Karnataka High Court
Sri. Vinayaka. S. Patil vs State Of Karnataka By on 23 February, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4690 OF 2019
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.831 OF 2019,
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4691 OF 2019,
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.987 OF 2022,
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6631 OF 2022
IN CRL.P.NO.4690/2019:
BETWEEN:
SMT. ROOPA A.T.,
W/O SRI. N. SUHAS,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/AT NO.1527, 1ST MAIN ROAD,
JUDICIAL LAYOUT, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU-560 065
PRESENTLY WORKING AS
ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
CHIKKABALLAPURA-562 101
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. P.S.RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. G.S.VENKATA SUBBA RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
CITY DIVISION,
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA,
BENGALURU-560 001
REP. BY SPL. PP,
2
HIGH COURT,
BENGALURU-560 001
2. SRI. H.T. RAVI
S/O THIMMEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
HONNAGUNDI VILLAGE,
SUNKADAHOLE POST,
THEERTHAHALLI,
SHIVAMOGGA-577 225
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.S.PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;
NOTICE IS SERVED ON RESPONDENT NO.2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER DATED 02.04.2018 AND TO QUASH THE
PROCEEDINGS AND SUPPLEMENTAL CHARGE SHEET IN
SPL.C.C.NO.305/2017 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE XXIII
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL
JUDGE FOR PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT CASES,
BENGALURU AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 201, 409, 465, 468, 471, 420,
120B READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 13(1)(c),
13(1)(d) READ WITH SECTION 13(2) OF THE PREVENTION OF
CORRUPTION ACT, 1988.
IN CRL.P.NO.831/2019:
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. CHAYADEVI
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
D/O SANGANAFOUDA PATIL
3
ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
V ADDL. JMFC COURT
KALABURGI
DISTRICT: KALBURGI-585 101
2. SMT. POORNIMA G
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
PRINCIPAL J.M.F.C.,
CHIKKAMANGALORE-577 101
3. SMT. VIJAYALAKSHMI C ATHARGA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR/
ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER,
CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C. COURT,
BILAGI, DISTRICT:BAGALKOT-587 102.
4. SMT. TRISHULA SHUBHASHCHANDRA JAIN
ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR-CUM-
ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER OFFICE,
C/O SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C COURT,
KANAKAPURA,
KANAKAPURA COURT COMPLEX,
TALUK KANAKAPURA-562 117
DISTRICT: RAMANAGAR.
5. SRI. K.R. NAGHABHUSANA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
S/O K.R. RAJASHEKAR RAO,
ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AND
ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER,
SR. CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C,
DODDABALLAPURA-561 203
6. SRI. C.J. SUBRAMANYA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
S/O LATE A. JOGIGOWDA,
ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AND
ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER,
PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C.,
DODDABALLAPURA-561 203.
4
7. SRI. S.N. VENKATESH
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
S/O SRI. K.M. NARAYANAPPA,
ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR-CUM-
ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER,
ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C.,
ANEKAL-562 106.
8. SRI. SHIVANANJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
S/O LATE MAHADEVAIAH G.,
ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
SRIRANGAPATTANA-571 401
MANDYA DISTRICT.
9. SRI. Y.S. MOHAN
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
S/O LATE SRINIVASAPPA,
ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AND
ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER,
PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C.,
ANEKAL-560 066
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
10. SRI. A.S. VENUKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
S/O SRI. SRINIVASA GOWDA A.V.,
ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AND
ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER,
PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C,
CHINTAMANI-563 125,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.
11. SRI. GURUSWAMY
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
S/O SRI. SHIVANNA,
ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AND
ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER,
5
ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C.,
CHIKKABALLAPURA-562 105.
12. SRI. NARAYANA SWAMY B.,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
S/O SRI. BYRAPPA,
ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AND
ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER,
ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C.,
KANAKAPURA-562 117.
13. SRI. RAVINDRA H.C.
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
S/O SRI CHANNAIAH,
ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
II ADDL. J.M.F.C., COURT,
MYSORE-571 102.
14. SRI. HRISHIKESH C.,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
S/O CHINNAPPAIAH,
ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
WORKING AT ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C.,
HOSKOTE-562 114,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
15. SRI. J. LINGESHWARA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
S/O T.S. JAGADEVAIAH,
ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C.,
CHELLEKERE-577 536,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
16. SMT. N. ANURADHA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
W/O SRI. K. NATARAJAN,
ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C.,
MALUR-563 130,
KOLAR DISTRICT.
6
17. SRI. HARISH
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
S/O SRI KRISHNAMURTHY,
ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
WORKING AT PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C.,
CHANNARAYAPATTANA-573 214,
HASSAN DISTRICT.
18. SRI. JNANENDRA K.P.
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
S/O SRI. K.N. PADMARAJAIAH,
ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C COURT,
NAGAMANGALA-571 432
MANDYA DISTRICT.
19. SMT. YESHODA H.R.,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
D/O SRI. RAMACHANDRAPPA H.L.
W/O NARASIMHAIAH,
ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVN.)
AND J.M.F.C., COURT,
COURT PREMISES, MAGADI
RAMANAGAR DISTRICT-562 108
20. SRI. K.M. RAGHU
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
S/O SRI. K.P. MUSIYAPPA,
ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C.,
TUMKUR-572 101.
21. SMT. VIMALA T.M.
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
W/O DAYANANDA L.S.,
ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
IV ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
7
TRAFFIC COURT,
BANGALORE-560 063.
22. SRI. B.V. GYANA MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
S/O LATE VENKATAPPA,
ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C.,
CHANNARAYAPATNA-573 214
HASSAN DISTRICT.
23. SRI. MOHAMMED AJMAL PASHA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
S/O ABDUR RASHEED,
RESIDENT OF NO.42,
P.W.D. QUARTERS,
MADHUGIRI, TUMKUR DISTRICT.
WORKING AT: PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE
(SENIOR DIVISION) AND J.M.F.C. COURT,
MADHUGIRI-572 129.
24. SRI. MOHANA B.,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
S/O BAYANNA,
RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO.41,
P.W.D. QUARTERS, MADHUGIRI,
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 129
WORKING AT: CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C
(JUNIOR DIVISION)
MADHUGIRI.
25. SRI. SHEIK MOHAMMED ALI D.S.,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
S/O SHEIK AHMED D.M.,
RESIDENT OF 8TH CROSS,
1ST LINK ROAD, S.I.T. EXTENSION,
TUMKUR-572 129.
WORKING AS: ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
KORATAGERE.
8
26. SRI.M.L. CHANDRA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
S/O SRI. LAKSHMAN REDDY,
RESIDING AT P.W.D. QUARTERS,
NEAR COURT COMPLEX,
HOSKOTE-561 101
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
27. SMT. SHIVAMMA H.V.
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
W/O SRI RAMASWAMY H.E.,
ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION) AND
J.M.F.C. COURT, TIPTUR,
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 201
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. PRAMOD NAIR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI.
