Allowed¶43

C L Jayram v. State Represented by Lokayukta

Karnataka HC9 Apr 2025CRL.P/3722/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of corruption prosecution under Section 482 CrPC; Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d)(ii)(iii) r/w 13(2); abuse of process of law; retired Deputy Commissioner of Excise; forwarding of excise inspector's report; transfer/shifting of excise licence; Grama Panchayath building; Brahmagiri Wild Life Sanctuary / reserve forest; Lokayukta FIR No.1/2013; private complaint PCR No.3/2012; Spl.C.No.5001/2017; W.P.No.36563/2017; Karnataka High Court; Justice R. Nataraj; NC: 2025:KHC:15142.

What did the court decide?

The impugned prosecution of the petitioner in Spl.Case.No.5001/2017 pending trial before the II Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Kodagu, Madikeri (sitting at Virajpet) is quashed insofar as the petitioner is concerned. ¶43

C L Jayram Vs State Represented by Lokayukta — Corruption | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶43

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal proceedings against the petitioner in Spl.C.No.5001/2017, arising from PCR No.3/2012 and FIR No.1/2013 under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, were ill-motivated and an abuse of the process of law warranting quashing under Section 482 CrPC. +1 more

¶29

Court's answer

The private complaint proceeds on the assumption that the petitioner was responsible for the shifting of the licence; therefore the impugned prosecution of the petitioner, being faulty and defective and an abuse of the process of Court and law, is liable to be halted.

¶38

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner's only role was that he had forwarded the report of the Inspector of Excise for transfer of the licence; whether the building where the licence was to be shifted lay within a reserve forest or in revenue land must have been ascertained by the Revenue DC, and since the building was constructed by the Panchayath and leased to accused No.10, the petitioner cannot be held responsible and had no criminal intent in shifting the licence.

¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC by a retired Deputy Commissioner of Excise, arrayed as accused No.4 in Spl.C.No.5001/2017 (arising from a private complaint in PCR No.3/2012 and FIR No.1/2013 against 11 officials) for offences under Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d)(ii) & (iii) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, concerning the shifting of an excise licence to a building constructed by the Grama Panchayath of Betoli and leased to accused No.10: HELD, the petitioner's only role was to forward the report of the Inspector of Excise for transfer of the licence; whether the building lay within a reserve forest or revenue land was for the Revenue DC to ascertain from the forest/revenue departments, and since the building was constructed by the Panchayath and leased to accused No.10, the petitioner cannot be held responsible and had no criminal intent in the shifting of the licence; the private complaint proceeded on the wrong assumption that the petitioner was responsible for the shifting; the impugned prosecution being faulty and defective and an abuse of the process of Court and law is liable to be halted. Petition allowed; proceedings in Spl.C.No.5001/2017 quashed insofar as the petitioner is concerned.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15142 CRL.P No. 3722 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3722 OF 2024

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

C.L. JAYRAM S/O C.S. LAKSHMINARAYAN, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, RETIRED DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, R/AT N.152, 3^RD CROSS, NEAR RADHAKRISHNA HOSPITAL, GIRI NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560085.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. SANDESH KUMAR M., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

STATE REPRESENTED BY LOKAYUKTA DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, OFFICE OF LOKAYUKTHA, MADIKERI-571201 BY SPL. P.P. HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.

¶13

V.T.MADAN SON OF V.N.THIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, ARGEE VILLAGE, VIRAJAPETE TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT - 571218.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. PRASAD B.S., SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;

¶16

NOTICE SERVED ON RESPONDENT NO.2)

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:15142 CRL.P No. 3722 of 2024

¶19

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO CALL FOR ENTIRE RECORDS IN RELATING TO SPL.C.NO.5001/2017 PENDING BEFORE THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KODAGU-MADIKERI, SITTING AT VIRAJPET AND QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN SPL.C.NO.5001/2017 PENDING BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MADIKERI, SITTING AT VIRAJPET, ALLEGING OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 13(1)(d)(ii)(iii) READ WITH SECTION 13(2) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988, SAME IS ARISING OUT OF FIR NO.1/2013 IN VIEW OF FILING PCR.NO.3/2012.

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

The petitioner has called in question the legality of the proceedings initiated by the respondent No.2 in PCR No.3/2012 before the District Sessions and Special Judge, Madikeri, Kodagu, for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 12, 13(1) (d) (ii) & (iii) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (henceforth referred to as ‘the PC Act').

