Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Sri Venkatesh Bhat on 22 July, 2022
Author: H.B. Prabhakara Sastry
Bench: H.B. Prabhakara Sastry
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B. PRABHAKARA SASTRY
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.799 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
State of Karnataka,
By Lokayukatha Police,
Bangalore City Division,
Bangalore 560001.
..Petitioner
(By Sri.B.S. Prasad, Special Public Prosecutor)
AND:
1. Sr. Venkatesh Bhat,
Sub-Registrar,
Jayanagar Sub-registrar office,
Bangalore.
2. Sri.K.R. Renuka Prasad,
Sub-registrar,
Jayanagar Sub-registrar Office,
Bangalore.
3. Sri.LV. Shadakshari,
FDA.,
Jayanagar Sub-registrar Office,
Bangalore.
Crl.R.P.No.799/2018
2
4. S. Nataraj,
Stamp Paper Vendor,
Jayanagar Sub-registrar Office,
Bangalore.
.. Respondents
(By Sri. C.G. Sundar, Advocate)
****
This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 and
401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, with the following
prayer:
"Wherefore the Appellant humbly prays that this Hon'ble
court ay kindly be pleased to set aside the order of discharge dated
15-12-2017 passed by the learned LXXVI Additional City Civil and
Sessions Court and Special Court , Bengaluru in Special
C.C.No.240/2010 (Cr. No.17/2005), thereby discharged the
respondent - Accused No.1 to 4 for the offences punishable under
Sections U/Sec.7, 8, 12, 13(1)(d) r/w. 13(2) of Prevention of
Corruption Act and Section 201 of IPC, consequently dismiss he
application filed by the respondent No.1 to under Section 227 of
Cr.P.C., in the ends of justice."
This Criminal Revision Petition having been heard through
Physical Hearing/Video Conferencing Hearing and reserved on
15-07-2022, coming on for pronouncement of orders this day, the
Court made the following:
ORDER
The present respondents No.1 to 4 have been charge sheeted by the petitioner - Lokayukta Police, in Crime No.17/2005, for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 8, 12, 13(1)(d) read with 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Crl.R.P.No.799/2018 3 Act, 1988 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "the P.C. Act") and under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "the IPC"), which was pending in the Court of the learned LXXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Court and Special Court, Bengaluru (CCH-77), in Special C.C.No.240/2010, till the impugned order dated 15-12-2017, allowing the application filed by the present respondents as accused Nos.1 to 4, under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "the Cr.P.C.") read with Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and discharging all the four accused persons of all the offences alleged against them.
2. The summary of the prosecution case in the Special Court was that, the respondents No.1 and 2 (accused Nos.1 and 2 ) were then working as the Sub-Registrars, Jayanagar, Bengaluru and respondent No.3 (accused No.3) was then working as First Division Assistant (FDA) in the Office of the Crl.R.P.No.799/2018 4 Sub-Registrar, Bengaluru, and respondent No.4 (accused No.4) being a private person is said to be an agent of the respondents 1 to 3 herein ( accused Nos.1 to 3 in the Special Court).
3. CW-1 - Kirubakaran, representing M/s. Quality City Labs Private Limited, had lodged a complaint with the Lokayukta Police (petitioner herein) stating that, the respondent No.1- Venkatesh Bhat and another Shankaregowda - Sub Registrar, Jayanagar, demanded illegal gratification of a sum of `20,000/- in the first instance and after negotiation, reduced it to `18,000/- for registration of a Sale Deed executed in favour of M/s. Quality City Labs Private Limited. On the basis of the said complaint, a First Information Report was registered on 07-06-2005.
After completion of the formalities of Entrustment proceedings, accused Nos.1 and 2 were trapped on 07-06-2005 in the presence of CW-2 (shadow witness) while Crl.R.P.No.799/2018 5 demanding and accepting illegal gratification of a sum of `18,000/- from CW-1 through the respondent No.4. The tainted currency notes of `18,000/- were recovered from Respondent No.4. Further, it is alleged that accused No.3 fled away from the place immediately after the Lokayukta Police entered the Office of the Sub-Registrar and destroyed the Demand Draft for `18,500/-.