RAGHAVENDRA K., ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER NOS.1 TO 3, 5,
7, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, 23 TO 27;
SRI. PRAMOD NAIR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ANAND
MUTTALLI, ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER NOS.4, 6, 11, 14, 17,
21 AND 22;
SRI. KRISHNA KUMAR K.K., ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER NOS.1
AND 3)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
CITY DIVISION, KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA,
BENGALURU-560 001
REP. BY S.P.P,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. SRI. H.T. RAVI
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
S/O SRI THIMMAIAH GOWDA,
HONNAGUNDI VILLAGE,
9
SUNKADAHOLE POST,
THEERTHAHALLI ,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 225.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.S. PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;
SRI. SUDHANVA D.S., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 16.04.2018 AND TO QUASH THE
PROCEEDINGS AND SUPPLEMENTARY CHARGE SHEET IN
SPL.C.C.NO.305/2017 PRESENTLY PENDING ON THE FILE OF
THE XXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND
SPECIAL JUDGE FOR PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT,
BANGALORE AS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 201, 465, 468, 471
AND 420 OF IPC AND UNDER SECTIONS 13(1)(c) AND 13(1)(d)
READ WITH SECTION 13(2) OF THE PREVENTION OF
CORRUPTION ACT OF LOKAYUKTHA POLICE, BANGALORE CITY.
IN CRL.P.NO.4691/2019:
BETWEEN:
SMT. KUMUDINI S.,
W/O MR. N. RAVINDRA GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.3274,
HOUSE NO.3, 3RD MAIN,
3RD CROSS, PC EXTENSION,
KOLAR - 563 101
PRESENTLY WORKING AS
10
ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
SHIDLAGHATTA - 562 105
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. P.S.RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. G.S.VENKAT SUBBA RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
CITY DIVISION,
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001
REP. BY SPL. PP, HIGH COURT,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. SRI. H.T. RAVI
S/O THIMMEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
HONNAGUNDI VILLAGE,
SUNKADAHOLE POST,
THEERTHAHALLI,
SHIVAMOGGA - 577 225.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.S.PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;
NOTICE IS SERVED ON RESPONDENT NO.2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER DATED 02.04.2018 AND TO QUASH THE
PROCEEDINGS AND SUPPLEMENTAL CHARGE SHEET IN
SPL.C.C.NO.305/2017 PENDING ON THE FILE OF XXIII
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL
JUDGE FOR PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT CASES,
BENGALURU AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 201, 409, 465, 468, 471, 420
11
AND 120B READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC AND ALSO UNDER
SECTION 13(1)(c)(d) READ WITH SECTION 13(2) OF THE
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988.
IN CRL.P.NO.987/2022:
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SUMANGALA CHANDRASHEKAR NAYAK,
W/O CHETHAN THUKARAM NAIK,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
R/AT GANESH NILAYA,
C/O VEENA PADIYAR,
BADHUSHA ROAD,
NEAR RAMA MANDIR,
KUNDAPURA TALUK-576201.
2. SMT. SHREEROOPA
W/O SARAVANAN,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
C/O VENKATESH,
SAI LAYOUT,
NEAR NEELAGIRI THOPU,
MALURU, KOLARA DISTRICT,
R/AT NO 5, 2ND CROSS,
LALBAHADUR SHASTRINAGARA,
INDIRANAGAR 2ND STAGE,
BANGALORE-560038.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. C.H.JADHAV, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. MOHANCHANDRA P., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY KARNATAKA LOKYAUKTHA,
CITY DIVISION, BANGALORE.
REPRESENTED BY
THE SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
12
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE-1.
2. MR. H.T. RAVI
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
S/O THIMMAIAH,
ADVOCATE
R/AT HONNAGUNDI
SUNAKADAHOLE POST
THIRTHAHALLI TALUK,
SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577432.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. WAHEEDA M.M., HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER
FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;
SRI. B.S.PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;
NOTICE IS SERVED ON RESPONDENT NO.2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.06.2017 PASSED BY
THE COURT OF XXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE
SPL.JUDGE, PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, BENGALURU
URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU CITY FOR TAKING COGNIZANCE
FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 201, 409,
465, 468, 471, 420 AND 120B READ WITH 34 OF IPC AND
SECTION 13(1)(C) AND 13(1)(D) AND 13(1)(2) OF PC ACT AND
REGISTERING CASE IN SPL.C.C.NO.305/2017 AND ETC.
IN CRL.P.NO.6631/2022:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. VINAYAKA. S. PATIL
S/O. SANKANAGOUDA. V. PATIL,
13
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/AT NO.43, 2ND MAIN ROAD,
RAMAKRUSHNA NAGAR,
GOKUL ROAD,
HUBBALLI-580 030.
2. SRI. SAHEBGOUDA PATIL
S/O. RAJASHEKAR PATIL,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/AT C/O. SHARANAGOUDA PATIL,
BEHIND POLICE QUARTUS,
CHITTAPURA,
KALBURGI-585 211.
3. SMT. RANJANA SURESH PATIL
W/O. V.H. GADANNAVAR,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/AT D.S. BONGALE,
SANGOLLI RAYANNA CIRCLE,
BAILHONGAL-591 102,
DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.
4. SMT. GEETHA SIDDARAMAPPA ASUTI
D/O. SIDRAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
R/AT NO.56/4B, PLOT NO.8,
VANASHREE BUILDING,
1ST MAIN, 3RD CROSS,
RAJATHAGIRI, DHARWAD.
5. SRI. SUNIL PATIL
S/O. SHIVANAGOUDA PATIL,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/AT BIARAVESHWARA NILAYA,
MEGALPETE,
MOODIGERE-577 132,
DISTRICT: CHIKKAMAGALURU.
6. SMT. SHILPA JOSHI
W/O. MAHESH LACCHAPPA MANNAPURA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
14
R/AT BASTWADI BUILDING,
VIDYANAGAR, GOKAK,
BELAGAVI-591 307.
7. SRI. RAVINDRASA
S/O. UMAKANTASA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 30-32, 201B, 2ND FLOOR,
HEERA AVENUE APARTMENT,
HINDASGERI LAYOUT,
HUBBALLI-581 204.
8. SMT. SAROJINI VEERAPPA BATAKURKI
D/O. VEERAPPA BASAPPA BATAKURKI,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/AT LOKAPURA MAIN BAJAR,
LOKAPURA,
TALUK: MUDHOLA-587 122,
DISTRICT: BAGALKOT.
9. SRI. BHARATH BHUJABALI SHIRAHATTI
S/O. BHUJABALI,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/AT C/O. MOTAGI DHARIDEVAR NIVAS,
AHAMADH KALONY, RAMNAGAR,
VIJAYAPURA-586 101.
10. SRI. BASALINGAPPA BALAGONDA BORGAL
S/O. BALAGONDA BORGAL,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/AT P.W.D. QUARTUS,
I.B. ROAD, ATHANI,
DISTRICT BELAGAVI-591 304.
11. SRI. DHANAPAL DEVAPPA HARUGERI
S/O. DEVAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/AT GANGA NILAYA,
NEAR HALAKATTI BHAVAN,
MAHANTESH NAGAR,
BELAGAVI-590 016.
15
12. SRI. SANGANAGOUDA. P. NAYAK
S/O. PARASAPPAGOUDA NAYAK,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/AT SECTOR NO.46,
PLOT NO.222, NAVANAGAR,
DISTRICT: BAGALKOT-587 103.
