Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Somashekar S/O Channappa Kallur on 28 July, 2021
Author: Rajendra Badamikar
Bench: Rajendra Badamikar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2681/2011
BETWEEN:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP.BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
CIRCUIT BENCH, DHARWAD.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.ANIL KALE, SPL.SPP)
AND:
SOMASHEKHAR S/O CHANNAPPA KALLUR,
AGE: MAJOR,
R/O ANNIGERI,
TQ.NAVALGUND,
DIST: DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.S.B.NAIK, ADV. FOR
SRI.S.A.MULLUR, ADV. & SRI.I.K.KABBUR, ADV.)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 341 OF CR.P.C.
PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS OF THE PRINCIPAL
SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD IN CRL.MISC.NO.83/2010 AND
PLEASED TO PASS AN ORDER SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 03.08.2010 AND BE PLEASED TO PASS AN ORDER TO
MAKE A COMPLAINT AGAINST THE REPONDENT AS
CONTEMPLATED UNDER SECTION 340 OF CR.P.C.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed challenging the order passed by the III Additional Sessions and Special Judge, Dharwad dated 03.08.2010 in Crl.Misc.No.83/2010 whereby the learned Special Judge has dropped the proceedings initiated against the respondent herein.
2. The facts are that, the accused was prosecuted for the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in KLA C.C.No.5/05 before the III Addl. District Sessions & Spl.Judge, Dharwad. The respondent herein lodged a complaint and on the basis of the complaint, a police constable was trapped by Lokayukta Police while alleged to have been receiving bribe. The Investigating Officer conducted a mahazar and subsequently after concluding the investigation submitted a charge sheet against the accused. The charges were framed against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption 3 Act, 1988. The trial took place and during the course of trial, the present respondent herein who was complainant was examined as P.W.6. He has turned hostile and deposed against the complaint averments. Hence, by appreciating the evidence, the learned Special Judge acquitted the accused therein of the charges leveled against him, but simultaneously passed an order to register a separate criminal case against P.W.6- Somashekhar, i.e., the present respondent herein with a direction to issue a show-cause notice calling upon him to show cause as to why complaint shall not be filed against him under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. r/w Section 195(b) of Cr.P.C. for having committed the offence punishable under Section 193 of IPC.
3. In pursuance of the said order, Crl.Misc.No.83/2010 was registered against the present respondent herein, who was complainant/P.W.6. He has appeared through his counsel and submitted his objections. Thereafter, the matter was posted for evidence 4 of the respondent and on 03.08.2010, the learned Special Judge by a non-speaking order has accepted the explanation and dropped the proceedings. This order is being challenged in this appeal by State-Lokayukta under Section 341 of Cr.P.C.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the order passed by the learned Special Judge is contrary to law and it is a non-speaking order and no reasons have been offered for dropping the proceedings. He would further submit that learned Special Judge did not consider the grounds urged and did not discuss the evidence recorded by him and hence, the order suffers from illegality and calls for interference. Hence, he would submit that the entire approach of the learned Special Judge is against the settled principles of law and sought for allowing the appeal by setting aside the impugned order.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/complainant submits that the learned Special Judge has appreciated the records and his order disclose 5 that he has verified the records and he has also enquired with the respondent herein and after getting himself satisfied, he dropped the proceedings and no illegality is found in the order. Hence, he would seek for dismissal of the appeal.
6. Having heard the arguments and perusing the records, now the following point would arise for my consideration.
"Whether the order passed by the learned Special Judge in Crl.Misc.No.83/2010 dated 03.08.2010 calls for any interference by this court?"
7. Admittedly, the present respondent herein was the complainant before the trial court. The proceedings have been initiated regarding illegal demand of bribe on account of the complaint alleged to have been filed by the present respondent herein. Further, the allegations does disclose that a entrustment mahazar was drawn in the police station and even after trapping the accused, a trap 6 mahazar was done and he was accompanied by shadow witnesses also. However, while recording the evidence, the witness i.e., P.W.6/respondent herein has given a go by to his version and resiled from the complaint averments. He denied the entire case of the prosecution simply claiming that he was asked to sit outside and he did what had directed by Lokayukta Police. However, during the cross- examination by the defence counsel, he has admitted a different story put forwarded by the accused wherein a suggestion was made that, he had forcibly kept the amount in the pocket of the accused. Hence, prima facie it is evident that he has given inconsistent evidence and subsequently in criminal miscellaneous petition he has filed objections wherein he asserted that he stick on to his evidence. Further, he also seek a leniency. But the order of the learned Special Judge disclose that, he did not discussed any of these issues and in a cryptic way he dropped the proceedings. The order dated 03.08.2010 passed by the learned Special Judge reads as under: 7
"The respondent is present. Perused his objections and heard his counsel. On enquiry with respondent, he sticks to his earlier deposition in the Court. I am satisfied that the explanation offered by the respondent is true. Hence the proceedings are dropped and his Misc.Petition is closed."
8. This itself disclose that the learned Special Judge did not discussed the case and his evidence. Though he has discussed at the time of disposal of the main matter and came to a conclusion that the complainant has given false evidence which prompted him to initiate proceedings under Section 340 of Cr.P.C, the learned Special Judge by reasoned order had an option of proceeding under Section 340 of Cr.P.C r/w Section 195(b) of Cr.P.C. or under Section 344 of Cr.P.C. or other course of dropping the proceedings after admonition. But without venturing to any all these aspects without a reasoned order, the learned Special Judge in a cryptic way dropped the proceedings which is against the settled principles of law. He has not even heard the prosecution side. Learned counsel for the 8 respondent herein submits that lot of water has flown in between, but that is not a ground to close the proceedings. Apparently, on the face of the records, the learned Special Judge has committed an error and hence, the impugned order passed by the learned Special Judge calls for interference. Accordingly, the point under consideration is answered in the affirmative and I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 03.08.2010 passed by the III Additional Sessions and Special Judge, Dharwad in Crl.Misc.No.83/2010 is set aside.
The matter is restored to the original file with a specific direction to the Special Judge to proceed in accordance with law by passing a reasoned order as contemplated under Section 340 of Cr.P.C r/w Section 195(b) of Cr.P.C. or under Section 344 of Cr.P.C. or otherwise by giving specific reasons. 9
Registry is directed to send the TCR immediately along with copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE MBS/-