Karnataka High Court
Shri. J. P. Prakash vs The State Of Karnataka By Lokayukta on 23 December, 2010
Author: Jawad Rahim
Bench: Jawad Rahim
IN THE HIGH COURt OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED AT PRINCIPAL BENCH A.T BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 23 DAY OP DECEMBER 2D10
B E F 0 R F
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE JAV'JAD RAHIM
CRLPETITION_NO. 7639'2O1O
BETWEEN:
SHRI J..FEPRAKASH
S/0 PUTTASWAMYSHETTY
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
MOTOR VEHICLE INSPECTOR
R T 0 OFFICE, CHiKKABALLAPUR
.PETITIONER
(BY SRI SHANKAR H•• EGDE AND AS. SOCIATES)
'J Li:
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA,
REPRESENTED BY THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER
OKAYUKTA POLICE STATION, BELLARY
RESPONDENT
(BY S
RI JAGADIS H EATIL, AD\! J
3
THIS CRIMI NAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 CQPS
SEEKIUC Tfl DUARLi ThE rip BFAPIMC yEA BELL APt F R
CTh E C 2'ECJ A ECrL, r DA 1
C s
EThER EE-1EEETh EiLThE FE DILiG j FILE
-
OF SPL. JUDGE, PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE BELLAR n = a U' t N) fl I Z a' S• Uf m C m ;0 n , 1 t a: p , --ow t ozm Z a' 2 ' m *0 -' f) 1 ( Z a' t -
a: 0 0 0 ma' z5.9rn m D z D -, fl • a' re 0 a -I m a' -, m w U' 2 o a m a: fl -- 0 a a' CL z D . 9: i-a m m SD. rn-it U D 9: aza'7 t r t m 0 m m mma -' U' a' (I) D a: -, P m c m afla: 9 nfl m 0 a a 0 a • Do to a' a -o O• m 195D r o t 0 a -' m m °' m c m a -- a < q, cc 03< CD 9-' a W S 7c- -. - m a' a e-'. I" 03mz a' w a' 3 S w CD o CD a' 0 a' 7 D Z D a' a' 0 . Z - a a a a a' r CL a'SZ S a a' " a & D C o U'3CDa'$za' a' • X tJ) CD D a'm Q o CD *o o aar D fl w D 9!* CDrnoQn a CD • CD a' z C m - 0 fl a - z a a -. o 0 -- It a0 n°a' x zrn m rnaa one on t tnes ted them t efore him b, With ti r.sreiiminary arrdngnment, he trot eedeu to the spot. '.e. Hogan 1() rheck Post at 4.30 a m. or Su li.2009 and observea what was going or'. For some
time he notired 'wo home guards ,.vere stopping lorries and tequiring er to show ti ocuments. r rsicor dism t the C. 1 te [c t b iiirg d apt.akir v' dS 0 bservatton, he. t ie vsere d/ r oney and thus t C o5 a.m, he -'dsed three lorries tear:nq nos. fl; AP 'i 'U oQ ( AP il/U 1°3C and (ru AP C2/AX 252 '' sjccrssfiiiit ctj,ped them 'it'd Oh ertwlirv ;eaint t rorr. the inven. •i . 'C !4oh'd-rr j,r.tjse ii,iriarfrr;ip4i Ig nh,asa hil paic Rs SOO/ 1 "vd I i it! 'ir'J C "lu_i . ,t -. • tr 4 eceived the rrone rorr thi dnvrs mc e individ als told irn he non y is ke, t or 11w cot a er he flstrL ctiors nt tne Ilotor 'ehicie incpe' tor.