13. SRI. NARAYANA. M
S/O. MADHANAYKA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/AT C/O. PRAKASH,
MANJUNATH BADAVANE,
HUNASURU,
DISTRICT MYSORE-571 105.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SHIVAPRASAD SHANTANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
CITY DIVISION,
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA,
BENGALURU-560 001,
REP. BY SPL. PP, HIGH COURT,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. SRI. H.T. RAVI
S/O. THIMMEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
HONNAGUNDI VILLAGE,
SUNKADAHOLE POST,
THEERTHAHALLI,
SHIVAMOGGA-577 225.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. WAHEEDA M.M., HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER
FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;
SRI. B.S.PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;
NOTICE IS SERVED ON RESPONDENT NO.2)
16
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO
QUASH THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT IN P.C.R.NO.37/2014 DATED
16.10.2014/17.10.2014 (ANNEXURE-A), THE SUBSEQUENT FIR
DATED 16.12.2014 (ANNEXURE-B) IN CRIME NO.59/2014, THE
CHARGE SHEET BEARING 01/2017 DATED 12.06.2017
(ANNEXURE-C) AND SUPPLEMENTARY CHARGE SHEET BEARING
NO.02/2018 DATED 15.03.2018 (ANNEXURE-D) AND ORDER OF
COGNIZANCE DATED 30.06.2017 AND SUBSEQUENT ORDER
DATED 02.04.2018 ISSUING SUMMONS PASSED BY THE COURT
OF THE XXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND
SPECIAL JUDGE FOR PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT,
BENGALURU FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS
13(1)(c)(d) READ WITH SECTION 13(2) OF THE PREVENTION
OF CORRUPTION ACT AND ALSO UNDER SECTIONS 201, 409,
465, 468, 471, 420 AND 120B READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC
(ANNEXURE-E) AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN SPL.CASE
NO.305/2017 AGAINST THE PETITIONERS PENDING ON THE
FILE OF THE XXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND
SPECIAL JUDGE FOR PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT CASES,
BENGALURU.
THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 21.12.2023 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
17
ORDER
Crl. P. No.4690/2019 is filed by the accused No.11 while Crl.P. No.831/2019 is filed by the accused Nos.50, 42, 60, 7, 59, 4, 17, 5, 61, 52, 15, 62, 37, 33, 57, 31, 30, 51, 25, 24, 46, 21, 3, 58, 53, 22, 38 and Crl.P. No.4691/2019 is filed by the accused No.8 and Crl.P. No.987/2022 is filed by the accused Nos.12, 23 and Crl.P. No.6631/2022 is filed by the accused Nos.43, 16, 63, 6, 26, 29, 13, 34, 55, 28, 41, 44, 32 challenging the prosecution launched against them in Spl.C.C. No.305/2017 pending trial before the XXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge under Prevention of Corruption Act, Bengaluru (henceforth referred to as 'the Trial Court').
2. In Crl.P. No.4690/2019 and Crl.P. No.4691/2019, the respective petitioner has/have also sought to quash the order dated 02.04.2018 passed by the Trial Court in Spl.C.C. No.305/2017 issuing 18 summons to her/them and the supplementary charge sheet filed by the Karnataka Lokayukta Police in Crime No.59/2014 arising out of PCR No.37/2014 for the offences under Sections 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'the P.C. Act') and for the offences punishable under Sections 201, 409, 465, 468, 471, 420 and 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( for short, 'IPC') as against her/them.
3. In Crl.P. No.831/2019, petitioners have also sought to quash the order dated 16.04.2018 passed by the Trial Court in Spl.C.C. No.305/2017 and the supplementary charge sheet filed by the Karnataka Lokayukta Police in Crime No.59/2014 arising out of PCR No.37/2014 as against them.
4. In Crl.P. No.987/2022, petitioners have sought to quash the order dated 30.06.2017 passed 19 by the Trial Court in PCR No.37/2014 taking cognizance of the offences under Sections 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act and Sections 201, 409, 465, 468, 471, 420 and 120B read with Section 34 of IPC and to quash the order dated 10.12.2014 passed by the Trial Court in PCR No.37/2014 referring the complaint under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C') for investigation and report. The Charge sheet No.1/2017 as well as the supplementary charge sheet filed by the Karnataka Lokayukta Police in Crime No.59/2014 arising out of PCR No.37/2014 against the petitioners are also sought to be quashed.
5. In Crl.P. No.6631/2022, the petitioners have also sought to quash: the private complaint in P.C.R.No.37/2014 dated 16.10.2014/17.10.2014 (Annexure-A); the subsequent FIR dated 16.12.2014 (Annexure-B) in Crime No.59/2014; the charge sheet 20 bearing No.01/2017 dated 12.06.2017 (Annexure-C) and the supplementary charge sheet bearing No.02/2018 dated 15.03.2018 (Annexure-D) filed by the Karnataka Lokayukta Police in Crime No.59/2014 arising out of PCR No.37/2014. The petitioners have also sought to quash the order dated 30.06.2017 passed by the Trial Court in PCR No.37/2014 taking cognizance of the offences mentioned supra and the subsequent order passed by the Trial Court in PCR No.37/2014 dated 02.04.2018 issuing summons to them.
6. The respondent No.2 in all these petitions, filed a private complaint in PCR No.37/2014 contending that a notification dated 16.05.2012 was issued by the Assistant Government Pleader, Recruitment Committee, Department of Prosecution and Government Litigation, Government of Karnataka, Bengaluru, inviting applications from eligible 21 candidates for the post of Assistant Public Prosecutors. He claimed that he successfully passed the preliminary and final examinations. The result of the final examination was published on 31.01.2014 and the complainant was found eligible for the viva voce, which he faced on 03.02.2014 where he was awarded 12.7 marks. A final merit list of candidates was published on 15.02.2014.
7. He alleged that the Director of Prosecution did not have the infrastructure to conduct examination for the post of "197 Assistant Public Prosecutors / Assistant Government Pleaders". Thus the then Additional Home Secretary recommended for conduct of the examination through the Karnataka Examination Authority, Bengaluru. However, the Home Department entrusted the work of conduct of examination to the Deputy Director / Director of Prosecution by appointing him as the Member 22 Secretary for the "Assistant Public Prosecutors / Assistant Government Pleaders Selection Committee"
(for short "Selection Committee"). The accused No.1 was nominated as the Member Secretary of the Committee who, allegedly had no basic knowledge regarding conduct of examination.
8. The respondent No.2/complainant alleged that the accused No.1 while working as Deputy Director Prosecution and in-charge Director of Prosecution, had misused his official position causing huge loss to the exchequer. He further alleged that the accused No.1 during his tenure as Deputy Director had ordered purchase of Library books to the tune of Rs.1,55,00,612/- out of the funds allotted under the 13th Financial Commission. However, none of these books were useful but were outdated as the wrapper and cover page of the same indicated the year of publication as '2013'.