After completion of the investigation, the petitioner - Lokayukta Police submitted a requisition on 28-06-2005 and 27-08-2005 to the Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, to accord sanction for prosecution of the respondent Nos.1 to 3. The Government did not accord sanction but by its order dated 13-02-2006, however, a Departmental Enquiry was ordered to be conducted against the respondents No.1 to 3 (accused Nos.1 to 3 in the Special Court) under the provisions of Rule 14-A read with Rule 11 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Crl.R.P.No.799/2018 6 Appeal) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "the K.C.S.(CCA) Rules, 1957).
Once again, the Registrar of Karnataka Lokayukta submitted a requisition on 28-10-2006 to the Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, to accord sanction for prosecution of accused Nos.1 to 3. The Government, once again, refused to accord sanction and same was intimated by letter dated 15-12-2006. One more requisition of the date 04-09-2007 having been submitted, the Government accorded sanction on 19-04-2008 to prosecute the respondents 1 to 3 (accused Nos.1 to 3 in the Special Court). Since there was defect in the sanction order dated 19-04-2008, the Lokayukta Police, by its letter dated 06-05-2008, sent a requisition to rectify the defect and issue a fresh sanction order.
In the meantime, the respondents 1 and 2 approached this Court, in Writ Petition Nos.7000/2008 and 6979/2008 by challenging the prosecution sanction orders and could able to Crl.R.P.No.799/2018 7 obtain an interim order of stay. Later, the said writ petitions came to be dismissed by an order of this Court dated 18-06-2010. Thereafter, the Government withdrew its earlier sanction order dated 19-04-2008 and issued a fresh sanction order dated 06-07-2010 to prosecute the respondents No.1 and 2.
The Inspector General of Registration and Commissioner of stamps, being the competent authority to dismiss the employee in the cadre of First Division Assistant from service, accorded sanction on 07-07-2010 to prosecute the respondent No.3 - Sri. L.V. Shadakshari.
After obtaining the sanction order from the competent authority, the petitioner - Lokayukta Police filed charge sheet against the respondents 1 to 4 (accused Nos. 1 to 4 in the Special Court) for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 8, 12, 13 (1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 201 of the IPC.
Crl.R.P.No.799/20188
4. In response to the summons, the respondents 1 to 4, as accused Nos.1 to 4 in the Special Court appeared before the Special Court and filed an application under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. read with Section 19 of the P.C. Act, seeking for their discharge on the ground of alleged invalidity of the sanction order. An objection was filed to the same by the petitioner - Lokayukta Police.
5. The Special Court tried the validity of the sanction order as a preliminary issue. The prosecution examined CW-12- T.K. Ramachandra, Under Secretary to Government, Revenue Department (Registration and Stamps) as PW-1 and got marked the sanction order dated 06-07-2010 under Ex.P-1. During the cross-examination of PW-1, seven (7) documents were marked on behalf of defence as Exhibits D-1 to D-7.
6. After hearing both side, the Special Court, by its order dated 15-12-2017, allowed the application filed by the Crl.R.P.No.799/2018 9 accused Nos.1 to 4 before it under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. read with Section 19 of the P.C. Act and discharged all the accused persons of the offences punishable under Sections 7, 8, 12, 13 (1)(d) and 13 (2) of the P.C. Act and Section 201 of the IPC in Crime No.17/2005 of the petitioner - Lokayukta Police. Challenging the same, the State by Karnataka Lokayukta Police has filed this revision petition.
7. The Special Court's records were called for and the same are placed before this Court.
8. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the revision petitioner - Lokayukta Police and learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 4 (accused Nos.1 to 4 in the Special Court) are appearing physically in the Court.
9. Heard the arguments from both side. Perused the materials placed before this Court including the impugned Crl.R.P.No.799/2018 10 order passed by the Special Court and also the Special Court's records.
10. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be henceforth referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court.
11. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties, the only point that arise for my consideration in this revision petition is:
Whether the impugned order passed by the learned LXXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Court and Special Court, Bengaluru (CCH-77) dated 15-12-2017 in Special C.C.No.240/2010, discharging the present respondents 1 to 4 (accused Nos.1 to 4 in the Special Court) of the offences punishable under Sections 7, 8, 12, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, warrants any interference at the hands of this Court?
