Dismissed

Mr H Suresh v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Dec 2021WP/13294/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition challenging proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The court held that new facts cannot be introduced during discharge proceedings under Cr.P.C. and found no infirmity in the lower court's order rejecting the discharge application.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed. The proceedings under Special Case No. 136/2017 were upheld.

Mr H Suresh Vs the State of Karnataka — Corruption | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 02^ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.13294 OF 2020 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

Mr. H.Suresh, S/o Hanumanthappa Shetty P., Aged about 49 years, Assistant Director of Factories, Division-2, Mysuru-570001.

¶9

Also at :

¶10

No.11/13, 2^nd Main, 2^nd Cross, Kaveri Nagar, Kathriguppa, Bengaluru – 560 085.

¶11

…Petitioner

¶12

(By Sri Sharan B Tadahal, Advocate)

¶13

AND

¶14

The State of Karnataka Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms, Dr Ambedkar Veedhi, Vidhana Soudha, Bengaluru-560001 Represented by its Principal Secretary

¶15

¶16

The State of Karnataka Department of Home, Dr Ambedkar Veedhi, Vidhana Soudha, Bengaluru-560001 Represented by its Principal Secretary

¶17

The Deputy Superintendent of Police, The Anti Corruption Bureau, Ashok Nagar, Urva Store, Mangaluru-575006.

¶18

…Respondents

¶19

(By Sri Rohith B.J., HCGP for R1 & R2; Sri. Jeevan J Neeralgi, Advocate for R3)

¶20

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to set aside proceedings in Special Case No.136/2017, dated 19.12.2019 (Annexure-L) pending on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Judge at Mangaluru and etc.,

¶21

This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing this day, the court made the following:

¶22

ORDER

¶23

I have heard the learned counsel for the

¶24

petitioner Sri Sharan B Tadahal and Sri Jeevan J Neeralgi, counsel for respondent No.3.

¶25

The petitioner has challenged the proceedings

¶26

in Special Case 136/2017 on the file of II Additional

¶27

¶28

District and Sessions Judge, D.K, Mangaluru. The petitioner is facing charge for the offence under section 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short ‘the Act’). The allegations are that when a search was conducted in the office of the petitioner on 30.11.2016 based on a complaint made by G.Hanumantha Kamath who is the President of Nagarika Hitharakshana Samithi, Mangaluru, a sum of Rs.1,12,865/- and Rs.2,36,650/were found in the possession of the petitioner. These amounts were seized. Thereafter, investigation was held and the charge sheet was filed against the petitioner.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits

¶30

that in order to prosecute the petitioner for the offence under section 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Act, there must be demand and acceptance. In this case, the complainant Hanumantha Kamath made

¶31

¶32

a complaint to the ACB police on the information that he had received. Actually there was no demand for bribe from him. Nobody had made a complaint about demand for bribe. Therefore, the entire search was vitiated. He submitted that the money seized from the petitioner was not bribe money, he had withdrawn the same from bank for providing treatment to his ailing wife. When an application for discharge of the petitioner was made in the trial court, the bank statement for withdrawing the amount was produced, but the trial court did not consider it. He further submitted that the proceedings against the petitioner are not maintainable.

¶33

On the other hand, Sri Jeevan J Neeralgi

¶34

submits that it is not necessary that there must be demand in order to prosecute a public servant in relation to offence under section 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Act. No suitable explanation was

¶35

¶36

given by the petitioner at the time when the search was conducted. The public servant is not expected to keep with him a huge sum of money and this amounts to misconduct and therefore the prosecution of the petitioner is legal and there are no grounds to quash

¶37

the proceedings against the petitioner.

¶38

The petitioner has not been prosecuted for

¶39

the offence under section 7 of the Act to say that there must be demand for bribe. Facts indicate a slightly different position. G.Hanumantha Kamath received the information that the petitioner was in the habit of receiving bribe and therefore he approached the ACB police for initiating action against the petitioner. Based on this information, ACB police initiated action and seized a huge amount of money. Soon after seizure, it appears that the petitioner was asked to give an explanation for possessing a huge amount. But he did not give.

¶40

¶41

The petitioner applied for discharge by

¶42

making an application under section 227 Cr.P.C and at that time he wanted to introduce the defence by producing bank statement to show that he had withdrawn certain sum of money for the purpose of providing treatment to his wife. Rightly, the trial court did not consider this explanation for discharging him. It is a settled principle of law that an accused is entitled to seek discharge based on the charge sheet materials. If he is able to point out from the charge sheet materials that prima facie no offence is constituted, then certainly an accused may be discharged. But, he cannot introduce new facts for seeking discharge. In this view, the explanation that the petitioner offered during the time when his application under section 227 of Cr.P.C was considered, cannot be considered and even now the same cannot be considered for allowing the Writ

¶43

¶44

Petition. However, the petitioner can introduce his defence based on the contentions he has taken here in this petition. Thus looked, I do not find any infirmity in the order dated 19.12.2019 passed by the court below on the application made under section 227 Cr.P.C. There are no grounds to quash the proceedings. Petition is dismissed.

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

ckl

Mr H Suresh v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr H Suresh v. the 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

The Chief Executive Officer Vs the State by

Shri Lakshmi Steel Suppliers Vs Samruddhi Realty Ltd.

M/S Concept Horizon Infra Pvt.Ltd Vs Aparna Nagesh Prakash

Sri Thimmaraju Vs the State of Karnataka by

Chandrashekar. L Vs M. T. Krishnappa

Sri Natarajan S Vs State of Karnataka by