23
9. The respondent No.2 further alleged that the wrapper and cover pages were got printed and bounded by the accused No.1 in connivance with the book seller to make the Department believe that the accused No.1 had purchased new books for the use of Public Prosecutors of the Department though they were actually lying unsold in the godown of the book seller. He alleged that this was done obviously for illegal gratification by the accused No.1. He also alleged that the accused No.1 purchased old, unsold, unwanted books authored by Foreign authors relating to other jurisdictions which were not connected to the Department of Prosecution and Indian Law. He alleged that the accused No.1 did this for illegal gratification from the book seller. He also alleged that the accused No.1 spent Rs.16,31,000/- for centralized library though there was no such facility. 24
10. The respondent No.2 also alleged that the accused No.1 during his tenure had floated tenders for obtaining services by outsourcing for the post of Stenographers and 'D' group Dalayats. The last date for submitting quotations was 22.05.2013 but the tender was published in the Gazette on 30.05.2013. Even before the tender was published, duly filled tender forms were opened by the accused No.1. Though 'Tiger Services' had submitted lowest quotation, instead of accepting it, accused No.1 gave an option to resubmit the tender for reasons unknown. Thereafter, the accused No.1 awarded the contract to 'Tiger Services' at higher rates and thereby, caused loss to the Government to the tune of Rs.40,00,000/-.
11. The respondent No.2 alleged that the accused No.1 as the Member Secretary of the Selection Committee failed to take proper care to 25 protect the model answer sheets supposed to be supplied to the candidates and also failed to preserve the answer sheets of the aspiring candidates as per the procedure by the Selection Committee. He deliberately shifted all the answer sheets to the office of the Deputy Director situated in the Office of the Police Commissioner, where he illegally decoded the answer sheets without following the proper procedure for sending the answer sheets for valuation by Judicial Officers. Though the valuation was done by the competent persons, the accused manipulated the marks by altering, forging / adding / fabricating / inserting new answer books and in some cases replacing answer books and providing model answers to the candidates of his choice, etc.
12. He alleged that a bare perusal of the answer sheets demonstrates that the accused No.1 had not taken care to ensure that the answer sheets 26 were in tact, as many of the answer sheets were not properly stitched but were left loose. He alleged that the accused No.1 managed to provide additional answer sheets numbering more than 100 pages. To avoid being detected, the accused No.1 had managed to provide answer sheets in bulk even though the required answer sheets as per the model answer papers would be a maximum of 50 pages. He alleged that a bare perusal of the answer booklets demonstrated the intention of the accused No.1 to manage and manipulate the answer sheets so as to help a few identified candidates.
13. The respondent No.2 alleged that his attempts to secure copies of the incriminating answer booklets proved futile. He alleged that the accused No.1 to draw financial benefit, allowed some candidates to copy the model answer sheets on to the answer booklets before they were sent for valuation. 27 Therefore, he alleged that the accused No.1 made all- round efforts to help the candidates who approached him for illegal gratification. He alleged that the answer sheets of some candidates proved that they were written at a particular time by copying a particular model answer which was evident from the 'comma' and 'full stop' found therein and were replicas giving a clear indication that those candidates were given the model answer sheets. He alleged that the accused No.1 had altered the marks awarded by the evaluators for illegal gain. He alleged that though the Selection Committee was required to display the marks obtained by each candidate after the written examination, the same was not done and none of the candidates were informed of the marks obtained by them.
14. The respondent No.2 alleged that the accused No.1 in order to destroy the evidence, 28 destroyed the answer sheets of the unsuccessful candidates even though the writ petitions filed by those candidates were pending before this Court. The complainant alleged that the Selection Committee was bound to inform the eligible candidates by registered post. However, as the accused No.1 was scheduled to retire on 30.06.2014, he managed to send the orders regarding their selection by Short Message Service (SMS) and invited all the candidates to "Bell Hotel"
near the Railway Station, Bengaluru where he administered oath to the candidates. This event was hosted in a grand manner by collecting huge funds from the selected candidates and the posting orders were given by hand in the said hotel. He alleged that the candidates were given the posting of their choice regardless of their place in the merit list, depriving the candidates who were more eligible.29
15. The complainant / respondent No.2 specifically alleged that the candidates with the registration Nos.'029, 429, 1812, 0538, 0722, 1886, 1384, 0162, 0030, 1874, 1062, 1944, 1900, 0746, 0699, 1083, 1643, 0480, 1752, 1868, 1530, 1573, 1490' had conspired with the accused No.1 for manipulating their marks by altering the marks awarded by the evaluators. He alleged that the accused No.1 had though retired from service, wielded clout in the department and was capable enough to destroy the answer sheets. He therefore alleged that the accused No.1 had committed criminal misconduct for his own benefit and thereby, had committed offences under Sections 201, 465, 468, 471 and 420 of IPC and Sections 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d) and 13(1)(2) of the P.C. Act and therefore, prayed suitable action be initiated against him.
30
16. The Trial Court after considering the material placed before it, in terms of its order dated 10.12.2014, referred the case for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta, Police Wing, Bengaluru City Division, Bengaluru and the Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta Police, was directed to assign the investigation to any one of the Deputy Superintendents of Police under his jurisdiction. Later, after investigation, a charge sheet was filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, City Division, Karnataka Lokayukta, against accused Nos.1 and 2 in PCR No.37/2014. The Trial Court after perusing the charge sheet and the materials enclosed with it, in terms of its order dated 30.06.2017, took cognizance of the offences under Sections 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act and Sections 201, 409, 465, 468, 471, 420, 120B read 31 with Section 34 of IPC against the accused Nos.1 and 2 and issued summons to accused No.1 and directed the office to register the case as Special C.C. Later, the Investigating Officer sought time to file supplementary charge sheet as the investigation was still in progress. A supplementary charge sheet was filed on 15.03.2018 for the offences under Sections 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act and Sections 201, 409, 465, 468, 471, 420, 120B read with Section 34 of IPC. The Trial Court perused the supplementary charge sheet and enclosures filed therewith and in terms of its order dated 02.04.2018, issued summons to accused Nos.3 to 63 returnable by 16.04.2018.
17. Being aggrieved by the order issuing process, the accused No.11 has filed Crl.P. No.4690/2019; accused Nos.50, 42, 60, 7, 59, 4, 17, 5, 61, 52, 15, 62, 37, 33, 57, 31, 30, 51, 25, 24, 46, 32 21, 3, 58, 53, 22 and 38 have filed Crl.P. No.831/2019; accused No.8 has filed Crl.P. No.4691/2019; accused Nos.12 and 23 have filed Crl.P No.987/2022 and accused Nos.43, 16, 63, 6, 26, 29, 13, 34, 55, 28, 41, 44 and 32 have filed Crl. P No.6631/2022 for the reliefs mentioned supra.
18. The petitioners in Crl.P No.831/2019 have raised the following grounds:
a) That there was no application of mind by the Trial Court for the purpose of exercising jurisdiction under Sections 190 and 204 of Cr.P.C.
b) That the Trial Court did not even take cognizance of the offences complained of against the petitioners in the supplementary charge sheet which ran into 13000 pages.
c) That the Trial Court has not indicated in the order taking cognizance as to which 33 of the accused has committed what offence.
d) That the accused No.1 is a public servant and even after retirement from service, sanction had to be granted to prosecute him under Section 19 of the P.C. Act. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be prosecuted for an offence under Section 120B of IPC, in the absence of sanction to prosecute the accused No.1.
e) That the allegations made in the supplementary charge sheet do not even remotely suggest the involvement of the petitioners in the alleged offences.
