Quashed

Shri. Vittal Yallappa Byakod v. the State of

Karnataka HC23 Jun 2022WP/23843/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court allowed a writ petition and quashed criminal proceedings against the petitioner-accused for criminal conspiracy, finding insufficient evidence to prove a meeting of minds despite recovery of documents belonging to his brother.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 23.06.2022 was allowed; criminal proceedings C.C.No.29952/2019 regarding the petitioner-accused are quashed.

Shri. Vittal Yallappa Byakod Vs the State of — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO.23843/2019 (GM-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SHRI VITTAL YALLAPPA BYAKOD AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS OCC: CIVIL POLICE CONSTABLE, TRAFFIC POLICE STATION, HALASUR, NOW OLD AT TRAFFIC AIR PORT PS, R/AT H.NO.2, BLOCK NO.5, POLICE QUARTERS, JOGUPALYA, HALASUR, BENGALURU-560 008 & N/O CHIMMAD 587 312 TQ: JAMAKHANDI.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI ASHOK R. KALYANSHETTY, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY IT'S SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMES, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶12

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE BENGALURU CITTY, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶13

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLCE TRAFFIC EAST DIVISION, BENGALURU CITY

¶14

¶15

& DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, TRAFFIC HEAD QUARTERS, INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶16

THE POLICE INSPECTOR SPECIAL ENQUIRY SQUAD, CENTRAL CRIME BRANCH, N T PET, BENGALURU-560 053.

¶17

THE POLICE INSPECTOR/SHO, CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION, OFFICE OF POLICE COMMISSIONER, INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI ROHITH B.J., HCGP)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 482 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AT ANNEXURE-F DATED 12.01.2019 IN CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION CRIME NO.291/2019 REGISTERED BY THE R-5 SECTION 66(C) AND 66(D) OF IT ACT R/W SECTIONS 114, 120B, 379, 420, 468, 471, 474, 485, R/W SECTION 34 IPC AND ALL FURTHER AND CONSEQUENTIAL PROCEEDINGS AS AGAINST HIM (ARRAYED AS ACCUSED NO.27 AS EVIDENT FROM REMAND APPLICATION AT ANNEXURE-E).

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

Respondent No.4 lodged the FIR on 12.01.2019 alleging that a credible information was received that the accused persons S.K. Pujari, Rathod, Dilip, Harsha, Santhosh, Nagaraju in connivance with Basavaraju and Holiyappa with a common intention organized the operation systematically so as to help the aspirants of PSI Exam in securing higher marks by obtaining the question paper illegally and also have taken Rs.30 lakhs from the said candidates and distributed the question papers with key answers through mobile and computer through internet after assembling the candidates from various parts of state. Hence, sought to take appropriate action against the said persons.

¶25

The Police after investigation laid the charge sheet

¶26

for the offence punishable under Section 120(B), 379, 420, 511 read with Section 34 of IPC alleging that the petitioner accused along with other accused assembled in the property belonging to CW4 to receive the leaked PSI examination question papers by paying Rs.30 lakhs. Taking exception to the same, petitioneraccused No.27 is before this Court.

¶27

¶28

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused

¶29

submits that the only allegation as against the petitioneraccused No.27 is that he along with other accused persons assembled in the property belonging to the C.W.4, so as to obtain question paper and also key answers before the scheduled examination and tried to cheat the Government, other candidates and the police department. Hence, he submits that in the absence of any agreement between the parties for commission of an unlawful Act, the filing of the charge sheet by the Police against the petitioner-accused No.27 does not constitute the commission of offence punishable under Section 120B of the IPC. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Parveen Alias Sonu -vs- State of Haryana reported in AIR Online 2021 SC 1131.

¶30

On the other hand, learned HCGP appearing for the State submits that Aadhar Card of the petitioner-accused No.27 and a cheque belonging to the brother of the petitioner-accused

¶31

¶32

No.27 was recovered from the property belonging to the C.W.4 which clearly implies that that accused conspired to indulge in unlawful activities by leaking the question paper by inducing some of the aspiring candidates who intend to appear in the scheduled examination. Hence, the Police have rightly submitted the charge sheet against the petitioner-accused No.27 and other accused which clearly discloses that the petitioner has committed the offence punishable under Section 120B of the IPC and sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶33

I have considered the submissions made by the

¶34

learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶35

FIR was lodged alleging that accused No.1 and 2, with a common intention by illegally securing the question paper and its key answers for the PSI examination scheduled on 13.01.2019, induced the candidates who intended to appear for the said Examination for leaking the question paper and provided them with the key answers by collecting Rs.30 lakhs from the said candidates. The Police after investigation filed the charge

¶36

¶37

sheet against the accused and some of the accused were left out from the charge sheet as they were absconding.

¶38

It is undisputed that before the question papers were secured illegally, accused Nos.1 to 8 were apprehended by the Police and thereafter mahazar was drawn wherein the photocopy of the Aadhar card and also a cheque belonging to the brother of the petitioner-accused No.27 were recovered from the property belonging to the C.W.4. Except the said material, there is no statement of any of the witnesses or the co-accused alleging that the petitioner-accused No.27 had conspired with the other accused persons.

