Karnataka High Court
M Srinivasan vs State By Karnataka Lokayukta Police on 17 November, 2015
Author: A.V.Chandrashekara
Bench: A.V.Chandrashekara
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.CHANDRASHEKARA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1068/2015
BETWEEN:
M SRINIVASAN
S/O S V MUNIVENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
FORMER PRESIDENT OF ZILLA PANCHAYATH
KOLAR
R/O POLYTECHNIC ROAD
JAGAJEEVANPALYA
SRINIVASAPUR TOWN
KOLAR DISTRICT-563135
... PETITIONER
(By Sri: S G RAJENDRA REDDY, ADV.)
AND
STATE BY KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA POLICE
KOLAR
REPRESENTED BY SPL.PP
BANGALORE-560 001
... RESPONDENT
(By Sri: VENKATESH S DALWAI, SPL PP )
THIS CRL.RP FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS
HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE
2
ORDER DATED 23.09.2015 IN PCACC.NO.4/2011 PASSED
BY THE PRL. S.J., KOLAR, KOLAR DIST. AND DISCHARGE
THE PETR. FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 7,13(1)(d) R/W 13(2)
OF THE P.C. ACT.
THIS CRL.RP COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the Lokayukta.
2. This revision petition is filed under Section 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging the order dated 23.09.2015 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kolar, in PCACC No. 04/2011.
3. An application had been filed under Section 227, Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner who is the sole accused and the same came to be dismissed on 23.09.2015 after contest. It is this order which is called 3 in question in this revision petition on various grounds as set out in the memorandum of revision petition.
4. After conclusion of the investigation, charge sheet came to be filed by the Lokayukta Police, against the accused-petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The allegation against the petitioner is that he demanded Rs.3,00,000/- as bribe to do official favour to the complainant. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the complainant, trap was laid by the investigating officer, in the presence of panchas. It is alleged that before trap, a pen camera had also given to the complainant so as to record the conservation of petitioner with the complainant,the recorded conservation is converted into DVD.
5. The main contention of the learned counsel is that the materials collected during the investigation do 4 not even remotely suggest the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged incident and that no case is made out to proceed further in order to frame charge for the offences mentioned in the charge sheet.
6. Mr. Venkatesh P. Dalwai, the learned counsel for the Lokayukta vehemently has argued that there are sufficient materials placed on record to frame charge against the petitioner and prays for dismissal of the petition.
7. On perusal of the records it is seen that before trap, a pen camera was given to the complainant to record the conversation between complainant and accused-petitioner and after recording the same has been converted into CD/DVD. The admissibility of the electronic records like pen camera and DVD, as per Section 65-B of the Evidence Act will have to be considered during a full pledged trial. According to the prosecution, the entire trap proceedings have been 5 videographed and the same is converted into DVD. Furthermore, whatever the grounds urged in the present petition could be the basis for the defence of the accused during the course of trial. All these aspects have been considered by the trial court while sifting the evidence in order to see whether there are any grounds to proceed further to frame charges.
8. Thus it is too premature for this Court discard the investigation materials, at this stage. Suffice to state that the materials placed on record are sufficient to frame appropriate charges against the accused. There is no illegality or perversity in the approach adopted by the trial Court, while rejecting the application filed under Section-227 of Cr.P.C., for discharge. Thus no good grounds are made out to interfere with the well considered order passed by the learned trial Judge.
Accordingly the revision petition is dismissed. It is made clear that any observations made in this Order 6 shall not influence the learned trial Judge, while considering the case on merit.
Sd/-
JUDGE VR