T is ec ndi. ed 01(1 id nw. R546C, 3
which tallieG with tiit oftvial iece'w book 1
miinta
i ed i He
to d r tte exr ana n the iot VE ide sp or
present at the check post whirh includes the petitioner ft d Petitioner was questioned by the officei to tn' e t 0, / U dt k S a! duly entered ;n the receipt book It was later given to the a I OS a i v r 1 0 e %over-1menr On ;nspectiori of the. room therc the it or v I f I r tne hasi ot Pan. h'narni aaed U 1 :.e')', P.' t"rne 1 'C q rta it )t.. • ;. . d' d .t .c• u r ii I ,d. .: :j-1. --.. . • ..çt .J.).. . I •.., '' 1 t it 'I -
vi 3
at
1 d
Ct f F ill
T se. j I e r d
t ftc. Fe 't
t i oc u w d a ft d
IC ) C.
1 1 ) t ye'
I.
I ti C
kta i
$
h
L
(1
se o we OflS C rsett ip in 3tior f a
ste I h re u Co y
bet::een the,r. LdStl',. it :5 urged pPt!tio.ler is sajfferinq
frnm liver problem ana 'c tinder treatmept. .jrid it h 'S
ted trial the rncriai v h is t3lIy
ff ftc striou a ad er
3. Learned counsel submits tfle presence of D. Prakash in tfle check post i',. he was unwe'i and requ:red money for Tc. t g th cdical tand t pplie he cj or fe or taf r sior lh ri reqect .vas forwarded to the nro, Mys..e wtlo 'ad granted permission. D.P'aka%l', then sold the gold r:ng and go tha p tioner S,1 Oi it )f hirli [C wi I 5. j r tO( ,uçrJa 31 .iiril jr h(. rrts ti n'r•cv. d ,r oc: .'vj. • .r•dhtd • .as J' ,t.•_ n_.
P IlV c.ita ., ,
()' :Ø'e •(' a •f I pa' •1' icr, ill
to 'p I
'i )Irl t I 'p. I')
I.), I
-, -.1- '
7
4. Learned counsel has also referred to the meagre amount seIzed from Veeresh, private individual. Reference is also made to the representation dated 25.1.2000 sent by the petitioner wherein he has referred to the affidavits filed by Honnurswamy and T.Sannatimma Reddy, home guards posted at the check post which absolves him of all allegations. He has also referred to the documents seized from the drivers to show he had carried out search of the vehicles and found certain contraventions and collected fine.
5. The last and important ground urged is, the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act do not prohibit personal money being kept by the officials at the check post during discharge of their duty. Therefore, mere possession of money does not permit raising of charge for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 8, 13 (1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act. It is urged the Inspector has no power to raid the premises where Government offices function, like the check post In the 8 instant case, when complying with the mandatory provisIons contained In Section of the Act.
6. Apart from all grounds referred to above, the thrust is on the main ground that no demand or acceptance of illegal gratification is spelled out in the report, and therefore, no case is made out to subject the petitioner to trial.
7. Learned counsel, Sri Shankar Hegde, reiterating all the grounds with his persuasive eloquence, has canvassed grounds available to the petitioner to urge against his prosecution. But the question is, whether such grounds justify Interference of this court when the investigation has just commenced?
8. On facts there is no dispute. Prosecution does not dispute registration of the case against the petitioner is based on credible information received on 29.12.2009 and raid conducted on the next day in the early hours. The place of raid is Hagari Check Post and presence of the petitioner Is also not In dispute. It is not disputed that the .;4.
I 0. has conducted raid and seized Rs. 46 920 aLit of which Rs.6,987/- is found in exrecs compared tn orfwial receipts issued Prosecutirsti has arraigned tht j.etitiont-r for the ofternes under Sect'cnc '.
