Karnataka High Court
K S Ravindra S/O Shankrappa vs Union Of India on 21 November, 2012
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 21st DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.2227/2012
Along With
WRIT PETITION NOS.70668-70669/2012 (GM-RES)
In Crl.R.P.No.2227/2012:
BETWEEN:
1. K.S.Ravindra
S/O. Shankrappa,
Age:44 Years,
Occ: Motor Vehicles Inspector,
RTO Office,
now at Bijapur.
2. Uday Kumar Kamath,
Age: Major,
Occ: Motor Vehicles Inspector,
RTO Office,
Chikkamangalur.
3. H.R. Guruprasad
S/O. Late R. Rangappa,
Age: 45 Years,
R/O. Sri Rama Temple Street,
Hiremagalur,
Dist: Chikkamangalur. ... Petitioners
(By Sri.V.M.Sheelvant, Advocate.)
:2:
AND:
State of Karnataka
Represented by P.S.I.
Karnataka Lokayuktha,
Bellary. ... Respondent
(By Sri. M B Gundawade, Advocate.)
This Criminal Revision Petition is filed U/S 397(1)
R/W Sec. 401 of Cr.P.C. seeking to set aside the order
dated 26.06.2012 passed by the Prl. Sessions Judge,
Bellary, in Spl. Case No.48/2011 and discharge the
Accused/Petitioners in the interest of justice & equity.
In W.P.Nos.70668-70669/2012
BETWEEN:
1. K.S.Ravindra
S/O Shankrappa,
Age: 44 Years,
Occ: Motor Vehicles Inspector,
RTO Office,
now at Bijapur.
2. Uday Kumar Kamath,
Age: 45 years,
Occ: Motor Vehicles Inspector,
RTO Office,
Chikkamangalur. ... Petitioners
(By Sri.V.M.Sheelvant, Advocate.)
:3:
AND:
1. Union of India
Represented by Secretary,
Department of Law and
Parliamentary Affairs,
New Delhi.
2. State of Karnataka Secretary,
Home Department,
Vidhana Soudha,
Bangalore.
3. Lokayukta
Karnataka Lokayukta,
M.S.Building,
Bangalore. ... Respondents
(By Sri. G.K.Mathad, CGSC for R1,
Sri. P.H.Gotkhindi, HCGP for R2 &
Sri. Jagadish Patil, Advocate for R3.)
***
These Writ Petitions are filed under articles 226 &
227 of the Constitution of India, praying to direct and
struck down section 19(3)(C) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act as ultravires, unconstitutional, contrary to
Section 22 and Section 397 of the Cr.P.C.
The Criminal revision petition along with Writ
Petitions coming on for preliminary hearing this day, the
Court made the following:
:4:
ORDER
As these two petitions relate to one and the same proceedings pending before the Principal Sessions Judge, Bellary in Special Case No.48/11, these petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. The two petitioners in the Writ Petitions are petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 in the criminal revision petition. They have been arraigned as accused Nos. 1 and 2 and the third petitioner in Crl.R.P.No.2227/2012 has been arraigned as accused No.3 before the trial court. The petitioners have been charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 8, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act (for short "the P.C. Act") read with Section 34 of IPC. After filing of the charge sheet, the learned Special Judge took cognizance of the offences and issued summons to the accused persons.
3. Upon their appearance, the accused persons filed application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. seeking their discharge. The said application was opposed by the :5: prosecution. The learned Special Judge after hearing both sides and on perusal of the materials produced along with the charge sheet, by order dated 26.6.2012, dismissed the said application and refused to order discharge. The court also held that there are sufficient materials to proceed against accused persons. Against the said order accused Nos.1 to 3 presented Crl.R.P.2227/12. Thereafter, accused Nos.1 and 2 have filed the Writ Petition questioning constitutional validity of provision of Section 19(3) of the P.C. Act.
4. The petitions are opposed by the respondent - State.
5. Before considering the contentions urged in the Writ Petition, let me first consider as to whether the learned Special Judge is justified in rejecting the application filed by the accused persons for discharge under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. It is now well settled by catena of decisions that even while considering the application for discharge, the court is required to swift the evidence produced along with the charge sheet and to find :6: out as to whether there sufficient materials to proceed against the accused by framing charge. Ultimate test would be if the evidence produced along with the charge sheet is translated into legal evidence and remained unrebutted, whether it would lead to conviction. If the answer is in the affirmative, it is a case for framing charge and if the answer is in the negative, the accused would be entitled for an order of discharge.