12. The learned Special Public Prosecutor for the revision petitioner/State - Lokayukta Police, in his argument Crl.R.P.No.799/2018 11 submitted that, the request for sanction was made by the Additional Director General of Police, (ADGP), Karnataka Lokayukta, Bengaluru, to the State Government. In response to the same, the State Government vide its order dated 13-02-2006 passed an order, ordering initiation of a Departmental Enquiry against the accused Nos.1, 2 and 3. Since the said order dated 13-02-2006 did not reject the request made by the ADGP of the petitioner - Lokayukta Police, reminders were sent by the petitioner - Lokayukta Police and the Registrar Lokayukta. Accordingly, on 19-04-2008, a sanction was accorded. Since the said sanction was with some typographical mistake, the same was withdrawn and a fresh sanction was accorded against accused Nos.1 and 2 on 06-07-2010. With this, he submitted that there was no rejection of the request of the Lokayukta Police for sanction against accused Nos.1 and 2. When the sanction was sought for by the Lokayukta Police, the Government's order dated 13-02-2006 was addressed to the Karnataka Crl.R.P.No.799/2018 12 Lokayukta for a Departmental Enquiry. The said order would not sustain since it was not preceded by a report under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "the Lokayukta Act"). However, the Special Court by mis-reading the order dated 13-02-2006 held that there was rejection of the request of the Lokayukta Police earlier, as such, in the absence of any changed circumstance, the subsequent sanction becomes invalid in the eye of law.
13. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4 /accused Nos.1 to 4, in his argument submitted that, the order dated 13-02-2006 is a rejection of the request of the Lokayukta Police, therefore, in the absence of any fresh material, fresh sanction cannot be granted.
He submitted that, PW-1 (CW-12) - Sri. T.K. Ramachandra, in his cross-examination has admitted that no fresh materials were placed. Therefore, in the absence of Crl.R.P.No.799/2018 13 there being any fresh material, State Government cannot review its own previous order and accord sanction, when in fact, it had rejected the same earlier.
With this, he submitted that the impugned order passed by the Special Court is just and proper and does not warrant any interference by this Court.
14. A careful reading of the proceeding of the State Government, which has resulted in it passing the order No. ¸ÀASÉå:PÀAE 48 ªÀÄÄ£ÉƸÉÃ(1) 2005, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ, dated 13-02-2006 which is marked as Ex.D-1 would go to show that, the Government, in its proceeding in the reason column, has stated in Kannada language as below:
"ºÉZÄÀ ѪÀj ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï ªÀĺÁ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ, PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ gÀªÀjAzÀ ¹éÃPÀÈvÀ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß CqÀPÀU¼ À ÉÆA¢UÉ ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯ÁV ºÉZÄÀ ѪÀj ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï ªÀĺÁ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ, PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ EªÀgÀÄ C©üAiÉÆÃd£ÉUÉƽ¸À®Ä ²æà ªÉAPÀmÉÃ±ï ¨sÀmï, ²æà J¯ï.«.µÀqÀPÀëj, EªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÉÄïÉÆßÃlPÉÌ D¥Á¢vÀgÀÄ JAzÀÄ PÀAqÀÄ §gÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀÄ w½¹gÀĪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀºÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀªÀÅ PÀÆ®APÀµÀªÁV ¥Àj²Ã°¹, ¸ÀzÀj ²æà PÉ.Dgï. gÉÃtÄPÁ¥Àæ¸Ázï, G¥À Crl.R.P.No.799/2018 14 £ÉÆÃAzÀuÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ, ²æà ªÉAPÀmÉÃ±ï ¨sÀmï, G¥À £ÉÆÃAzÀuÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ²æà J¯ï.«.µÀqÀPÀëj, ¥ÀæxÀªÀÄ zÀeÉð ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀgÀÄ EªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ C©üAiÉÆÃd£É ªÀÄAdÆgÁw E®èzÉ ¥ÀæPÀgt À zÀ ¸ÀvÁå¸ÀvÀåvÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÀAqÀÄ »rAiÀÄĪÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀ£ÀÄß E¯ÁSÁ «ZÁgÀuÉ £Àq¸ É À®Ä ¸ÀPÁðgÀªÀÅ wêÀiÁ𤹠F PɼÀV£ÀAvÉ DzÉò¹zÉ. "
The English translation of the above extraction would read as below:
"The report received from the Additional Director General of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta, Bengaluru along with its enclosure was verified. It was also verified the statement made by the Additional Director General of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta that there are prima facie materials to hold Sri.Venkatesh Bhat, Sri.LV. Shadakshari as the accused and to prosecute them. Without the sanction for prosecution in order to find out the truth in the case with respect to Sri. K.R. Renuka Prasad, Sub-Registrar, Venkatesh Bhat, Sub-Registrar and Sri.L.K. Shadakshari, First Division Assistant, it is decided to hold a Departmental Enquiry and ordered as below:"Crl.R.P.No.799/2018
15
With the above reasoning, the State Government entrusted the case to the Karnataka Lokayukta under Rule 14-A read with Rule 11 of the K.C.S.(CCA) Rules, 1957, for a Departmental Enquiry and the Lokayukta was requested to conclude the enquiry within six months and to submit his report.
