:'%§':::§%i:§%:*; :35 §:€}E'i7'i1$€§Q§ ;-1:: {fer ghsri ' PC ;%_%::'§7'}x §§€%§i§:§'€33.._'§§'~?§ :":§§§»:sé{2::$ {fT'{}'agﬁi%:é: §?'§'{§S@C~i1€i{}I'i. exaxnémié is; ésséinegseg 35 f§';2§.':V gm '§~,s§§;?;:';z:' gm marked 2313.: ii} §»::z,m3 ma 3:-§,<::».zT :9 {"f:2%.::"% frag:-ﬁé iha faélewéng ﬂame painis far its . ::'i:=;f:;§;%é€m.$%§2g:.

V' _ V i%'E:§i%:€a' ﬁgs §i"6S§=$$13€ii3§'} psrews beyiazasi 39$ the §'€&§G§'ia§§€:

égzﬁi {hat {Egg aaazasad, as 3 mblirg gewazzi, had accepiszi 9:" vkéiaimé iﬁegai gaiiﬁiaaiiea §£'€'}*§"i'1 :::v2, Sr; ziumejimag ﬁe §?3£'§€}'¥€ aﬁésiaé favear $3: the maﬁa' {if ehzmge :2? khaia sf *:>'\\r\.x'\..

'zzmése ;3r<::;3eri*_%_: amé iherehfa is g;£li1§}.=" of Qﬁfsnas punishabie ﬁnale? Seaziera '? {sf Ehe ?:e¥*ent%<m <21' Cemuptéan 35;-E, E9%"8--'3 1%-'}n=:thaf ihe p2'{}S$C-X.§§'i€}E'i prmzes beyaaé ail ihe r;":.;';é»53;?;::-§',$'§':rT. écrabé that the accused, hising 2;: mzbiiﬁ :";ewani,"A. is' g:1'iA!§y" - H the eﬁlanse sf <;r§1r;é:'s3§ misconduéi. 22;.%I%1iﬁ'_¢the;, grieatgingvefi Seciésn Eﬁéljgéd} sf zhe P:'ev<:'i1i§{)§-.._ {Sf C#:§'1*21;A§3:i9::.. $88'?

iﬁxeéher the amused is EiaE:E.:= lt"ia.}be"'-aanvictéé in r;:Va§g3ecfs <31" bath at aither 0f iii: <::}f;ar§g--3s '%§:§.5Eié£V"§zg£iinst him 9:' for aﬁy Gfhﬁii' Gff€£"ue'}$?

avédance :";ri2._mc-:>§°é éﬁer ;j§f?:mr§ gzasgad {£323 izngugxed jiidgﬁﬁﬂi ci}s'§£§£€.ing $3: s;:%;a:s:::,a £5,-4;" iii; mffééézces §'¥.1ﬁiSh£l§}§€: Eiiééﬁf Sections 'E' and };3{§'){d witis $:6a;.*ééé%.§1 §;%{1';': ef iézs Act and genieaaed E9 unécg g IAV.:ég{f«2's3%;§L"i:;%pi*§5ém;;§:i::2:i far a t.£:rm sf 2 grams and $9 12533;' ﬁrm ef Rs385{}%£}.f~ faf"._§§1L*.i[i§s§;iéb1a ugiécirr Seséian "E 3f the Act and is umiazgs

2.'igar0uf3?4«§1t°:$§_§'sé;:3;1:éi'c9:11£ far 4 jgeazs and :0 pay a fate gf F:§.i5,{¥{}0:'~ §{;:° me " ﬁﬁﬂegces p:.§n§.$E;§a%:i:3 Eiﬂééi" Saeiém §3{1}{d) fiiﬁaﬁ with Secéian 135:2} sf the gé;::t.: ';E%._és:fa:*%§:ez* amteé 'ihaé bet}: éhe sentwces shag ms: <:::snct}.n'en§§3-* ané VM sa§Q§§'*¢;a§ 3339 given fer ﬁzs yesied GE deieniieza, 2%' 3333-; sméargane by Eh:

VA Qccused. E"-Earaaa, {$353 £§§'§§€2E§ éégi the accigsaéﬁ ON/vx

5. Sri. Kashinathrao ?atiL leamed counsel for the accused filed a memo on 08.12.2808 stating that the provisions of Prevention Comzption Act, 1988 as unconstitutional and vioiative of Article 145 Constitution of India. The main argument of the teamed eounse:1.."fo:.'tttt<és'ii accused and the decisions relied on by hi1nv~are'--in« retatioré tﬁe-j', constitutional validity of the provisions of the PC";act.i:':tiis;iia;siof~ eerttanaée, ,. ii' that the Sessions Judge at Cinitradurga iiao juriistiictitm_ut§te impugzed judgment. Provisions (3i';__}.'1'eV'€'I3ﬁ.(-3-Tl 'Aet.Awas=i not applied. The Lokayuktha police [I3-.0 toiiovestigate the matter. The police officer wizov inves.tigate§' tioliowed the procedure. On these . ittieiiaiéieuseei prayed for setting aside {lie ju<i_gtrtefit.'of..eooVict.ioﬁ- and sentence.