6. The case of the prosecution is that CW.1 Police Inspector attached to Lokayuktha Police, Bellary received credible information on 23.2.2010 regarding demand and acceptance of illegal gratification from the drivers and cleaners of the lorries which transported iron ore on Bellary - Ananthapur High way No.63 by the Motor Vehicle Inspectors who are on duty. Immediately, CW.1 summoned CWs. 2 and 3 as panchas, apprised them the intimation received by him and proceeded to the place along with CWs.12 and 16 at about 10.30 p.m. and kept a watch near the check post situated near Hagari. While they were watching, they saw two home guards near the check post stopping the lorries and instructing the drivers :7: and cleaners to show their tappals to the officers in the check post. Accordingly, drivers and cleaners were getting down from the lorries and going inside the check post along with trip sheet and other documents and after some conversation between the drivers and cleaners on the one hand and the officials sitting inside the check post, the drivers and cleaners were taking out some money from the pockets and were paying money to the officials. When CW.1 questioned CWs.4 to 7, drivers / cleaners who had already crossed the check post by showing trip sheet to the officials in the check post, they stated that they paid money to the officials in the check post as demanded by the officials. Thereafter, CW.1 along with panchas and his staff conducted a raid over the check post, apprehended accused Nos.1 and 3 and at that time accused No.2 who was also a Motor Vehicle Inspector fled away from the scene of offence. Thereafter CW.1 conducted search in the check post in the presence of panchas. During the search a sum of Rs.16,985/- was found in the check post which was to be deposited into the treasury. When the table draw of accused Nos.1 and 3 were searched, a sum of :8: Rs.50,410/- was recovered from accused No. 1 and a sum of Rs.3,020/- was recovered from accused No. 3 and when the relevant documents in the check post were verified, it was noticed that a sum of Rs.32,110/- has been collected as fine and thus there was an excess amount of Rs.21,320/-which had not been accounted for. As the said amount was found to be illegal gratification received by the accused persons, the said amount of Rs.21,320/- was seized in the presence of panchas and thereafter CW.1 lodged a written complaint. Thereafter, as per the instructions of Superintendent of Police, Lokayuktha, Bellary, case came to be registered and investigation was taken up. After completion of investigation, charge sheet came to be filed. The learned Special Judge having regard to the materials produced held that there are sufficient materials to proceed against the accused by framing the charges for the aforesaid offences. The order under revision indicates that the learned Special Judge has referred to the materials produced along with charge sheet and has applied her mind to the evidence placed on record.
:9:
7. As noticed supra, the simple case of the prosecution was that an unaccounted money of Rs.21,320/- was found in the check post where accused Nos. 1 & 2 were on duty and that the said money was received as illegal gratification by accused Nos. 1 and 2 from the drivers and cleaners of the lorry which passed through the check post. CWs.4 to 7 who are stated to be the driver and cleaner of the lorry, have in their statement, disclosed that accused Nos.1 and 2 as officials of the Road Transport Department demanded illegal gratification for allowing the lorries to pass through the check post and accordingly, they had paid bribe to the accused. According to the Investigating Officer, the official documents kept in the check post were verified and it was found that on that day, a sum of Rs.32,110/- had been collected as fine. Those documents have been seized and have been produced before the Court. If, all these material evidence are translated into legal evidence and they remain unrebutted, in my considered opinion, it is sufficient to lead to conviction.
: 10 :
8. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is absolutely no evidence regarding demand and acceptance of illegal gratification nor the tainted money was seized. I find no substance in this contention. The statements of CWs. 4 to 7 at this stage prima facie establish the demand made by accused Nos.1 and 2 as public servant for illegal gratification for doing official favour. Their statements also prima facie establish the acceptance of illegal gratification by accused Nos.1 and 2. The acceptance of illegal gratification is further prima facie established from the fact that excess amount of Rs.21,320/- than what was collected on that day as per the official document was found in the check post. It is for the accused to put forth explanation, if any, at the trial of the case. However, at this stage, the materials on record are sufficient to proceed with the case against the petitioners by framing the charges for the aforesaid offences. In view of the above, it cannot be said that the charges are groundless. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the materials available on record, at this stage, in my considered opinion, the : 11 : learned Special Judge is justified in rejecting the application filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. The order under revision does not suffer from any perversity or illegality warranting interference by this Court. Therefore, I find no merit in the revision petition filed by the petitioners, as such it is liable to be dismissed.
9. The Writ Petition is filed only to overcome the provision of Section 19(3) of P.C. Act, which creates a bar from granting stay of the proceedings in a prosecution launched for the offence punishable under the P.C. Act. Filing of Writ Petition appears to have been necessitated since the petitioners had sought stay of further proceedings in the criminal revision petition filed by them questioning the correctness of the order rejecting the application filed under Section 227 Cr.P.C., but in the light of Section 19(3) of P.C.Act, the court could not grant stay. Now since this Court has found that the order passed by the learned Special Judge rejecting the application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. does not suffer from any perversity or illegality as such there are no merits in the revision petition, in my opinion, there is no need or necessity to go : 12 : into the question as to whether Section 19(3) of the Act is constitutionally valid or not. Even otherwise, in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Satya Narayan Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan (AIR 2001 SC 2856) interpreting Section 19(3) of the PC Act and also decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sirajuddin Basha Vs. B.S.Yedyurappa (ILR 2011 KAR 5115). There are no substance in any of the contentions urged in the Writ Petition.
10. In this view of the matter, both the criminal revision petition as well as the Writ Petitions are dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE RS/*