19. The petitioners in Crl.P No.6631/2022 contended as follows:
a) That the petitioners were not public servants and therefore, the offences alleged against them under the P.C. Act were untenable and the Trial Court ought 34 not to have taken cognizance of the offences alleged against them.
b) When summons was served on the petitioners, they were public servants and hence, it was incumbent upon the respondent No.1 to obtain the requisite sanction before prosecuting them.
c) That a perusal of the order sheet of the Trial Court showed that there was hardly any application of mind before taking cognizance. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ravindranath Bajpe v. Mangalore Special Economic Zone Ltd. [2021 SCC Online 806]. They relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Birla Corporation Ltd. v. Adventz Investments and Holdings Ltd. and others [(2019) 16 SCC 610] regarding the importance of the act of taking cognizance.
d) That the supplementary charge sheet filed by the Karnataka Lokayukta Police 35 against the petitioners was an afterthought.
e) That there was an inordinate delay in filing the supplementary charge sheet. In this regard reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Santosh De v. Archna Guha and others [(1994) Supp (3) SCC 735].
20. The petitioners in Crl.P No.987/2022 raised the following contentions:
a) The registration of PCR No.37/2014 and consequent reference for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C without previous sanction of the Government is illegal. Reliance is placed on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the cases of Anil Kumar and others v.
M.K.Aiyappa and another [2013 (10) SCC 705] and L.Narayanaswamy v.
State of Karnataka and others in Crl.A No.721/2016.
36
b) That the private complaint could not have been entertained without compliance of Sections 154(1) and 154(3) of Cr.P.C.
c) That the respondent No.2 did not comply the requirement stipulated in the case of Maksud Saiyed v. State of Gujarat and others [(2008) 5 SCC 668].
d) That a preliminary enquiry was necessary before taking cognizance of the offences against the petitioners. Reliance is placed on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Lalita Kumari v.
Government of Uttar Pradesh and
others [(2014) 2 SCC 1].
e) That there is no whisper in the order
sheet that the cognizance was taken
against the accused shown in the
supplementary charge sheet.
37
21. The respective petitioner in Crl.P.
No.4690/2019 and Crl.P. No.4691/2019 have raised the following grounds:
a) That there was total non-application of mind by the Trial Court before taking cognizance of the offences alleged against the petitioners. That the Trial Court could not have ran through 13000 pages of supplementary charge sheet in a jiffy and could not have taken cognizance unaware of the allegations against each of the accused and the incriminating evidence collected against them.
b) That the Trial Court did not take cognizance of the offences mentioned in the supplementary charge sheet but blindly issued process.
c) That the petitioners were not public servants and therefore, the offences alleged against them under the P.C. Act were untenable and the Trial Court ought 38 not to have taken cognizance of the offences alleged against them.
d) That there was no material to sustain the charge sheet for the offence punishable under Section 120B of IPC.
e) When summons was served on the petitioners, they were public servants and hence, it was incumbent upon the respondent No.1 to obtain the requisite sanction before prosecuting them.
22. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has filed his statement of objections in Crl.P. No.831/2019 and Crl.P. No.4691/2019 contending as follows:
a) That the Trial Court had taken cognizance of the offences on 30.06.2017 by taking into consideration the charge sheet filed against the accused Nos.1 and 2 and had granted permission to the Karnataka Lokayukta Police to file a supplementary charge sheet. Later after 39 the supplementary charge sheet was filed, it took into consideration the further material collected and took cognizance of the offences against the other accused. He submitted that the act of taking cognizance is done only once and not repeatedly.
b) That it was not necessary for the Trial Court to scan each and every page of the charge sheet for the purpose of taking cognizance. The Court had to be only satisfied that the supplementary charge sheet was based on material collected by the Investigating Officer and it was not necessary for the Trial Court to test whether the material so collected was enough to sustain a prosecution.
c) That the petitioners are beneficiaries of the criminal act committed by the accused Nos.1 and 2. That the petitioners have to represent the Department of Prosecution and if they are accused of criminal offences, they are bound to come out clean.
40
23. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submitted that the statement of objections filed in Crl.P No. 831/2019 be treated as objections in the other petitions.
24. Sri P.S. Rajagopal, Sri Pramod Nair and Sri C.H. Jadhav, learned Senior counsel for the respective petitioner/s in all the petitions except Crl. P. No.6631/2022 urged the following common contentions in support of the petitions:
(i) The investigation into the offences under Sections 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the P.C. Act and Sections 201, 409, 465, 468, 471, 420, 120B read with Section 34 of IPC was based on a private complaint lodged by the respondent No.2. The private complaint did not comply with the requirement of Sections 154(1) and 154(3) of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the entire investigation as well as filing of the charge sheet had to be quashed for 41 non-compliance of the mandatory provisions contained in Sections 154(1) and 154(3) of Cr.P.C;
(ii) The Trial Court did not apply its mind before referring the case for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C;
(iii) The Trial Court did not satisfy itself about the material collected against the accused Nos.3 to 63 as required under Section 204(1) of Cr.P.C.;
(iv) That the Trial Court without taking
cognizance against the accused Nos.3 to 63
issued summons to them, which is
impermissible in law;
(v) That there was no application of mind to the supplementary charge sheet and the material enclosed therewith, before issuing process to the accused Nos.3 to 63;
(vi) That the Magistrate did not comply with Section 202 of Cr.P.C. in so far as accused Nos.3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 42 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 44, 45, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62 and 63 are concerned;
(vii) That the allegations in the private complaint are directed primarily against the accused No.1 and therefore, there is no justification to prosecute the other accused;
(viii) That the accused No.1 is a public servant who has retired from service and therefore, sanction under Section 19 of the P.C. Act was mandatory. The Trial Court could not have taken cognizance of the offences mentioned supra against the accused No.1 who is stated to be the prime accused and consequently, the prosecution launched against him had to go. As a result, prosecution launched against these petitioners was also liable to be quashed.43
25. In support of their contentions, the learned Senior counsel for petitioners except the petitioners in Crl. P. No.6631/2022 relied on the following judgments:
1) Badrinath v. State of Tamil Nadu and others [(2000) 8 SCC 395];
2) Criminal Petition No.1422/2021 and connected petitions - Sri Satya Sai Central Trust and another v. State of Karnataka and others; (decided on 22.07.2021); where it was held that non-compliance with Sections 154(1) and 154(3) of Cr.P.C would vitiate not only the order under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C but also the charge sheet filed under Section 173 of Cr.P.C.
3) Criminal Petition No.7866/2022 - Smt. Saritha Sekhar and others v. State of Karnataka and another [decided on 18.05.2023]; where it was held that non-compliance with Sections 154(1) 44 and 154(3) of Cr.P.C would vitiate not only the order under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C but also the charge sheet filed under Section 173 of Cr.P.C.
