Karnataka High Court
Dr. B C Shantappa S/O Sri. vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 January, 2019
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P. Sandesh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102182/2018
BETWEEN:
DR. B.C. SHANTAPPA,
AGED ABOUT: 60 YEARS,
EX.RESIDENT ENGINEER,
VISVESHWARAYA TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY,
GNANA SANGAMA, BELAGAVI.
RESIDENT OF H.NO.26, APPAJI NILAYA,
3RD CROSS, KANTI LAY-OUT,
VIDYA NAGARA EAST,
CHITRADURGA.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MAHESH WODEYAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
C.E.N. POLICE STATION,
BELAGAVI CITY, BELAGAVI.
REP. BY S.P.P.
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN K.UPPAR, HCGP)
2
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF
CR.P.C., SEEKING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE PETITION AND
DIRECT THE RESPONDENT HEREIN TO RELEASE THE
PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF ARREST IN RESPECT
OF CRIME NO.18/2018 REGISTERED BY THE C.E.N. POLICE
STATION BELAGAVI CITY UNDER SECTIONS 406, 408, 415 AND
420 R/W 34 OF IPC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader and perused the petition and its annexures.
2. The main allegation against this petitioner in the complaint is that this petitioner along with other accused persons with an intention to cheat and cause the loss and appropriate the said money for themselves have released the sum of Rs.6,81,47,594/- (Six Crore Eighty One Lakh Forty Seven Thousand Five Hundred and Ninety Four Only) to the supplier without following the tender procedures as per the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 1999 and 3 other rules and regulations of the University and thereby they have caused the loss to the exchequer of the University.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in his arguments, contends that the petitioner is innocent of the offence alleged against him and the complaint against this petitioner is not specific and prima facie do not indicate any criminal intent. The petitioner is renowned educationist and distinguished scholar, having teaching experience of over 25 years and has alumni spread across the globe. The main allegation made in the complaint is only to non-compliance with the terms of the contract between the University and the supplier of the equipments and same is of purely civil in nature. There is absolutely no chance of fleeing from justice or absconding or misusing his liberty in any manner.
4
4. The one man commission fact finding committee has been constituted by his Excellency Government of Karnataka to submit report relating to use of University funds specifically relating to the tenure of the petitioner. The complainant has not taken up any independent enquiry and reading of the complaint, does not make out any case of criminal intent of cheating or causing loss by the petitioner and hence he has not violated provisions of law or rules.
5. He further contends that the petitioner has not indulged in any act nor caused any loss to the University. Petitioner undertakes to cooperate with the investigation and is ready to appear before the investigating officer whenever he is summoned for inquiry. He undertakes to provide surety to the satisfaction of this Court and not to tamper with any evidence. Further, he undertakes that he will abide by 5 all other conditions as may be imposed by this Court and he provides surety to the satisfaction of this Court.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also reiterates the grounds urged in the petition and further contended that there are no specific allegations against this petitioner and in paragraph No.4 of the complaint the allegation made against him that with an intention to cheat and cause the loss and appropriate the said money for themselves have released the said money without following the procedures as per the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 1999 and other rules and regulations of the University, and the amount was released. Further, it is contended that there is no role of this petitioner in releasing the said amount.
7. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader in his arguments contended that it was the duty 6 of this petitioner to verify the quality of the equipments which was supplied and he has not done the same. He also indulged in siphoning the money of the University and recommended for release of the amount. Hence, he opposed the bail petition.
8. Having heard the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner and also the learned High Court Government Pleader, this Court has to examine whether this Court can entertain the petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., to grant the anticipatory bail in favour of the petitioner.
9. On perusal of the complaint which is marked as documents at page No.12, the allegation is made along with others that with an intention to cheat and cause the loss and appropriate the said money for themselves have released the amount. No doubt, the amount which was released is Rs. 6,81,47,594/- (Six 7 Crore Eighty One Lakh Forty Seven Thousand Five Hundred and Ninety Four Only) and on perusal of the complaint, there are no specific allegations against this petitioner that what the mischief he did and while making the allegation against others also included the name of this petitioner who is Resident Engineer. Learned counsel for the petitioner also brought to my notice that this petitioner wrote a letter that the equipments are supplied at UBDT College of Engineering Davangere. On perusal of the letter which is annexed along with the petition discloses that the Principal UBDT College of Engineering has certified that the equipments have been taken into UBDT stock register and further mentioned that the faculty of UBDT College of Engineering have certified that the equipments and other accessories mentioned in the billare physically verified and the quantity are found correct and subject to test report. When such being the 8 certificate issued by the competent authority and what is the role of this petitioner is not specific and allegation is also general in nature and further he is working as Resident Engineer having permanent abode and hence in the absence of specific allegation against this petitioner, I am of the opinion that this Court can exercise powers under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest subject to certain conditions with the direction to cooperate with the Investigating Officer to investigate the matter and also assist the I.O. to complete the investigation.
10. The counsel for the petitioner also brought to the notice of this Court about bail granted by this Court in Criminal Petition 102051 of 2018 in favour of accused No.1 exercising the powers under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. subject to certain conditions and having considered that accused No.1 has already been enlarged on bail and also the seriousness of allegation made 9 against this petitioner and nature of gravity of the offences, I am of the opinion that this petitioner is also entitled for grant of anticipatory bail subject to the following terms and conditions. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The criminal petition is allowed.
(ii) The petitioner is directed to surrender before the Investigation Officer of the concerned Police station within fifteen days from the date of supply of certified copy of this order. On his appearance, the Investigating Officer shall conduct the interrogation.
(iii) The petitioner shall furnish a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) and furnish two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Authority/Court.10
(iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the concerned Court till the investigation is completed.
(v) The petitioner shall not cause any threat to prosecution witnesses.
Sd/-
JUDGE msr