Allowed

H K Krishne Gowda v. State by Karnataka Lokayukta Police

Karnataka HC16 Dec 2020CRL.RP/919/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal revision petition challenged an order rejecting the petitioner's application for discharge. The High Court set aside the lower court's order because the trial court proceeded to trial without taking cognizance of the offence as required by law.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dismissing discharge application set aside; matter remanded to trial court to proceed from pre-cognizance stage.

H K Krishne Gowda Vs State by Karnataka… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

Crl.R.P.No.919/2016

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

¶7

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.919/2016

¶8

BETWEEN :

¶9

H.K.KRISHNE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS S/O KOTE GOWDA WORKING AS CHIEF ENGINEER EARLIER WORKED IN HEMAVATHI PROJECT RANGE GORUR, R/O HEBBALA KOPPALU KRISHNARAJANAGAR TALUK HASSAN NOW AT KARNATAKA PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT AWAITING POSITING RESIDING AT NO.16, II FLOOR, 5^TH BLOCK, 2^ND MAIN, KUMARA PARK WEST BANGALORE – 560 020 … PETITIONER (BY SRI.P.S.RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT.ASHWINI RAJAGOPAL, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND :

¶11

STATE BY KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA POLICE HASSAN POLICE STATION HASSAN – 573 201 REP. BY SPL.P.P. HIGH COURT M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE – 560 001 … RESPONDENT (BY SRI.B.S.PRASAD, SPL.P.P.)

¶12

Crl.R.P.No.919/2016

¶13

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 24.06.2016 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS AND SPECIAL JUDGE, HASSAN IN SPECIAL CASE NO.156/2015 AND DISCHARGE THE PETITIONER FROM THE ALLEGATIONS.

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

“Whether the impugned order of the trial Court

¶18

rejecting the application of the petitioner for his discharge in Spl.Case No.156/2015 suffer any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness?” is the question involved in this case.

¶19

In the year 2014, the petitioner was working as Chief Engineer at Hemavathi Project Zone, Gorur of Hassan District and thus he was a public servant. On 22.09.2014 at about 4.30 p.m. CW.1 the Police Inspector, Karnataka Lokayuktha, Hassan Division allegedly on the basis of the information received against the petitioner conducted search in the office of the petitioner. It was alleged that during such search a sum of Rs.5060/- was recovered from the person of

¶20

Crl.R.P.No.919/2016

¶21

¶22

the petitioner and Rs.75,000/- dropped by him behind the toilet of his office was also recovered. It was alleged that on the search of the residence of the petitioner, a sum of Rs.4,43,100/- was recovered and the petitioner could not satisfactorily explain the possession of such huge amount.

¶23

After the said search and seizure, the petitioner was charge sheeted in Crime No.19/2014 of Hassan Lokayuktha Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘the PC Act’ for short). According to the prosecution, the petitioner was collecting illegal gratification from the contractors on each bill to clear their debts.

¶24

The petitioner filed an application under Section 227 Cr.P.C, for his discharge on the ground that in the prosecution records, there was no material to proceed against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the PC Act. The respondent opposed the said application.

¶25

Crl.R.P.No.919/2016

¶26

¶27

The trial Court on hearing the parties by the impugned order rejected the said application holding that there was material to proceed against him.

¶28

Apart from the merits of the impugned order Sri Rajagopal, learned senior counsel appearing for Smt. Ashwini Rajagopal, learned Advocate on record for the petitioner submits that on filing the charge sheet, the trial Court proceeded against the petitioner without taking cognizance of the offence, therefore the entire proceedings after the stage of filing the charge sheet were vitiated.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced the certified copy of the order sheet in Spl.Case No.156/2015. This Court also on telephonic communication secured the copy of the order sheet in Spl.Case No.156/2015. The said records reveal that on 23.09.2014 for the first time, the order sheet was opened in Crime No.19/2014 and the petitioner was produced before the trial Court. On 30.09.2014, the

¶30

Crl.R.P.No.919/2016

¶31

¶32

trial Court granted bail to the petitioner and then the matter was being adjourned awaiting the final report.

¶33

On 21.11.2015, the trial Court adjourned the matter to 26.02.2016 awaiting the final report. The order sheet further shows that in the meantime, on 30.12.2015, the respondent-police filed the charge sheet and the matter was assigned to Principal District Court. Since the scheduled date was on 26.02.2016 again the matter was called on that date. On that day the trial Court commenced to proceed with the stage of hearing before charge.

¶34

After filing the charge sheet, the trial Court without taking cognizance of the offence posted the matter to the next stage of hearing before charge. On 11.03.2016 the petitioner filed application under section 227 Cr.P.C. for his discharge. The prosecution filed objections to the said application. The trial Court by order dated 24.06.2016 dismissed the said application. Thus it becomes clear that the trial Court without taking cognizance has proceeded to hold Inquiry/Trial against

¶35

Crl.R.P.No.919/2016

¶36

¶37

the petitioner. Thereby the trial Court has committed the jurisdictional error and acted contrary to Section 190(1) (b) of Cr.P.C. The impugned order is liable to be set aside on that ground itself. Therefore the petition is allowed.

¶38

The impugned order dated 24.06.2016 in Spl.Case No.156/2015 dismissing the application of the petitioner for discharge is hereby set aside.

¶39

The matter is remanded to the trial Court. The trial Court is requested to proceed with the matter from pre-cognizance stage. In case the trial Court takes cognizance of the offences it shall consider the application of the accused for discharge in accordance with law after giving opportunity to both the parties.

¶40

All contentions of the parties on application of the

¶41

accused for discharge are left open.

¶42

In view of disposal of the petition itself, pending IAs do not survive for consideration and disposed of accordingly.

¶43

akc

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

H K Krishne Gowda v. State by Karnataka Lokayukta Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

H K Krishne Gowda v. State by Karnataka Lokayukta Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Karnataka Vs Gangadharappa

Suresh Venkataraman Bhat Vs Rajashekhara Gowda S/O Budappa Gowda

Chikkanna Shetty Vs State by Nazarbad Police

Smt Susheela Nanjappa Vs Dr Ayi Vaman Narashinh Acharya

Shivakumar Vs the State by Cesc

Deepak K Joshi Vs State of Karnataka