4) H.N. Rishbud and anr. Vs. State at Delhi [AIR 1955 SC 196]; regarding the effect on a prosecution due to non-compliance of a mandatory provision of law.
5) Najir Kuraishi v. State of U.P. and another [2020 SCC Online All 1756 ];
regarding the contention that there should be prima facie evidence before summoning an accused.
6) S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla and another [(2005) 8 SCC 89]; regarding the considerations to be complied with by a Court before issuing process to an accused.
7) Priyanka Srivastava and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others [(2015) 6 SCC 287]; regarding the 45 effect of non-compliance of Sections 154(1) and 154(3) of Cr.P.C.
8) Crl.P. No.8321/2016 - Dr. Padma Priya v. State of Karnataka and another (decided on 11.07.2018).
9) State of Gujarat v. Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta [(2019) 20 SCC 539];
10) Crl.P. No.2006/2014 and connected
Cases - Sri N.C.Shivakumar and
another v. State and another; and
11) Nupur Talwar v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another [(2012) 11 SCC 465].
26. In reply, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submitted that the Trial Court had taken cognizance of the offences alleged against the accused Nos.1 and 2 by perusing the charge sheet and material enclosed with the charge sheet. He submitted that the Investigating Officer informed the 46 Trial Court that the investigation is underway and that an additional charge sheet would be filed. He submitted that the material enclosed along with the supplementary charge sheet filed thereafter was in continuation of the materials already seized and placed before the Trial Court when the charge sheet was first filed. He therefore submitted that the Trial Court had already applied its mind in the first instance and had found that cognizable offences were made out against the accused Nos.1 and 2. Therefore, he contended that the Trial Court was satisfied about the alleged involvement of the accused Nos.3 to 63 in the commission of the offences. He therefore contended that having regard to the seriousness of the allegations made against the accused, this Court may not interfere with the prosecution.
27. He further submits that Mr.Atma V. Hiremath and another had filed W.P. No.50869/2019 47 seeking direction to the respondent No.1 therein to create Special Investigation Team to investigate the offences committed in the selection of Assistant Public Prosecutors / Assistant Government Pleaders in respect of the notification dated 16.05.2012. Similarly, Samaj Parivartana Samuday (SPS) and another had filed W.P. No.10732/2019. He submitted that a Division Bench of this Court in terms of the order dated 08.12.2021, took notice of the charge sheet and the supplementary charge sheet filed before the competent Court and directed the expeditious consideration of the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioners therein by the Lokayukta and also directed the concerned Court to proceed in accordance with law and decide it expeditiously.
28. The respondent No.2 who entered appearance in Crl.P. No.831/2019, through counsel 48 supported the contentions of the learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
29. I have considered the submissions made by the learned Senior counsel for petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
30. The charge sheet discloses the following allegations against the accused in these cases which are tabulated below:
Accused Alleged Offences No.3 Got removed the tag pin of his original answer
papers of register No.28 of the subjects, i.e., Law-1 and Law-3, replaced with new mark sheet, tampered the answer script by overwriting the marks awarded by the evaluator with the help of accused Nos.1 and 2.
Tampered marks was Law-1: marks awarded = 60; tampered = 68; Law-3: marks awarded = 59; tampered = 67 No.4 Got replaced his original answer sheets of subjects i.e., Law-1, Law-2 and Law-3 of register 29 with rewritten answer sheets and got the same valued by the accused No.2.
49No.5 Got replaced his answer sheet of Law-2 subject as valued by the accused No.2 in register No.31. No.6 Got removed the tag pin of her original answer papers of register No.50 of subjects i.e., Law-1 and Law-2; replaced the same with new facing marks sheet, tampered marks in the answer script with the help of accused Nos.1 and 2 and even tampered marks awarded in the subjects - Law-1, Law-2 and Law-3 papers i.e., Law 1: marks awarded = 46; tampered = 74, Law-2: marks awarded= 31; tampered = 61 and Law-3: marks awarded = 48; tampered = 58 No.7 Got removed the tag pin of his original answer papers of register No.162 of Law-1, Law-2 and Law-3 subjects, replaced with new facing mark sheet, tampered marks in the answer script with the help of accused Nos.1 and 2 and even tampered marks awarded in the Law-1, Law-2 and Law-3 papers i.e., Law 1: marks awarded = 54; tampered = 60, Law-2: marks awarded = 54; tampered = 62 and Law-3: marks awarded = 41; tampered = 64 No.8 Got removed her original answer booklet and replaced it with a new answer booklet of Law-1, of register No 168. She even got removed the tag pin of original answer papers of Law-2 and Law-3 subjects replaced with new facing mark sheet, tampered marks inside the answer script with the help of accused Nos.1 and 2. The tampered marks were Law-2: marks awarded = 58; tampered = 67, Law-3: marks awarded = 62; tampered = 69. 50 No.11 Got removed the tag pin of her original answer booklet of Law-1 paper of register No.357 and replaced it with few new answer sheets in between the papers with a new tag pin, replaced the facing mark sheet. Further she replaced the booklet pertaining to Law-2 subject with new booklet and facing mark sheet, with the help of accused Nos.1 and 2. Even though the accused No.11 was not eligible but got selected as APP.
No.12 In order to be selected as APP, colluded with the accused Nos.1 and 2, removed her original answer sheets of Law-1, Law-2 and Law-3 subjects (register No.429) and replaced the same with new answer sheets No.13 Got removed the tag pin of his original answer papers of Law-1 and Law-3 (register No.490) and replaced them with new facing mark sheet, tampered few marks in the answer script with the help of accused Nos.1 and 2.
Tampered marks i.e., Law-1: marks awarded = 46½; tampered = 67 Law-3: marks awarded = 59; tampered = 67 No.15 Got removed the tag pin of his original answer paper of Law-1 (register No.549), replaced with new facing mark sheet, tampered marks in the answer script with the help of accused Nos.1 and 2. Added additional marks to the marks awarded by evaluator in Law-3.
Tampered marks i.e., Law-1: marks awarded = 49; tampered = 71 and Law-3: marks awarded = 55; tampered = 69 No.16 Got removed the tag pin of his original answer papers of Law-1, Law-2 and Law-3 (register 51 No.600) and replaced with new pin and attached facing mark sheet, tampered marks in the answer script with the help of accused Nos.1 and 2. Tampered marks, i.e., Law-1: marks awarded = 29; tampered = 62, Law-2: marks awarded = 48; tampered = 70, Law-3: marks awarded = 30; tampered = 69 No.17 Got removed his original answer sheets of subjects i.e., Law-1, Law-2 and Law-3 in register No.621 and replaced the same with new answer sheets and facing marks sheet as valued by the accused No.2. No.21 Got removed his original answer sheets and replaced the same with new answer sheets in respect of subjects - Law-1 and Law-2 in register No.700 and facing mark sheet as valued by the accused No.2 and even tampered with the marks awarded by the evaluator in respect of the subject
- Law-3 Tampered marks, i.e., Law-3: marks awarded = 62; tampered = 69. No.22 Got replaced his original answer sheets of subjects i.e., Law-1, Law-2 and Law-3 (register No.722) with the help of accused No.2 No.23 Got replaced her original answer sheets of subjects i.e., Law-1 and Law-3 (register No.730) with the help of accused Nos.1 and 2 and also removed few answer sheets of Law-2 and replaced the same with new answer sheets in-between.
