Allowed

Sri K M Chandregowda v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Jun 2023WP/36563/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the High Court held that the charge sheet against the petitioner lacked substance as no material proved he granted permission to shift a licence to reserved forest land, as per Rule 5. The court ruled that merely extending a renewal under Rule 5-A did not violate the rules.

What did the court decide?

The criminal proceeding in Special Case No.5001/2017 insofar as it relates to the petitioner (accused No.9) is quashed.

Sri K M Chandregowda Vs State of Karnataka — Corruption | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:20102 WP No. 36563 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 36563 OF 2017 (GM-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI K M CHANDREGOWDA S/O. LATE. K. MANCHEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, NO. 88, 1ST MAIN, CHBS LAYOUT, 3RD STAGE, VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 040.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. KESHAVAREDDY M, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, OFFICE OF THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA, MADIKERI.

¶12

…RESPONDENT

¶13

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

(BY SRI. VENKATESH S ARABATTI, ADVOCATE)

¶15

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 NO. 1/2013 DATED 2.1.2013 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND THE CHARGE SHEET FILED IN SPL. CASE NO. 5001/2017 AT ANNEXURE-D DATED 12.6.2017 ON THE FILE OF II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE'S COURT, KODAGU, MADIKERI (SITTING AT VIRAJPET) UNDER P.C. ACT AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER AND ETC.

¶16

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:20102 WP No. 36563 of 2017

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The Lokayukta Police after conducting the investigation submitted a charge sheet for the offence punishable under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act and Wildlife Protection Act against the accused Nos.1 to 13.

¶20

The petitioner - accused No.9 has been charge sheeted for the offences punishable Section 13(1)(d)(ii)((iii) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention and Corruption Act.

¶21

The summary of the charge sheet against the petitioner - accused No.9 is that, when he was discharging his duties as Incharge Deputy Commissioner of Kodagu District, Madikeri had granted CL-2 licence held by P V Chengappa (accused No.10) by transferring the licence from Private Bus Stand to a reserved forest land in Kakethodage.

¶22

The learned Sessions Judge after accepting the charge sheet took cognizance of the aforesaid offences against the petitioner herein. Taking exception of the same, the accused No.9 is before this Court.

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioner - accused No.9 submits that the petitioner when working as incharge as Deputy Commissioner had only renewed the CL2 licence in favour of accused No.10 in conformity with Rule 5-A of the Karnataka Excise (Sale of Indian and Foreign Liquor) Rules, 1968, and had not granted permission to shift the licence

¶24

¶25

NC: 2023:KHC:20102 WP No. 36563 of 2017

¶26

allegedly to a reserved forest land. Hence, he submits that, the allegation that the petitioner had granted the permission to shift the licence is without any substance and consequently, the impugned proceeding requires to be quashed.

¶27

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent - Lokayukta vehemently contended that, the petitioner - accused No.9 by granting permission to shift the licence to a reserved forest land has committed the aforesaid offences, and the veracity of the allegation against the petitioner - accused No.9 can be considered only after trial and at this stage, the cognizance taken by the learned Sessions Judge does not warrant any interference.

¶28

Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the charge sheet materials.

¶29

Rule 23 of the Karnataka Excise Licences (General Conditions) Rules, 1967 deals with shifting of shops and specifies that, subject to restrictions prescribed in Rule 5, the Deputy Commissioner may permit the licensee to shift the location of the shop from one place to another within the limits of the Gram Panchayat or within the Municipal Area or City Municipal Corporation. For granting permission to shift, the Deputy Commissioner has to follow the procedure prescribed in Rule 5 which deals with restrictions in respect of location of shop.

¶30

¶31

NC: 2023:KHC:20102 WP No. 36563 of 2017

¶32

The accused No.10- was granted permission to shift his licence from private Bus Stand Madikeri allegedly to a reserved forest land by order dated 14.6.2010 passed by the accused No.13.

¶33

After permission was granted to shift the licence and after shifting, the accused No.10 filed an application for renewal of CL2 licence for the excise period 2011 - 2012. The petitioner - accused No.9 by order dated 29.6.2011 renewed the licence in favour of accused No.10 w.e.f 1.7.2011 to 30.6.2012.

¶34

Rule 5-A of the Karnataka Excise (Sale of Indian and Foreign Liquor) Rules, 1968, deals with renewal of licence, which specifies that upon an application submitted by the licensee along with licence fee prescribed, the Deputy Commissioner renews the licence. A reading of the said Rule indicates that there is no requirement for the Deputy Commissioner to follow the procedure prescribed in Rule 5 of the Karnataka Excise Licences (General Conditions) Rules, 1967. The only requirement is that the application for renewal must be made along with the licence fee prescribed. The petitioner - accused No.9 has only renewed the CL2 licence in favour of the accused No.10 and not granted permission to shift the licence in violation of the Rules.

¶35

In the absence of any material that the accused No.9 has granted permission to shift the licence allegedly to a

¶36

NC: 2023:KHC:20102 WP No. 36563 of 2017

¶37

¶38

reserved forest land, the charge sheet laid against the accused No.9 is without any substance and consequently, the cognizance taken by the learned Sessions Judge stands vitiated. Hence, the continuation of the criminal proceeding in the absence of any materials to constitute the offences alleged against the petitioner will be an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶39

ORDER

¶40

i) Writ petition is allowed.

¶41

ii) The impugned proceeding in Special Case No.5001/2017 on the file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu, Madikeri, sitting at Virajpet, insofar as it relates to the petitioner - accused No.9 is hereby quashed.

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

BKM

Sri K M Chandregowda v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri K M Chandregowda 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

Smt.Taheera Begum and Ors. Vs the State and Ors.

Lalesab Vs the State of Karnataka

Lalsab Vs the State of Karnataka

Ramesh G Sanga Vs the State and Anr.

Niyazodin and Ors. Vs Farheen and Anr.

Sapna Vs the State of Karnataka and Anrq