6. Per. contraiiiﬁzif Rajetttiia Raddy, learned counsel for the ieonteoos that appeal me constitutional validity of tlteifsrovisioris. .Aet cannot be gone 'mto. In accordance with law by the Lokayuictha police investigated the and ﬁleciﬁcliaarigeslteet. By leading oral and documentary evidence 7 police estabiished the charge Ievelleé against the accused.

A' f contends, that the provisions of Prevention of Offenders Act are i at V '- noiasojaiiicabie. He suppoits the impugted judgment mid sentence. Okvx/-*-

7. Heard arguments on both the sine and perused the entire records. Though number of decisions are relied on, on both the side, the relevant decisions are taken into consideration.

8. The contention of learned counsel for the accused -1- provisions of RC. Act are unconstitutional and violative of .l4i'~of Constitution of India is unacceptable to me. In the o_f"anp'eal. i _ f there is no prayer calling in question the constitutional. validitjc the: u provisions of RC. Act. Further there the memorandum of this criminal apiieal oniitliet relating the validity of RC. Act. During the course counsel for the accused e question of law relating to the validity of provisionie of' Act is a central legislation the appigoptiate isinot made as a party to this proceeding. i:..isl"se-aogi of law in a criminal appeal the constitutional Validity of_p1jov£sions of-snieeiai statute cannot be gone into. Therefore, E iéoeline to"-accept thefeontention of leamed counsel fan the accused and I _. , .fﬁ1éeﬁ,i.sie to go intolthe question of constitutional validity of provisions of Secondly, it is coniencled that Lokayukta police have no i ' 3'nrisdiction to investigate the matter against the acensed and therefore the ixnougied judgnent is liable to be set-aside. I refuse to accept this d\\/\/W aexaéenéien 9? Esazameé mange} far the accused. Yhss first §3"§"{}'§="§S{'§ {es Sac:%eis___ E? sf ms ?9.C2.-Mt ggzaciﬁas mat the Saga: gesxsemmem E25;-= gsn¢ra§ =3? grda-3", autheﬁgxz 3:3. Engggecéor :3? Peiéats ts iiwemgaés ms t:>§"e§ca:, ::3;né:v:§ ?C As: ﬁgs ":§{§§'€4ET£m§E'§? sf Kamataka xséée zzﬁaiiicaiégn L2» -

Etsezzfixig HE} 235 ?E,G 9% gazmmﬁigz authmsisaé #5535: A E.-akgyzakéa '£0 énvesﬁgairs {£26 matgezs. 1: § ihaff 73%:

case, P'§J.E_=:§. {he §E'£s§}$C'{{}§'.' {sf 13'f.s:>£%:e i§E:§;Ti?3§;%g{;Z§§€{i§»._v%§1*3 ihe acaasaé. Tharefegeg as: {he t':kL¢ . 3%,} {sf Faiicﬁ ﬂag §m:e«;~:§igaE:::-é ma ma%t§¢:_ ' a__ga':n2§§,'"'%E1§:'':;aé<:'a:§§:;§ : ééaéﬁﬁfisaé his; the {}€:%.:s1'za§1$::i ané éth Seaiiszs 3'5' :21"

