H R Bhagavan Das Vs Anti Corruption Bureau

S/O LATE H. RUDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/AT NO.173, 1^ST CROSS 3^RD MAIN ROAD, CIL 'A' BLOCK AECS LAYOUT, SANJAY NAGARA RMV 2^ND STAGE BENGALURU-560 094 SENIOR CITIZEN VIDE: ES005S220069300

¶12

S.M.BALARAJU

¶13

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

S/O LATE MAYIGAIAH S.V., AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS SHANU BHOGANAHALLI, MANDYA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571 416.

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR P., ADVOCATE A/W SRI. S.V. GIRI KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU OFFICE OF THE DYSP, ACB KOLAR NOW REPRESENTED BY OFFICE OF THE DYSP LOKAYUKTHA, KOLAR-563101 REPRESENTED BY SPL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶19

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:33032 CRL.RP No. 1701 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560001.

¶22

…RESPONDENT

¶23

(BY SRI. VENKATESH S. ARABATTI, SPL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)

¶24

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 16.09.2025 IN SPL.C.CNO.4/2021 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT KOLAR AND TO ALLOW THE DISCHARGE APPLICATION UNDER SECTIONS 227 OF THE CRPC AND TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS U/A 13(1)(c)(d)(ii)(iii) AND 13(2) OF THE PC ACT 1988, IN SPL.C.C.NO.4/2021 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT KOLAR INVOKING ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THE COURT UNDER 482 OF CRPC OR OTHERWISE.

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

This matter is listed for admission. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent.

¶29

This revision petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Trial Court in rejecting the application filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C, wherein the Trial Court having considered the grounds urged in the application and also the statement of objections rejected the same. While rejecting the

¶30

3 -

¶31

NC: 2026:KHC:33032 CRL.RP No. 1701 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

application, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that in this case, the accused No.1 was an IPS officer, who reached upto a level of Superintendent of Police in the State of Orissa.

¶34

The Trial Court referring the proposition of law laid down in the KALICHARAN MAHAPATRA vs. STATE OF

¶35

ORISSA comes to the conclusion that the same is not applicable to this case. However, taken note that the allegation against accused Nos.1 to 3 are serious in nature and accused No.1 played an active role in backlog appointments and he is main pillar to appoint his relatives to the post of Police constables. For the said illegal act, accused Nos.2 and 3 have contributed. On appraisal of prosecution material, this Court is of the opinion that accused might have committed an offence as projected by charge sheet material. Therefore, accused Nos.1 to 3 are not entitled for discharge. Being aggrieved by the order of Trial Court, present revision petition is filed before this Court.

¶36

The main contention of learned counsel appearing for the petitioners before this Court is that accused No.1 served as IPS Officer and worked as Superintendent of Police,

¶37

4 -

¶38

NC: 2026:KHC:33032 CRL.RP No. 1701 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

particularly at Kolar District. The counsel would submit that when the Department came to know about illegality in the appointment, the same was not proceeded further and brought to notice of this Court the order passed by the Director General and Inspector General of Police dated 27.07.2016 and direction which was given to cancel the recruitment which made by accused No.1 after following due procedure was immediately withdrawn. The counsel also would submit that the beneficiaries have also approached KAT and the KAT also considered their request and set aside the decision taken by the Government vide Government Order dated 16.07.2018. When such being the case, continuing of the proceedings against these petitioners, that too a criminal prosecution is not sustainable in the eye of law.

¶41

Per contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor

¶42

appearing for the respondent would submit that though the said decision was taken on 27.07.2016 to cancel the appointment made by accused No.1 vide Government Order dated 16.07.2018, the same was subsequently withdrawn and though, the said order was challenged before the KAT and the

¶43

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:33032 CRL.RP No. 1701 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

order of the KAT is very clear that without compliance of principles of natural justice, taking the decision and proceeding against the petitioner is not sustainable. However, there is a different course of action available to the Government to proceed against the erring officer. But, the applicants cannot be penalized by depriving them of their livelihood. Hence, the order of the KAT is also not giving any clean chit in favour of these petitioners are concerned. When an another application was filed and while passing order on the said application also, liberty was given to proceed against the erring officials and observed that respondents shall take fresh decision, if necessary, after affording an opportunity to the applicants and to extend all the benefits. He would also would submit that even after taking decision on 27.07.2016, the matter was investigated by the CID and the report of the CID is also very clear to proceed against the erring officials. When such being the factual aspects, the Police have investigated the matter and invoked the offences under Sections 13(1)(c)(d)(ii)(iii) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Hence, after completion of the investigation, charge sheet is filed. The Trial Court also while considering the matter comes to the

¶46

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:33032 CRL.RP No. 1701 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

conclusion that the offences are serious in nature making the appointment of kith and kin of accused No.1 and accused Nos.2 and 3 assisted, contributed and conspired with accused No.1 in selecting the kith and kin of accused No.1. Hence, reason given by the Trial Court is sustainable in the eye of law and without conducting trial, the petitioners cannot be discharged.

¶49

Having heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent and also taking note of material available on record, it is not in dispute that accused No.1 was working as Superintendent of Police and appointment was made in respect of backlog posts. The material also clearly discloses that there was no such backlog posts available as on the date of appointment and thereafter, it has come to the knowledge of the Department that kith and kin of accused No.1 have been appointed for two posts in the said process of appointment for 5 posts. When the decision was taken to proceed against him and no doubt, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners brought to notice of this Court that on the very next day, the decision taken to canceling the appointment was withdrawn on

¶50

7 -

¶51

NC: 2026:KHC:33032 CRL.RP No. 1701 of 2025

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

27.07.2016, but, subsequently the matter was also investigated by CID and recommendations were made to investigate the matter and the material also discloses that the beneficiaries are the relatives of accused No.1.

¶54

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that petitioner No.2 is only an employee and he has done the postman's job. But, the fact is that he was also working along with accused No.1 is not in dispute. When such being the case, when he was also in the very same office and the recruitment has taken place in respect of the posts which are not in existence and when the investigation is also conducted and found appointment of kith and kin of accused No.1 in the said selection and also the Trial Court while rejecting the application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. comes to the conclusion that the nature of allegations made against the petitioners are serious in nature appointing kith and kin in the said selection process. Hence, I do not find any error on the part of the Trial Court in rejecting the application filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. and matter requires trial whether he had indulged in such act or not and whether other candidates also

¶55

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:33032 CRL.RP No. 1701 of 2025

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

participated and procedure was followed and the same cannot be decided while considering the application under Section 227 of Crl.P.C. At the time of considering the application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C., the Trial Court also cannot appreciate the material available on record and the Court has to only take note whether serious and strong suspicious circumstances are found and whether case is made out to proceed against the accused persons. When such being the case, the Court cannot conduct any mini trial at the time of considering the application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. and other contention that no material against second petitioner cannot be accepted while considering the application of his role also to be tested in Trail Court. Hence I do not find any ground to set aside the order of the Trial Court.

¶58

Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.

¶59

Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

¶60

ST

¶61

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31

H R Bhagavan Das v. Anti Corruption Bureau

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

H R Bhagavan Das v. Anti Corruption Bureau

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Akrama Khan Vs Syed Jamalauddin

Sri. Lokesh. L Vs Sri. Govindraj Nambi

Sri Kumar Naika @ Dinesha Vs Sri H C Halappa

Sri. Vijayakumar B.C Vs M/S Mci Bangalore Finance (R)

Smt. C a Vijayalakshmi Vs Smt. Lily Mary

Sri H G Chikka Narayana Gowda Vs State of Karnataka