¶39

The Apex Court in the case of Parveen Alias Sonu - vs- State of Haryana reported in AIR Online 2021 SC 1131 at paragraph No.12 has held as follows:

¶40

"12. It is fairly well settled, to prove the charge of conspiracy, within the ambit of Section 120-B, it is necessary to establish that there was an agreement between the parties for doing an unlawful act. At the same time, it is to be noted that it is difficult to

¶41

¶42

establish conspiracy by direct evidence at all, but at the same time, in absence of any evidence to show meeting of minds between the conspirators for the intended object of committing an illegal act, it is not safe to hold a person guilty for offences under Section 120-B of IPC. A few bits here and a few bits there on which prosecution relies, cannot be held to be adequate for connecting the accused with the commission of crime of criminal conspiracy. Even the alleged confessional statements of the co-accused, in absence of other acceptable corroborative evidence, is not safe to convict the accused. In the case of Indra Dalal v. State Of Haryana1, this Court has considered the conviction based only on confessional statement and recovery of vehicle used in the crime. In the said case, while setting aside the conviction, this Court has held in paragraphs 16 & 17 as under:

¶43

“16. The philosophy behind the aforesaid provision is acceptance of a harsh reality that confessions are extorted by the police officers by practising oppression and torture or even inducement and, therefore, they are unworthy of any credence. The provision absolutely excludes from evidence against the accused a confession made by him to a police officer. This provision applies even to

¶44

¶45

those confessions which are made to a police officer who may not otherwise be acting as such. If he is a police officer and confession was made in his presence, in whatever capacity, the same becomes inadmissible in evidence. This is the substantive rule of law enshrined under this provision and this strict rule has been reiterated countlessly by this Court as well as the High Courts.

¶46

The word “confession” has nowhere been defined. However, the courts have resorted to the dictionary meaning and explained that incriminating statements by the accused to the police suggesting the inference of the commission of the crime would amount to confession and, therefore, inadmissible under this provision. It is also defined to mean a direct acknowledgment of guilt and not the admission of any incriminating fact, however grave or conclusive. Section 26 of the Evidence Act makes all those confessions inadmissible when they are made by any person, whilst he is in the custody of a police officer, unless such a confession is made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate. Therefore, when a person is in police custody, the confession made by him even to a third person, that is, other than a police officer, shall also become inadmissible."

¶47

¶48

In the present case, there is no material placed along with the charge sheet to substantiate that the petitioneraccused No.27 conspired with the other accused persons for committing the illegal act or attempted to do an illegal act so as to constitute the commission of the offence punishable under Section 120B of IPC.

¶49

Mere recovery of the alleged photocopy of the Aadhar card and alleged cheque belonging to the brother of the petitioner-accused No.27 cannot imply that the petitioneraccused No.27 conspired with the other accused persons to do an unlawful act. His presence in the property belonging to CW-4 is also not spoken either by the complainant witnesses or any co-accused. In the absence of essential ingredients so as to constitute the commission of the offence punishable under Section 120B of IPC, the filing of the charge sheet against the petitioner-accused No.27 for the said offence is without any substance.

¶50

¶51

The Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka vs. L. Munishwamy and others reported in AIR 1977 SC 1489 at para 7 has held as under:

¶52

”7.xxxxxxx In a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice. The ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to laws made by the legislature. The compelling necessity for making these observations is that without a proper realisation of the object and purpose of the provision which seeks to save the inherent powers of the High Court to do justice, between the State and its subjects, it would be impossible to appreciate the width and contours of that salient jurisdiction."

¶53

In the light of the decision of the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases and in the absence of any material that the petitioner-accused No.27 conspired with the other accused persons in attempting to obtain the question paper illegally, the

¶54

¶55

charge sheet filed against the petitioner-accused No.27 requires

¶56

to be quashed so as to secure the ends of justice.

¶57

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶58

ORDER

¶59

(i) The writ petition is allowed

¶60

(i) The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.19127/2020 pending on the file of the 1st Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, in so far it relates to petitioneraccused No.27 is hereby quashed.

Sd/JUDGE

WP NO. 23843/2019

¶65

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU [SHRI. VITTAL YALLAPPA BYAKOD VS. THE STATE OF AND OTHERS]

¶66

HCJ 10.01.2023 (VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING)

¶67

ORDER ON I.A.No.2/2022

¶68

Heard on I.A.No.2/2022.

¶69

In operative portion of the order dated 23.06.2022 at page-11 instead of C.C.No.19127/2020, the same to be read as C.C.No.29952/2019.

¶70

This order to be read in conjunction to the order dated 23.06.2022.

¶71

Sd/JUDGE

¶72

RKA

¶73

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19

Shri. Vittal Yallappa Byakod v. the State of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Vittal Yallappa Byakod v. the State of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Mohd. Akbar @ Sunnusab Vs District Magistrate / Deputy Commissioner

Shivu @ Shiiv Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Vishalakshamma Vs State by Konanakunte Police Station

Madappa P Vs Vijayanagara Police Station

Mr Abhay Singh @ Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Astamija Dash Vs State of Karnataka