It is the above said order, the respondents contended that, is clear order rejecting the request of the ADGP, Karnataka Lokayukta, seeking sanction for prosecuting the respondents 1 to 3 herein.
15. The Special Court also, considering the Government Order dated 13-02-2006 as an order of rejection of the request of the Lokayukta Police for prosecution, proceeded to observe that, the subsequent according of the permission on 19-04-2008 and thereafter on 06-07-2010 was without there being any fresh materials, as such, the said order, according sanction was an order passed without there being proper Crl.R.P.No.799/2018 16 application of mind and with some arbitrariness on the part of the State. It further observed that in the absence of there being any valid sanction as against accused Nos.1 to 3, those accused cannot be prosecuted. It was also observed that, accused No.4 being not a public servant, who is alleged to be a conspirator or an abettor, he would be jointly liable along with the public servant under the P.C. Act. However, since the accused Nos.1 to 3 could not be prosecuted, the prosecution cannot go against accused No.4 also. With this, it allowed the application filed by the accused Nos.1 to 4, under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C read with Section 19 of the P.C. Act.
16. A careful reading of the Government Order dated 13-02-2006 at Ex.D-1 would go to show that, after giving a short preamble to its order, the State Government has, without attributing any reasons as to why it is proceeding to order for a Departmental Enquiry and why it is not considering the request for according sanction to prosecute the accused Crl.R.P.No.799/2018 17 under the P.C. Act, has, without passing any order, either granting or rejecting the sanction sought for, has directly proceeded to order for a Departmental Enquiry. No where the order dated 13-02-2006 mentions that it has rejected the request of ADGP Lokayukta Police for sanction to prosecute the accused. It has nowhere whispered that there are no materials to either deny or defer the sanction for prosecuting the accused under the P.C. Act. For that matter, the order dated 13-02-2006 does not give any reasons for coming to a conclusion of ordering for a Departmental Enquiry, when the request for sanction under the P.C. Act was still under consideration. The said order just mentions 'without there being a sanction', in order to find out the truth, it was decided to direct to hold a Departmental Enquiry. In the said statement it has neither mentioned that, granting of sanction is refused nor it has observed that 'by denying the sanction', still, the truth can be found out by a mere Departmental Enquiry. Thus, no where, the said order Crl.R.P.No.799/2018 18 whispers that the Departmental Enquiry would serve the same purpose what a criminal prosecution was intending to do. Therefore, the Government Order dated 13-02-2006 cannot be considered as an order rejecting the request of the petitioner - Lokayukta Police for sanction.
This Court, in its order in Writ Petition No.7000/2008 (GM-KLA) and Writ Petition No.6979/2008 (GM-KLA) wherein the present respondents No.1 and 2 had challenged both the Government Orders dated 13-02-2006 as well 19-04-2008, had in very clear terms held that, a reading of the entire order in conjunction with the particular sentence i.e. "without there being sanction in order to find out the truth the Government decided to hold a Departmental Enquiry", does not indicate refusal of sanction. The said order was pronounced on 18-06-2010. In the very same order, it was also observed by this Court that, keeping in mind the petitioners before it, who were serving the State, it cannot be Crl.R.P.No.799/2018 19 said that the State had no jurisdiction to initiate the Departmental Enquiry and prosecution since both of them serve different objects and therefore, the Government has a power and jurisdiction to pass two independent orders.
