Allowed

State of Karnataka v. Halalingaiah

Karnataka HC11 Dec 2020CRL.RP/1022/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge allowed the Criminal Revision Petition allowing the petitioner to quash the impugned order discharging the respondent. The court held that since the Supreme Court reversed the High Court's judgment in Lakshmikantha S.G.'s case, the trial court's discharge order which relied on that precedent failed.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order discharging the respondent dated 28.04.2016 is set aside. The Trial Court is directed to secure the presence of the accused and proceed with the matter in accordance with law.

State of Karnataka Vs Halalingaiah — Corruption | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

Crl.R.P.No.1022/2016

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

¶7

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.1022/2016

¶8

BETWEEN :

¶9

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY LOKAYUKTHA POLICE REPRESENTED BY PSI LOKAYUKTHA POLICE BENGALURU - 560 001 … PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. PRASAD B.S., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND :

¶12

HALALINGAIAH S/O LATE CHANNALINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS SENIOR ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF HORTICULTURE ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-560 093

¶13

… RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI.C.G.SUNDAR, ADVOCATE)

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 28.04.2016 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU IN SPECIAL CASE NO.128/2014.

¶16

Crl.R.P.No.1022/2016

¶17

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL DISPOSAL THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

Despite granting several opportunities, none

¶21

appeared for the respondent. The trial Court proceedings are of the year 2014.

¶22

Heard the petitioner’s counsel.

¶23

“Whether the impugned orders

¶24

discharging the accused/respondent for the offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act suffer illegality, impropriety or incorrectness?” is the question involved in this case.

¶25

On the basis of the charge sheet filed by the petitioner/Lokayuktha Police in Crime No.8/2014, the respondent was prosecuted before the Principal Sessions Judge and Special Judge for Trial of the offences under the Prevention of

¶26

Crl.R.P.No.1022/2016

¶27

¶28

Corruption Act, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru in Special Case No.128/2014.

¶29

The case of the prosecution in brief was

¶30

as follows:

¶31

i) Complainant/CW1’s wife Rukminiyamma was the owner of the land bearing Sy.No.212/3 measuring 29½ guntas situated in Mayasandra village. The complainant had obtained permission of the Horticulture Department to put up a green house over 20 guntas area in the said land. For that purpose, he had borrowed loan of Rs.19,76,000/from Syndicate Bank. He was entitled to 50% subsidy in the project cost from Horticulture Department.

¶32

ii) During that period, the respondent/accused was working as Assistant Director of Horticulture, Anekal. He demanded illegal gratification of Rs.1,00,000/- to grant the said subsidy and received Rs.10,000/- from CW.1 for that purpose.

¶33

Crl.R.P.No.1022/2016

¶34

¶35

iii) Since CW.1 was unwilling to pay the illegal gratification, he approached the Lokayuktha Police on 25.02.2014. The Investigating Officer in order to verify the allegations of CW.1, provided him a voice recording device, asked CW.1 to meet the respondent again and record the conversation and to get back.

¶36

iv) On 26.02.2014 at 12 noon, CW.1 met the respondent and requested him to sanction the subsidy and respondent reiterated his demand for illegal gratification. The said conversation was recorded in the voice recording device and was produced before the investigating officer.

¶37

v) On 26.02.2014 Lokayuktha Police received the complaint of CW.1 along with the voice recorder and registered the case in Crime No.8/2014 and conducted the trap.

¶38

vi) The respondent was trapped while

¶39

receiving the illegal gratification and bait money was recovered from him. On completing the investigation,

¶40

Crl.R.P.No.1022/2016

¶41

¶42

the respondent was charge sheeted for the offences under the Prevention of the Corruption Act as aforesaid.

¶43

The Trial Court took cognizance of the offence and summoned the respondent. The Trial Court on hearing both side, by the impugned order exercising the power under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. discharged the respondent on the following grounds:

¶44

i) Collecting audio clips prior to the registration of

¶45

FIR, amounted to breach of the provisions of Section 154 of Cr.P.C.;

¶46

ii) Such act of the Investigating Officer is contrary to the judgment of this Court in Lakshmikantha S.G.

¶47

v/s The State by Karnataka Lokayuktha Police and

¶48

another [Crl.P.No.3750/2013 D.D.11.02.2016].

¶49

Sri.B.S.Prasad learned Special Public Prosecutor for the petitioner submits that voice recording prior to the registration of the FIR amounts

¶50

Crl.R.P.No.1022/2016

¶51

¶52

to only preliminary inquiry as contemplated in the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari v/s Govt. of U.P. and others¹ . He further submits that the judgment in Lakshmikantha S.G.’s case relied upon by the Trial Court was reversed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶53

The sole ground for discharge of the respondent was the judgment of this Court in Lakshmikant’s case wherein it was held that the registration of the FIR after voice recording was not saved under guidelines of the judgment in Lalita Kumari’s case.

¶54

Guideline Nos.(ii) & (vi) in Lalita Kumari’s judgment read as follows:

¶55

“ (ii) If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not .

1 (2014) 2 SCC 1

Crl.R.P.No.1022/2016

vi) As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under:

¶60

a) Matrimonial disputes/ family disputes

¶61

b) Commercial offences

¶62

c) Medical negligence cases

¶63

d) Corruption cases

¶64

(emphasis supplied)

¶65

In Lakshmikant’s case it was held that

¶66

information given by the complainant for the first time before the Lokayuktha Police shall be treated as first information and the Investigating Officer resorting to collect the voice recordings of the conversations between the accused and the complainant without registering the FIR violates Section 154 Cr.P.C.

¶67

However, the judgment of this Court in

¶68

Lakshmikantha S.G.’s case was challenged before the

¶69

Crl.R.P.No.1022/2016

¶70

¶71

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Crl.A.No.1066/2017

¶72

(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.6445/2016). The Hon’ble Supreme Court holding that the proceedings of voice recording prior to lodging of the FIR must be understood in the nature of the preliminary inquiry which is permissible in law as laid down by the in Lalita Kumari’s judgment reversed the judgment in

¶73

Lakshmikantha S.G.’s case and directed the continuation of the proceedings against the accused from the stage where the same were interdicted by this Court.

¶74

Having regard to the reversal of the judgment of this Court in Lakshmikantha S.G.’s case by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Crl.A.No.1066/2017, the order of discharge passed by the Trial Court fails. Therefore, the petition is allowed.

¶75

The impugned order dated 28.04.2016 in Special Case No.128/2014 passed by the Principal

¶76

Crl.R.P.No.1022/2016

¶77

¶78

Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru discharging the respondent is hereby set aside.

¶79

The Trial Court is hereby directed to secure the presence of the accused and proceed with the matter in accordance with law.

¶80

Sd/JUDGE

¶81