Ff-,§.£%. b ' V I V ' M £8' «E;;v.:*.;3.':*:2ed £€ﬁi§§*£S?,':§ fgéf' éacussé 'ﬁ'i§§'d}"'§"' 9-amteﬁécd mat P11. V gﬁﬁﬁiiﬁﬁﬁ' ;_§é3"'g::; xi Cizifzgdéafga 2:33 ms} jtarigéicéém Es} £1';-= {ks §§Sﬁ$ arisésxg 'mg mi: basis $133}; zappeigétad as ﬁgsezcia} :§§{éf;fji§"-"§§E1§€E*. $é?ii{.§r'%$-_3' Q? E3.€T.A£i¥ Eéamicaé qaesiian same E313 E332? 2:§§a%é.é;:fa%§<§::~' $133 cam? £3: 'J2ﬁ.S:iE§"? ARE§.}"§§RAO B§£ﬁ.E'~?§}?aK " '"'--f§*g,As:';:":}:.V;§§ KAF;1*€A."§'z*§;.:%. gm; 2%; §<;,A§. 355:; ané as is Eaeiﬁ 3% :i§;siss:§*:._ E5525 g;?r{}'=:és=;':m 2?: fisszﬁézlim 3:5? :§a2:2s:-ifg ;:z*a:>;a:;':;é's;z§a?;x; §§:sa§ :§{}?§fé;;xz:'sa%2 .. §3§2«fé?{i§ iv}: {"323 532256 {}o*;%:;*§2:}2§:«2§ s,:.%;§§?* :2'9s:;§z'a:3§z .353 are ééséz {'7§*:§:~s§32a2§ §"a;:*§¢? z'§§rzes*2:;%?:z2;2§ xissf, z'L§§'§}€}i?iE§?§2g 5%: Sggecéai Ezécigﬁ £3}? 3352:;-' ;§;?£s::§f§é?;:§ areas, £0 £37: 53%' zg:2.:2'er Size Prssvsziééégzgs {;_;'{'7:f2Wzs;?z§a;>;2 xféars', 2' 534 wesgzigi ﬁzavékf ©g,__,\, 1%') E'\¥'.3 agzd I.£}.~PW.1-4 rightly canciuded that the accusad demanded iilegal gatificatészsn and accepted the same frem the <;{m:p1ait1ant«CW.I to do oﬁicial faveur. Further it is seen that the tainted currency notes: ":)f ."e Rs.30{3f- 3:6 mcovered frem the boéy of the accused and is ammmt of Rs.47GG£1-- was rccuwred from tha briafcwse' accused, The Sessions Eudge on apprasiation of §V'iti€nc%:~.aii 1.fécofd ""--- i 7 A rigﬁzly helzi that the prosecution has preved' ghargé }$';a'¢l}$_(§ °z.§2A11;';'::1._szt«--v*:..1.1a accused. Léarned GE3HI1.'§€] for the accus§:{i ha.%' v,1_1ot zhtddrevssed V fiany arguments can merits of the cage and"h.€S 1;oi1_sht.jwn to what is the was 01' illegality cemnzjtteéby the Sesséoiis lurigsk "

13. iVss3rz»1t<::5;:€:iéd__tiae.'acc¥.1s;eei to undergo rigarous iZI1})fi$£}I1I21t"fnIfO1;'ét~.i}€;!.E1T1 {if pay ﬁne ef Rs. ii3,{}0€}x'-fer the offences yugasiaztgie §§%:»;.:iic>r2:§; ? ;::$f P.C.Act ané {<2 underge riga-tons fi%1.§!T'_.}v'€3¥S%j pay a farm: of Rs.15,00(}f- far the effé,fac.e$x "Section i3{1X_d) read with Section 13(2) of Pv.C.Act. Ix; the circumstances, at" the: case? the sentence imposeci ~ i";{;_ﬁ;3 Sassioias Sludge appears to be at: higher side. The accused has 1~ VV'at£ai1:séd»!i1e'é;ge cf superaxmuation. The accnssd is not a habitual affender. ' :["VI-.*--'x_"V"é'e':1<:n%}:i<.:al cimunmtancas, €112 Su§31"eme C0111"! £1: State ef AP. 'is. V .R;.§eevaramaxn EGG4 SCC {Crhne} F397 imposezd {be minimum sentence Under the impugneé judgment the accuseé is C:'3'Ii'e"iC»E£.::§ for the offmces gtmishahie under Sestion 3', 13{1}{d) reaé with Section 13(2) of P.C.Ac$ aw ii Under Section 'I of the P.C./act, the minimum sentence is six months and under Section 13{1)(d) the minimum sentence: is one year. Ends of_i:1stic§:.__ will be met by imgosing the minimum sentence on the accused. For the reasons stated abovci, the following;

ORDER The appeal is partly allowed.

The impugned judggrncnt ofjcoizvictiooof accuscici 'for__thc oﬁencos punishable under 7 agtd 13('l}fd) iccatitwith Section 13(2) of is coifiﬁncd. it it The irnpugxcd order of sontcncing the ia.ccu.sed toviuvtdcfgo' Sizztpic itnprisonzncnt for a term of one yaaff_<_}r botii' ounishaiaric {miter Section 'Y and V, "13(1)(d) g-eagtiwim Section 13(2) of P.C. Act and to pay a of"Rs.5,000!«, in default to pay the ﬁne amount to u:i:d"c:tgoVAi.i's§a'ﬁple irnprisonmcnt for another tcnn of three .. monthaj DKBXLRS.

H lcinairzizig 2113 other aspects ﬁne impugned juégncnt of the sessions court remain in tact. Ordcrcé accordingly. sdlé, 111593

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court