¶24

The petitioner contends that he was working as a Deputy Commissioner of Excise from 2008 at Madikeri and retired from service on 31.08.2010. He contends that based on

¶25

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15142 CRL.P No. 3722 of 2024

¶26

a private complaint lodged by the respondent No.2 in PCR No.3/2012, a case in FIR No.1/2013 was registered for the offences punishable under Section 7, 12, 13(1) (d) (ii) & (iii) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, against 11 officials. A charge sheet was also filed on 12.06.2017, where the petitioner was arrayed as an accused No.4. It is contended in the private complaint, it was stated that land in Sy.No.211/18 was part of Brahmagiri Wild Life Sanctuary and that a building was constructed over the above land by the Grama Panchayath of Betoli and leased it to the accused No.13. It is alleged that the officials of the Forest Department and the Panchayath had failed to control the illegal activities in the said building such as gambling, dumping waste etc. Apart from the illegal activities, the Excise Department had permitted shifting of an excise license of accused No.10 to the said building, based on an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Madikeri, on 14.06.2010. It is contended that the petitioner was not responsible for the shifting of the license of the accused No.10, as he had only forwarded the recommendation of the Inspector of excise to the Deputy Commissioner, who after getting inputs from other departments permitted shifting of the license. He contends that

¶27

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:15142 CRL.P No. 3722 of 2024

¶29

the Deputy Commissioner who was arraigned as accused No.5 in Crime No.1/2013 was left out in the charge sheet. Therefore, it is contended that the initiation of the proceedings against the petitioner was ill-motivated and a clear abuse of the process of law.

¶30

It is pointed out that in similar circumstances, this Court in W.P.No.36563/2017 had quashed the proceedings against accused No.9, who was an official of the Forest Department. He has therefore contended that the petitioner is similarly placed and is therefore entitled to the same relief.

¶31

The writ petition is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent No.1, who has filed statement of objections wherein, it is inter alia contended that it was the duty of the petitioner to ensure whether the recommendation of the excise inspector was in accordance with law or not, more particularly when the building where the license was to be shifted lay within a reserve forest and since he did not take any steps in that regard, the case lodged against the petitioner was justified.

¶32

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:15142 CRL.P No. 3722 of 2024

¶34

I have considered the submissions of the learned

¶35

counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent No.1.

¶36

A perusal of the private complaint as well as the charge sheet filed against the petitioner and other accused shows that the petitioner was arrayed as an accused as he at the relevant point of time, was working as the Deputy Commissioner of Excise. It is seen that the excise license granted to the accused No.10 was shifted to Kakethodu, Makutta, Heggala Village in Virajapet Taluk on 14.06.2010 by the Deputy Commissioner (Revenue) of Madikeri District. The only role of the petitioner was that he had forwarded the report of the Inspector of excise for transfer of the license. Whether the building where the license was to be shifted lay within a reserve forest or in revenue land must have been ascertained by the Revenue DC from the forest department or the department of revenue. Since the building was constructed by the Panchayath and leased to the accused No.10, the petitioner cannot be held responsible. Hence, it can safely be said that the petitioner had no criminal intent in shifting the license. The private complaint proceeds on the assumption that the

¶37

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:15142 CRL.P No. 3722 of 2024

¶38

petitioner was responsible for the shifting of the license. Therefore, the impugned prosecution of the petitioner being faulty and defective and an abuse of the process of Court and law is liable to be halted.

¶39

In that view of the matter, the following order is

¶40

passed:

¶41

ORDER

¶42

i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶43

ii) The impugned prosecution of the petitioner in Spl.Case.No.5001/2017 pending trial before the II Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Kodagu, Madikeri(sitting at Virajpet), is quashed in so far as the petitioner is concerned.

Sd/(R. NATARAJ)

JUDGE

BKN

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5

C L Jayram v. State Represented by Lokayukta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C L Jayram v. State Represented by Lokayukta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr Mayanna Gowda Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. H. Rebecca Nesamani Vs the Government of Karnataka

Kumari Sangeetha T R Vs Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation

R K Bharat Krishna Vs Canara Bank

Sri Chethan Krishna Vs All India Council for Technical Education

Sathish Kumar S T Vs Union of India