With the above, this Court in said Writ Petition No.7000/2008 and connected matter, has made it amply clear that, the order dated 13-02-2006 was purely an order to initiate a Departmental Enquiry and that it was silent about granting or refusing sanction for initiating criminal action, whereas the order dated 19-04-2008 was an independent order, granting sanction to initiate appropriate action under criminal law against the accused. Therefore, the argument of the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the petitioner - Lokayukta Police that the order dated 13-02-2006 is not an order of rejection of sanction is acceptable, but at the same time, the argument of the learned counsel for the respondents/accused that, by the order dated 13-02-2006, the Crl.R.P.No.799/2018 20 State Government had rejected the sanction to Lokayukta Police to prosecute the respondents herein, is not acceptable.
17. The order dated 13-02-2006 since had not considered the materials placed before it by the Lokayukta Police, more over, it was not an order upon the request of the Lokayukta Police for granting sanction, the State Government, by its subsequent order dated 06-07-2010 has granted sanction, after giving a detailed reasoning as to why it is grating sanction. In the said process, it has noticed the materials placed before it including the complaint, F.I.R. experimental panchanama, trap mahazar, chemical examiner's report, rough sketch of the spot of the offence and statements of eight witnesses and explanation submitted by the accused and the entire record pertaining to the case. After analysing several of the important documents as to how they make out a case of suspicion against the accused, it proceeded to accord sanction as against accused No.1 and accused No.2 Crl.R.P.No.799/2018 21 (respondent No.1 and 2 herein). A separate sanction has been granted already in favour of accused No.3 by the Inspector General of Registration and Commissioner of Stamps under order dated 07-07-2010. The intermediate correspondences by the Karnataka Lokayukta Police and the Registrar of the Lokayukta with the State dated 21-03-2006, 28-10-2006, 04-09-2007, were all reminders, requesting the State Government to accord sanction, which ultimately resulted in the State Government according sanction on 19- 04-2008 and after noticing that the same was with some typographical mistake and few other minor mistakes, withdrawing the same, and issuing a fresh sanction order on 06-07-2010.
18. The above aspects, the Special Court did not notice in its proper perspective. Without noticing the observation and the reasoning given by this Court in Writ Petition Nos.7000/2008 and 6979/2008 dated 18-06-2010, the Special Crl.R.P.No.799/2018 22 Court was carried away with one word used in the Government Order dated 13-02-2006 at Ex.D-1 which in Kannada shows as "C©üAiÉÆÃd£É ªÀÄAdÆgÁw E®èzÉ" i.e. 'without there being sanction for prosecution', jumped to a hasty conclusion that, the said Government Order dated 13-02-2006 was an order of rejection of sanction, as such, in the absence of any fresh material placed by the Lokayukta Police, the Government ought not to have reviewed its previous order and accorded sanction on 19-04-2008, subsequently on 06-07-2010.
19. So far as respondent No.4 herein ( accused No.4 in the Special Court) is concerned, he being a private person, since the sanction against the present respondents 1 to 3 (accused Nos.1 to 3 in the Special Court) holds good, the present respondent No.4 (accused No.4 in the Special Court) alleged to be an agent working for respondents 1 to 3 herein (accused Nos.1 to 3) in the abetment of conspiracy, too is liable to be tried along with the present respondents No.1 to 3 Crl.R.P.No.799/2018 23 (accused Nos.1 to 3 in the Special Court). Since there are sufficient materials to subject the accused Nos.1 to 4 for trial on the alleged offences, the Special Court was not correct in allowing their application filed under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. read with Section 19 of the P.C. Act and discharging them from the alleged offences, as such, the said application deserves to be dismissed.
Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER [i] The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed; [ii] The impugned order dated 15-12-2017, passed by the learned LXXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Court and Special Court, Bengaluru (CCH-77), in Special C.C.No.240/2010, is set aside;
The application filed by respondents 1 to 4 herein (accused Nos.1 to 4 in the Special Court) Crl.R.P.No.799/2018 24 under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, stands dismissed;
[iii] In order to avoid any further delay in the matter, both side parties are directed to appear before the Special Court, without anticipating any fresh summons or notice from it on 10-08-2022 and participate in the further proceedings.
[iv] In view of the fact that the alleged incident is said to have taken place during the year 2005, as such, a very old matter, the Special Court is requested to complete the trial and dispose of the matter, in accordance with law, at the earliest, but not later than six months from the date of this order.Crl.R.P.No.799/2018
25
Registry to transmit a copy of this order to the Special Court along with its records, immediately.
Sd/-
JUDGE BMV*