8. 1 1 1)(1. read b"ltfl bection Th2. of the Act basicaliy on the ground that Rs.6J8l' found n excess of offic!al ackr.owledgemr.t i ll€gal gratification receivcd frcrn trcfr driveic arid cleaners o shov t. en o ficia favour 9 Petitioner does not dicpute that the investigation has just commenced and during the course of it, T•Q has examined several witnesses ncIuding those wh" ere derained miring zPe raid The ffcnces vinshab'e .nder Se't:wis 1, ,, lsl .ij dnd 13 4 f tr' Act ore JfluuDtC'J n be t!.PG as i :arrai.L 'dSP nS prPcrr:Led S, h€ >1 • rir .ir a Pr )c'j' '.
o s"c" eft
a ','ct" 'J I
,qi. ii r.'r.j'c 'F u •v •'; 'r ''tag si' .u ii. '--p' L
'in -f tç --?Jt ?.,Ht
. ur'" ii ' -- I ;' makinq
such examination 'A •- '. '7 t --
10
tratt tics 'car d qii;j it
e
cut'o tl istd 4'I t yo g
heaid. the magistrate considers Vie rha,ge aqa'nsr the attLjsrad to be aroLndless. ip sha l d,ccfla,ge the accused.
1
a; tecord ieaso' fo, s d ing. provas of
tt 21 ee gE. u nsii t
ex .iination r dliv. d.7 heaiing the magi Irate is of the
opinion that theic is ground ror presuming that the
accused hat, committ d an off ice tuable under this a t, '; uc a tr 'rr te to d vt , in prnio. uld t equat put7ist b) him. tie shall frame in wntino a charqe against the accused. Therefo,c, 't 's evicier.t from the prcats.ons ti' 20 Pe' -d as atc r'Iv mi m ;er s,r' Ii'-- fijpil er Sertp DGt n 4 l r • but a'--' t .j n ;. Iflr ,sstero,r.rn,: a, --. h..tre 'q.... ildter ji • ft '.n rp It I t 1 3.
I •(I• •'L V SI 0) N) D (1) 0 ) I-' C z- ' 0 a 0 3 n g CD " 3 3 ,w N BC a o a oi& O CD . % '.0 40 Sm 0 CD CD Zn -' rnZnw SIa CD a . 33 CD CD w n CD CD -a 0 a Z '.o n Zn C Z CD 7 5 fl) 0 0 0 a C no 0 CD CD C n CD CD -- 0) Z s m w a ' a no V 0 0 CD n CD ' 3 aCD g. 3 m n 3 C n (n_ & 3w m m 0 I- 0 0 m 3 a Z no a at C oi a 0 CD SI z Zn 10 0 0 C n Z CD " CI SI '.0 -- Z 3 CD SI n CD a w 0 x a a • am SI fl 0) 0) a 0 7 tnt m O a C 0 . w a a 0 0) 0 CD ç - wSI 0) '.0 w 0 © a o fl CD Z Zn 3 9.m a Zn tnt 0 CD ° '- o w • 0 CD Z a;. en a Z CD CD m 0 me 3 z w . . Zn w CD a CD V on Zn Z Zn Zn o 0 0 01 m '.0 CD CD CD 0 '.0 -- OSItt tsaC n CD CD c, a 0 m c,, CD- ,. a n o 7 w C -- a -- 0i a: o CD CD 3 C C 3 w '.0 C 0 SI w 0 fl m 0 Zn 0 0) a 0 a 0 a: CD aa• Z -- Zn Zn CD CD -' a £ a ! p. 0 tnt Zn '.0 r w Zn oWZnCDw m9L 0 < Z ro..eedlngs pending ir t it investigating )fficer !J. The power 'S the High Cirt rc,nfrrr&'d is ro d..,uhr
unbridled, but such power does or j'ishfy interference with lawfully commenced investigation. May be, the material on the basis of whicn in,estlgation commenced is too vaque. but it cannot be said it will not result in unearthing incriminating aspects fnr which 1.0 is conferred with sufficient power.
4 I have already refe d a hs supra that the
oner may havc. a rounds urged
etiticr to g ounc's arc
ent tic a' sti
n'r
ill jrot r Ji'm.:n t
-r'jrC to. trial jmt
"1 jrg..
--Icctm p')ed