Petitioner challenged rejection of her discharge application in a PC Act case alleging issuance of a false experience certificate in conspiracy with co-accused. The High Court held specific material-based allegations existed, departmental exoneration did not bar trial, and limitation did not apply to the offences invoked; petition dismissed.
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: 2024:KHC:10690 CRL.RP No. 897 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.897 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI GOPALA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI DIWAKARA K. MADDUR, HCGP)
NC: 2024:KHC:10690 CRL.RP No. 897 of 2021
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 12.03.2020 PASSED IN SPL.C.C.NO.376/2014 PENDING ON THE FILE OF LXXVIII (CCH-79) ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS COURT AND SPECIAL JUDGE, P.C. ACT, BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
This matter is listed for admission today. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1.
NC: 2024:KHC:10690 CRL.RP No. 897 of 2021
are materials to proceed against the petitioner and hence they are no entitled for discharge. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present petition is filed.
NC: 2024:KHC:10690 CRL.RP No. 897 of 2021
the petitioner has been exonerated in the departmental enquiry, continuing the proceedings against this petitioner is erroneous. The learned counsel would also contend that from the reported judgment of this Court passed in W.P.No.19700/2018 dated 27.07.2021, it is clear that if the allegations in the departmental enquiry could not be proved on merit and the person is held to be innocent, the criminal proceedings on the said facts cannot be permitted to be continued on the underlying principles of criminal trial needing higher standing of proof. Hence, continuing criminal proceedings against the petitioner is illegal.
complainant has not challenged the order passed by the KAT against the complainant. Hence, the order passed by the KAT has become final and the baseless complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable under law. The CID police have included the name of the petitioner in the charge-sheet only on the ground of the statement made by the co-accused No.1 Dr. B.M.Mohan. It is well settled law that on the basis of statement of co-accused, the police cannot include the name of unconnected person in the charge-sheet. The sanction order produced before the Trial Court said to have been issued by the Government is not supported by any other materials on record to establish that actually the Government has taken any decision and thereafter the Government has directed the Under Secretary to communicate the said order to the accused.
Psychological Methods of Interrogation of Suspects” and the said certificate is fake and on the basis of the said false certificate, accused No.1 gave second false certificate in favour of accused No.2. Hence, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that the petitioner has not disputed the issuance of certificate dated 17.03.2003 and the Investigating Officer collecting the same, invoked the offence punishable under Sections 166, 167, 197, 198, 120B read with 37 of IPC and under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of corruption Act and hence no grounds are made out.
having considered the charges leveled against the petitioner that this petitioner colluding with accused Nos.1 and 3 gave false certificate stating that accused No.2 worked for a period of six months even though no such work was done and based on the certificate issued by this petitioner, accused No.1 issued a certificate in favour of accused No.2 and specific charge is levelled against the petitioner herein. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the order passed by the Trial Court is against the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.54107/2014, wherein this Court made an observation with regard to, it becomes necessary to consider the purport
NC: 2024:KHC:10690 CRL.RP No. 897 of 2021
and impact of the complete exoneration on its merits in departmental enquiry qua the petitioner and the proceedings pending before the criminal Court impugned herein. The issue need not detain this Court for long as it is no longer res integra. The same is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand, since specific allegation made against the petitioner is that this petitioner had indulged in creation of false certificate and based on the false certificate, accused No.1 also gave second false certificate in favour of accused No.2. It is also a specific allegation that this petitioner in connivance with accused Nos.1 and 3 issued the said false certificate.
petitioner has issued the certificate on 17.03.2003 or not, is a matter of trial and rightly comes to the conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled for discharge under Section 227 of Cr.P.C., when serious allegation is made against the petitioner in issuance of false certificate and conspiracy is also alleged against the petitioner. No doubt, there is a delay in including the petitioner as an accused. The case was registered at the first instance against accused No.1 and other accused and the matter was investigated by the CID and hence there was a delay in filing the final report. The offences invoked against the petitioner is for the offence punishable under Section 166, 167, 197, 198, 120B read with 37 of IPC and under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. Hence, the very contention that filing of charge-sheet belatedly after four years is hit by limitation, cannot be accepted considering the penal provisions invoked against the petitioner. Hence, I do not find any ground in the petition to set aside the order passed by the Trial Court in rejecting the application filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C.
NC: 2024:KHC:10690 CRL.RP No. 897 of 2021
following:
ORDER
The petition is dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner/accused No.4 was entitled to discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C. despite allegations she issued a false certificate in conspiracy with co-accused.
Whether exoneration in a departmental enquiry and belated filing of the charge-sheet bar continuation of criminal proceedings.
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Dr. S. Malini
The State of Karnataka, by Madiwala Police Station (transferred to C.I.D.), represented through SPP
K. Sridhara
H.P.Sandesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