No.24 Got removed the tag pin of his original answer sheets in respect of subjects i.e., Law-1, Law-2 and Law-3 (register No.746) replaced them with new facing mark sheet, tampered marks inside the answer script with the help of accused Nos.1 and 2. Tampered marks, i.e., Law-1: marks awarded = 27½; tampered = 69, 52 Law-2: marks awarded = 35; tampered = 65, Law-3: marks awarded = 40; tampered = 64. No.25 Got removed her original answer sheets of Subjects i.e., Law-1, Law-2 and Law-3 in register No.783 and replaced them with new answer sheets as valued by the accused No.2.
No.26 Got removed tag pin of his original answer sheets of register No.795 of subjects i.e., Law-1, Law-2 and Law-3, tampered marks in the facing mark sheet and other marks in the answer script valued by the evaluator with the help of accused Nos.1 and 2.
Tampered marks, i.e., Law 1: marks awarded = 35; tampered = 65, Law-2: marks awarded = 54; tampered = 66, Law-3: marks awarded = 57; tampered = 67 No.28 Got removed the tag pin of his original answer papers of register No.864 of Law-1, tampered with total marks in the facing mark sheet and other marks in the answer script valued by the evaluator with the help of accused Nos.1 and 2.
Tampered marks, i.e, Law-1: marks awarded = 41; tampered= 68. No.29 Got removed her original answer papers of Law-1 subject of register No.868 and tampered with total marks in the facing mark sheet valued by the evaluator with the help of accused Nos.1 and 2. Tampered marks, i.e., Law-1: marks awarded = 51; tampered = 61. No.30 Got removed his original answer sheets of subjects i.e., Law-1 and Law-2 in register No.880 and replaced them with new answer sheets as valued by the accused No.2.
53No.31 Got removed her original answer sheets of subjects i.e., Law-1, Law-2 and Law-3 in register No.899 and them replaced with new answer sheets as valued by the accused No.2.
No.32 Got removed the tag pin of original answer papers of register No.901 of Law-3 subject and tampered the total marks and other marks in the facing mark sheet valued by the evaluator with the help of accused Nos.1 and 2.
Tampered marks, i.e., Law 3: awarded =72; tampered = 75 No.33 Got removed his original answer sheets of subjects Law-1 and Law-3 in register No.902 and replaced the same with new answer sheets as valued by the accused No.2.
No.34 Got removed the tag pin of her original answer sheets of Law-1 subject in register No.941 and replaced the same with new answer sheets as valued by the accused No.2, and even replaced title sheet, facing mark sheet.
No.37 Got removed the tag pin of his original answer papers of Law-1 and Law-3 subjects in register No.1093 and replaced the facing mark sheet with a new one, tampered few marks inside the answer sheet of Law-2 subject with the help of accused Nos.1 and 2.
Tampered marks, i.e., Law-1: awarded = 35; tampered = 68, Law-2: awarded = 56; tampered = 66, Law-3: awarded = 51; tampered = 73.
No.38 Got removed the tag pin of her original answer sheets of subjects Law-1, Law-2 and Law-3 of register No.1097 of replaced them with new facing mark sheet, tampered few marks inside the answer script with the help of accused Nos.1 and 2. 54 Tampered marks, i.e., Law-1: awarded = 31½; tampered = 61, Law-2: awarded = 41; tampered = 69, Law-3: awarded = 55; tampered = 63.
No.41 Got removed his original answer sheets of Law-2 subject and replaced with new answer sheets as valued by the accused No.2 in register No.1335. No.42 Got removed her original answer sheets of subjects Law-1, Law-2 and Law-3 in register No.1384 and replaced the same with new answer sheets as valued by the accused No.2 No.43 Got removed the tag pin of his original answer papers of subjects Law-1, Law-2 and Law-3 of register No.1400 replaced with new facing mark sheet, tampered with few marks inside the answer script with the help of accused Nos.1 and 2. Tampered marks, i.e., Law-1: marks awarded = 43 ; tampered = 64; Law-2: marks awarded = 48; tampered = 66; Law-3: marks awarded = 57; tampered = 67; No.44 Got removed the tag pin of his original answer sheets of subjects i.e., Law-1, Law-2 and Law-3 of register No.1471 and replaced them with new facing mark sheet, tampered few marks inside the answer script with the help of accused Nos.1 and 2, and in respect of Law-2 subject, even removed the original answer sheets and replaced them with new answer sheets as valued by the accused No.2. Tampered marks, i.e., Law 1: marks awarded = 55; tampered = 63, Law-3: marks awarded = 41; tampered = 71 No.46 Got removed her original answer sheets of subjects Law-1 and Law-3 of register No.1573 and replaced 55 them with new answer sheets as valued by the accused No.2 No.51 Got removed the tag pin of original answer sheets of subjects i.e., Law-2 and Law-3 of register No.1754, replaced them with new facing mark sheet, tampered with few marks inside the answer scripts with the help of accused Nos.1 and 2. Tampered marks, i.e., Law-2: marks awarded = 57; tampered = 67, Law-3: marks awarded = 42; tampered = 68. No.52 Got removed his original answer sheets of Law-3 subject in register No.1760 and replaced them with new answer sheets as valued by the accused No.2 No.53 Got removed his original answer sheets of subjects i.e., Law-1, Law-2 and Law-3 in register No.1784 and replaced them with new answer sheets as valued by the accused No.2 No.55 With the help of the accused Nos.1 and 2, got removed his original answer sheets of Law-1 subject in register No.1849 and got added additional marks to the marks given by evaluator Tampered marks i.e., Law 1: marks awarded =59; tampered = 62. No.57 Got removed his original answer sheets of subjects i.e., Law-1 and Law-2 in register No.1870 and replaced them with new answer sheets as valued by the accused No.2 No.58 Got removed the tag pin of his original answer sheets of subjects i.e., Law-1 and Law-2 in register No.1873, replaced them with new facing mark sheet, tampered with marks inside the answer scripts with the help of accused Nos.1 and 2. Tampered the marks, i.e., 56 Law 1: marks awarded =47; tampered = 63, Law 2: marks awarded = 59; tampered = 67. No.59 Got removed his original answer sheets of subjects Law-1 and Law-2 in register No.1874 and replaced them with new answer sheets as valued by the accused No.2 and tampered with few marks given by evaluator in respect of subject Law-3 Law -3 : marks awarded = 63; tampered = 68 No.60 Got removed her original answer sheets of subjects i.e., Law-1, Law-2 and Law-3 in register No.1886 and replaced them with new answer sheets as valued by the accused No.2.
