Allowed

N Munianjappa v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC6 Jul 2021CRL.P/1883/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court, exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., quashed criminal proceedings against a former executive officer. The court held that the offence under the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurement Act (3 years imprisonment) was allegedly time-barred as Section 468(2) Cr.P.C. prohibits cognizance after three years from the commission of the offence. As the cognizance

What did the court decide?

The proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.1192/2016 are hereby quashed.

N Munianjappa Vs State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

Crl.P.No.1883/2018

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF JULY 2021

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1883/2018

¶8

BETWEEN :

¶9

N.MUNIANJAPPA S/O LATE H.NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT ARI VARI NILAYA ANJANI EXTENSION CHINTAMANI CHIKKABALLAPURA – 563 125 … PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI.D.HEMANTH KUMAR, ADV.)

¶11

AND :

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MALUR POLICE BANGALORE – 560 038 REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE – 560 001

¶13

THE DISTRICT OFFICER DEPARTMENT OF BACKWARD CLASS AND MINORITY KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR – 563 130 (RESPONDENT NO.2 IS DELETED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED:08.11.2019)

¶14

EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUK PANCHAYATH MALUR OFFICE OF TAHSILDAR MALUR – 563 130 … RESPONDENTS

¶15

Crl.P.No.1883/2018

¶16

¶17

(BY SRI.K.S.ABHIJITH, HCGP FOR R1; R2 IS DELETED; R3 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.1192/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MALUR.

¶19

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

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

Respondent No.3 is served and unrepresented.

¶22

“Whether the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.1192/2016 on the file of the II Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Malur amount to abuse of the process of the Court ?” is the question involved in this case.

¶23

During 2004-05 the petitioner was working as Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayat, Malur. At that time second accused Ramesh was working as Backward Community Extension Officer in Malur Taluk Panchayat.

¶24

On 28.10.2014 the District Officer Backward community Welfare Department, Kolar District addressed a complaint to the first respondent alleging

¶25

Crl.P.No.1883/2018

¶26

¶27

that during 2004-05 accused Nos.1 and 2 violating the provisions of Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 1999 (‘the KTPP Act’ for short) and Rules, 2000 purchased goods worth Rs.11,47,360/from single agency under different schemes.

¶28

The third respondent submitted the said complaint to the first respondent-Police along with his covering letter dated 12.09.2015. On the basis of such complaint and covering letter, the first respondent registered first information report in Crime No.264/2015 against the petitioner and the second accused for the offences punishable under Section 409 IPC and Section 23 of the KTPP Act. By that time the second accused was already dead.

¶29

On investigation, the first respondent Police filed the charge sheet against the petitioner on 29.01.2016 for the offences punishable under Section 23 of KTPP Act. The first respondent Police dropped the offence under Section 409 IPC. The only allegation was

¶30

Crl.P.No.1883/2018

¶31

¶32

that the accused purchased bed covers and quilts worth Rs.1,13,850/- without calling tender.

¶33

On the basis of the charge sheet, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence against the petitioner, registered the case in C.C.No.1192/2016 and summoned him. The petitioner seeks quashing of the said proceedings on the following grounds:

¶34

i) The alleged purchase was made on the basis of the order passed by the District Officer, Backward community and Minority Welfare Department. The said Officer was not made accused in the case.

¶35

ii) The offence alleged is punishable with imprisonment upto 3 years.

¶36

iii) The complaint was filed after 10 years of the offence. Therefore it is clearly time barred and Section 468 of IPC barred the Magistrate from taking cognizance.

¶37

The allegation is that as per Section 4 of the KTPP Act any procurement exceeding the value of

¶38

Crl.P.No.1883/2018

¶39

¶40

Rs.1,00,000/- should have been by calling tender, but the petitioner and the other accused purchased the goods worth Rs.1,13,850/- from one Narmada Rural Development Society, Bagepalli without calling for the tender.

¶41

Ultimate authority to permit purchase was the District Officer, Backward communities and minority department. The petitioner has produced the copies of the said Officer’s orders dated 10.12.2004 and 15.03.2005. They show that the District Officer directed the petitioner to purchase the required items for the year 2004-05 for upgrading of the Backward community Hostels in the Taluk from President, Narmada Rural Development Society.

¶42

Further the letter dated 15.03.2005 addressed by the District Officer, Backward communities and minority Department, Kolar shows that he sent the bill for the said purchase to the petitioner for further action. Therefore it becomes clear that petitioner has not acted on his own in such purchasing or payment.

¶43

Crl.P.No.1883/2018

¶44

¶45

It is material to note that the said District Officer having directed so and sent the bills under the aforesaid two communications himself directed to register the complaint against the petitioner and other accused. The third respondent though served has not appeared to deny the aforesaid two orders of the District Officer.

¶46

The offence under Section 23 of the KTPP Act carries punishment of imprisonment up to 3 years and fine up to 5000/-. Section 468(2) Cr.P.C. bars the Court from taking cognizance in such offence beyond period of three years. Learned Magistrate overlooking Section 468(2) Cr.P.C. has taken cognizance. On that count also, the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed. Therefore the petition is allowed.

¶47

The proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.1192/2016 are hereby quashed.

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

akc

N Munianjappa v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N Munianjappa v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Azgar Ali Vs M/S Metcoimpex

Smt Shantha S Chandra Vs Sri M N Sreeramachandra

State of Karnataka Vs Kumara

R. Naveen Vs M. Venugopal

Sri v Muniyappa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri B L Girija Shanker Vs State of Karnataka