Court partly allowed revision petition, set aside trial court order discharging respondent for bribe giving under Section 8 of PC Act, and directed framing of charge. Section 13(2) PC Act held inapplicable.
Order of discharge for Section 8 PC Act set aside; direction to frame charge; Section 13(2) PC Act held inapplicable.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2023:KHC:43398 CRL.RP No. 219 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.219 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE POLICE INSPECTOR KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA POLICE WING, CITY DIVISION BENGALURU-560 001.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI VENKATESH S. ARBATTI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI SAMPATH @ SANTHOSH S/O. SRI K. PUTTAPPA RESIDING AT HONNAHALLI TALUK HONNAHALLI VILLAGE DAVANAGERE-577 002.
Digitally signed by VINUTHA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI UMESH P. B., ADVOCATE, FOR SRI R. B. DESHPANDE)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 397(1) & (3) AND 401 OF THE CR.P.C. READ WITH SECTION 27 OF THE PC ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 15-11-2016 IN SPL.C.C. NO.116/2011 PASSED BY THE LXXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYOHALL UNIT, BENGALURU.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
NC: 2023:KHC:43398 CRL.RP No. 219 of 2017
O R D E R
Heard Sri Venkatesh S. Arbatti, learned special
counsel for the petitioner-Lokayukta, and Sri Umesh P.B., learned counsel for the respondent-accused.
2. The petitioner has filed this petition under
Sections 397(1) & (3) and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C') read with Section 27 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'PC
Act') praying to set aside the order dated 15-11-2016 passed by the LXXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru, in Special Criminal Case No.116 of 2011.
3. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that the Inspector of Police, Lokayukta, on 24-6-2011, filed the charge-sheet against the respondent-accused Sri Sampath @ Santhosh, who is a private person, alleging commission of offences under Sections 8 and 13(2) of the PC Act, in
respect of compensation of Rs.2,48,00,000/- granted by the KIADB in favour of CWs.4 and 5. On 22-9-2010, CW1
NC: 2023:KHC:43398 CRL.RP No. 219 of 2017
made search in the house of the accused and seized xerox documents in respect of the KIADB office, recorded the statement of the witnesses and filed the charge-sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 8 and 13(2) of the PC Act. The trial Court on application filed by the accused under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. observed that the Police after investigation have filed the charge-sheet on a single F.I.R. The trial Court held that the accused is not a public servant and therefore, the proceedings against him cannot be continued for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) of the PC Act. The trial Court further held that when the Investigating Officer has already filed comprehensive charge-sheet in Special Criminal Case No.151 of 2011, the Investigating Officer should not have filed separate charge-sheet in Special Criminal Case No.116 of 2011.
4. Perused the material available on record. Initially,
the Investigating Officer registered a case in Crime No.45 of 2010. Later, during the course of investigation, the
NC: 2023:KHC:43398 CRL.RP No. 219 of 2017
present case has been made out and hence, the Investigating Officer conducted two different investigations in respect of land bearing Survey No.7/P23 of B.K. Halli, Jala Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk and Survey No.1/4 of Arebinnamangala Village, Jala Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk. The witnesses cited in both the charge-sheets are different, cause of action is different and the bribe amount involved is also different. Therefore, though the complainant filed single F.I.R., but filing of two chargesheets on a single F.I.R. is not barred in the circumstances that prevail in the instant case.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent-accused vehemently contended that the Investigating Officer ought not to have registered single F.I.R. and registration of separate F.I.R. was required in this case.
6. Learned special counsel for the petitionerLokayukta submits that Section 13(2) of the PC Act will not be applicable to the case on hand and hence, framing of charge against the accused is not at all necessary.
NC: 2023:KHC:43398 CRL.RP No. 219 of 2017
However, there is sufficient material against the accused to frame charge for the offence punishable under Section 8
of the PC Act.
7. It is trite that at the stage of consideration of an
application for discharge, Court has to proceed with an assumption that material brought on record by prosecution are true and evaluate the said material and documents with a view to find out, whether the facts emerging there from taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At this stage, Court is not expected to go deep into the matter and hold that material would not warrant a conviction, what needs to be considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not whether a ground for convicting the accused has been made out. Therefore, the disputed question of the fact cannot be adjudicated upon while considering an application filed under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C.
NC: 2023:KHC:43398 CRL.RP No. 219 of 2017
8. At the time of framing of charge under Sections 227, 239 or 245 of the Cr.P.C. only prima-facie case has
to be seen. Further, the trial Court while taking into consideration the special facts of the case can discharge the accused, if chances of ultimate conviction are bleak and no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue. This ratio is laid down in the case of MADHAVRAO JIWAJIRAO SCINDIA AND ANOTHER v. SAMBHAJIRAO CHANDROJIRAO ANGRE
AND OTHERS reported in (1988) 1 SCC 692 .
9. On perusal of the material on record, the Investigating Officer filed charge-sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 8 and 13(2) of the PC Act.
NC: 2023:KHC:43398 CRL.RP No. 219 of 2017
"8. Offence relating to bribing of a public servant.- (1) Any person who gives or promises to give an undue advantage to another person or persons, with intention—
(i) to induce a public servant to perform improperly a public duty; or
(ii) to reward such public servant for the improper performance of public duty;
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years or with fine or with both:
Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply where a person is compelled to give such undue advantage:
Provided further that the person so compelled shall report the matter to the law enforcement authority or investigating agency within a period of seven days from the date of giving such undue advantage:
Provided also that when the offence under this section has been committed by commercial organisation, such commercial organisation shall be punishable with fine.
(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall apply to a person, if that person, after informing a law enforcement authority or investigating agency, gives or promises to give any undue advantage to another person in order to assist such law enforcement authority or investigating agency in its investigation of the offence alleged against the latter."
in part holding that there is material against the
respondent in respect of Section 8 of the PC Act. However, Section 13(2) of the PC Act is not applicable to the respondent. Accordingly, I pass the following
ORDER
ii. The order dated 15-11-2016 passed by the LXXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru, in Special Criminal Case No.116 of 2011, in respect of discharging the respondentaccused for the offence punishable under Section 8 of the PC Act is set aside and the trial Court is directed to frame charge against the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 8 of the PC Act.
NC: 2023:KHC:43398 CRL.RP No. 219 of 2017
Registry is directed to send the trial Court record
along with a copy of this order, forthwith.
Sd/JUDGE
KVK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the discharge of the accused under Section 227 Cr.P.C. for offence under Section 8 of PC Act was correct.
Whether filing of two charge-sheets on a single F.I.R. was barred in the facts of the case.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Madhavrao Jiwajirao ScindiaReferred¶49
MADHAVRAO JIWAJIRAO SCINDIA AND ANOTHER v. SAMBHAJIRAO CHANDROJIRAO ANGRE AND OTHERS reported in (1988) 1 SCC 692 · Who else cites this
5 provisions across 2 enactments
STATE OF KARNATAKA
SRI SAMPATH @ SANTHOSH
VENKATESH NAIK
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