No.61 With the help of the accused Nos.1 and 2, got removed his original answer sheets of subjects i.e., Law-1 and Law-2 in register No.1895 and replaced them with new answer sheets as valued by the accused No.2 No.62 With the help of the accused Nos.1 and 2, got removed his original answer sheets of subjects i.e., Law-1 and Law-2 in register No.1900 and replaced the same with new answer sheets as valued by the accused No.2 and added additional marks to the marks given by the evaluator in the original answer sheet of Law-3 subject Tampered marks i.e., Law-3 : marks awarded = 62 and tampered = 69 No.63 With the help of the accused Nos.1 and 2, got removed her original answer sheets in subjects Law-1, Law-2 and Law-3 in register No.1944 and replaced them with new answer sheets as valued by the accused No.2 57
31. Before adverting to the contentions pressed into service by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners, it is pertinent to note that the prosecution of an accused cannot be set at naught due to a technical defect or non-compliance of a procedure unless such defect or non-compliance goes to the root of the matter and affects or prejudices the accused in any manner. It is trite that Courts should sparingly exercise power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C but shall not hesitate to do so when there is an apparent abuse of the process of law.
32. In so far as the first contention urged by the petitioners that when the private complaint was filed, there was total non-compliance of Sections 154(1) and 154(3) of Cr.P.C. which is held to be mandatory by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Priyanka Srivatsava (supra), this ground was available to the petitioners soon after a First 58 Information Report was registered by the Police and when the accused were summoned for investigation. However, they did not challenge the order referring the complaint for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C and they did not challenge the investigation itself. However, the investigation is now completed and a charge sheet is filed setting out the role of each of the accused. Therefore, it cannot be claimed that the charge sheet is false. It is no doubt true that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Priyanka Srivatsava (supra) had held that Sections 154(1) and 154(3) of Cr.P.C. are mandatory provisions that have to be complied, so that there is no misuse or abuse of the process of law. However, in the case on hand, there is neither misuse nor abuse of the process of law and therefore, the petitioners cannot exploit the situation and seek for dilution of the charge sheet. The reliance placed on judgments of co-ordinate Benches 59 of this Court in Satya Sai Central Trust (supra) and Smt. Saritha Sekhar and others (supra) are not useful to the petitioners in as much as in Satya Sai Central Trust's case, this Court was convinced that the offences alleged in the private complaint were palpably false and therefore, held that the prosecution was not justified and on the sidelines of such decision, this Court held that non-compliance of the directions issued in Priyanka Srivastava (supra) was fatal. In Smt. Saritha Shekar's case, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court was testing a charge sheet filed, on the anvil of non-compliance of Sections 154(1) and 154(3) of Cr.P.C and held that the complaint at the inception was not in accordance with law and therefore, the subsequent charge sheet also gets impacted. In Priyanka Srivastava (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court was considering a case where a private complaint was filed suppressing previous proceedings and the 60 Hon'ble Apex Court held that in order to curb the menace of misuse / abuse of Courts, the procedure under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) of Cr.P.C has to be mandatorily complied. Likewise, to hold the complainant responsible, it was directed that in all complaints, the complainant shall swear to an affidavit that the contents of the complaint are true and correct. It is now settled that a Judgment of a Court is an authority on what it decides and in Priyanka Srivastava (supra), the Court was not faced with a charge sheet containing accusations that were based on sufficient documentary evidence. Therefore, the Judgment in Priyanka Srivastava (supra) cannot be pressed into service, particularly when a charge sheet is filed and is sought to be substantiated by voluminous oral and documentary evidence. Therefore, the first contention is liable to be rejected and is accordingly rejected.
61
33. In so far as the second contention is concerned, the Trial Court while referring the private complaint for investigation did notice that a cognizable offence was made out against the accused Nos.1 and 2 and therefore, it rightly exercised power under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and referred the case for investigation. There is no error committed by the Trial Court in doing so. Consequently, the contention urged by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners is rejected.
34. In so far as the third and fifth contentions that the Trial Court did not apply its mind before taking cognizance of the offences vis-à-vis the accused Nos.3 to 63 is concerned, the Trial Court noticed that the accused No.1 was the kingpin and passed a detailed order taking cognizance of the offences mentioned supra against the accused Nos.1 and 2. Once the Trial Court exercised power under 62 Section 190 of Cr.P.C and reserved right to the Investigating Officer to file a supplementary charge sheet against the other accused, who were conspirators, the material placed and the role of the accused that was spelt out in detail in the charge sheet was sufficient enough for the Court to proceed in the matter. The accused Nos.3 to 63 were all conspirators with the accused Nos.1 and 2 at various levels and stages, in commission of the offences while some of the accused were beneficiaries of the crime. Therefore, though the Trial Court did not specifically indicate that the charge sheet material against accused Nos.3 to 63 were perused, but the order taking cognizance against them was sufficiently justified and this is not a fit case where this Court should exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
63
35. In so far as the fourth contention is concerned, the absence of the words "cognizance taken" in the order sheet does not mean that cognizance was not taken by the Trial Court. The supplementary charge sheet and all other material were placed before the Trial Court and the Trial Court after perusing the charge sheet issued process, which impliedly meant that it took cognizance. The stage of taking cognizance is crucial, as contended by the learned senior counsel, as it is at that stage that the Court will largely examine the material placed before it and be satisfied that a cognizable offence is made out against the accused. It is only upon taking cognizance that the Court is empowered to issue process against the accused. In the instant case, the Trial Court had issued process after being satisfied that a cognisable offence was made out against the accused. Hence, this contention is rejected. 64
36. As regards the sixth contention that the Trial Court failed to comply with Section 202 of Cr.P.C., as noted by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Birla Corporation Ltd. (supra), Sub-Section (1) of Section 202 of Cr.P.C., was introduced with a view to ensure that the accused who are residing outside the jurisdiction of the Court are not harassed by vexatious proceedings. However, in the case on hand, the proceedings are neither vexatious nor abusive, as the examination was conducted at various centres in the State of Karnataka for the posts of Assistant Public Prosecutors / Assistant Government Pleaders and many of the accused were incidentally residing outside the jurisdiction of the Trial Court which took cognizance. The material collected by the prosecution indicated that the accused Nos.3 to 63 were all conspirators at various levels and stages while some were beneficiaries of the crime. 65 Therefore, the non-compliance of Section 202 of Cr.P.C. cannot result in quashing the proceedings.
37. As regards the seventh contention, the accused No.1 and accused No.2 are the kingpin in the case, while the other accused are the conspirators who have aided/abetted the commission of the offences while some of them were also the beneficiaries of the benevolence of the accused No.1. Therefore, the accused are bound to face the trial and establish their innocence. This contention is also liable to be rejected and is accordingly rejected.
38. The next contention that the accused No.1 is a public servant and therefore non-compliance of Section 19 of the P.C. Act should vitiate the prosecution, is liable to be rejected as the accused No.1 is not before this Court to quash the proceedings against him. The proceeding against the accused No.1 66 is alive and therefore, the petitioners are bound to face the trial along with the accused No.1. This Court has noticed that no protection was available to the accused No.1 at the time he committed the offences alleged. However, protection is now provided to a retired public servant in view of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 (Act No.16 of 2018). Therefore, this contention is also not available to the petitioners and is thus rejected.
39. Viewed from any angle of the matter, there is no merit in these petitions and the same are dismissed.
40. In view of disposal of these petitions, pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed off.
Sd/-
JUDGE bvv