Mr Poojarappa P Vs State by

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:1915 CRL.RP No. 730 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 730 OF 2023

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MR. POOJARAPPA P S/O LATE POOJARI VEERANNA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS JUNIOR ENGINEER WARD NO.77, DATTATRAYA WARD NO.77, 5TH CROSS MALLESHWARM, BANGALORE - 03.

¶8

&PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI P. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADV.)

¶10

AND:

¶11

STATE BY KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA POLICE, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT REP BY ITS SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 01.

¶12

&RESPONDENT

¶13

Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

(BY SRI B.B. PATIL, ADV.)

¶15

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 05.05.2023 PASSED BY THE XXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE (P.C.ACT), BENGALURU ON THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER U/S 227 R/W SEC. 239 OF CR.P.C. IN SPL.C.C.NO.1035/2022 AND CONSEQUENTLY DISCHARGE THE PETITIONER FROM THE ALLEGED OFFENCES U/S 7(a) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT.

¶16

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:1915 CRL.RP No. 730 of 2023

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

Petitioner is before this court in this revision petition filed under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of Cr.P.C, with a prayer to set aside the order dated 05.05.2023 passed in Special C.C.No.1035 of 2022 by the Court of XXIII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge and Special Judge (P.C.Act), Bangalore.

¶22

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶23

The petitioner herein is charge sheeted for offence punishable under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by the respondent-police in Crime No.13 of 2021 and the case in Special C.C.No.1035 of 2022 is registered against him before the Court of XXIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge and Special Judge (P.C. Act), Bangalore. In the said proceedings, the petitioner had filed an application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C, with a prayer to discharge him. The said application was opposed by the prosecution by filing objection. The Trial Court, vide the order impugned dated 05.05.2023 has rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Section

¶24

3 -

¶25

NC: 2026:KHC:1915 CRL.RP No. 730 of 2023

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

227 of Cr.P.C, Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner having reiterated

¶29

the grounds urged in the petition submits that the certificate produced by the prosecution as provided under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act with regard to the voice recording of the petitioner and the first informant is defective. He submits that the entire charge sheet is not placed before the Trial Court. The charge sheet does not contain the report from the Forensic Science Laboratory and it is a defective charge sheet. He also submits that the sanction to prosecute the petitioner has not been accorded by a competent authority. The Trial Court has failed to appreciate these aspects of the matter and has erred in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Section 227 of Cr.PC,.

¶30

Per contra , learned Spl. PP for the respondent has argued in support of the order impugned. He submits that the petitioner was caught red handed while receiving the bribe amount of ¹15,000/- from the first informant. He also submits that the question of validity of the certificate under Section 65B

¶31

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:1915 CRL.RP No. 730 of 2023

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

of the Indian Evidence Act and the competence of the sanctioning authority etc. are subject matter of trial. The prosecution has already made a request before the Trial Court to produce the Forensic Science Laboratory report, after securing the document and therefore, it cannot be said that the charge sheet is defective. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition.

¶34

It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner who was working as an Assistant Engineer in BBMP, had demanded a sum of Rs.50,000/- as bribe for the purpose of taking action against the alleged illegal construction put up by Mr. Gopi. The conversation between the petitioner and the first informant (CW1) has been recorded in his mobile phone and the transcripts of the said conversation is available in the charge sheet. According to the petitioner, the certificate produced by the prosecution as provided under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act is defective. It is trite that at the stage of considering an application for discharge, the Trial Court is not supposed to evaluate the charge sheet material and

¶35

5 -

¶36

NC: 2026:KHC:1915 CRL.RP No. 730 of 2023

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

determine the correctness, genuineness or validity of a document produced along with the charge sheet.

¶39

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of STATE V.

¶40

S.R. HIREMATH - 2019(7) SCC 515 has held that non-

¶41

production of certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act is a curable defect and need for production of such certificate would arise when the electronic record is sought to be produced before the Trial Court during trial. In the case on hand, the prosecution undisputedly has produced a certificate as provided under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. Though a submission is made that the said document is defective, learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out as to what exactly is the defect in the said document.

¶42

A contention is also urged on behalf of the petitioner that the authority which has issued the sanction order to prosecute the petitioner is not the competent authority. In the case of CBI V DHIRENDRA KUMAR

¶43

AGARWAL- (2020) 17 SCC 664 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that validity of the sanction for prosecution is to be

¶44

6 -

¶45

NC: 2026:KHC:1915 CRL.RP No. 730 of 2023

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

considered during trial and only absence of sanction can be challenged at the threshold.

¶48

A further contention has been raised on behalf of

¶49

the petitioner that the charge sheet filed in the present case is incomplete and the report of Forensic Science Laboratory is not placed before the Court. Material on record would go to show that a request is already made by the prosecution before the Trial Court to permit them to produce the certificate from Forensic Science Laboratory, after the same is received. The same is permissible in view of Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C,.

¶50

Perusal of the material on the record would also go

¶51

to show that the respondent/police after fulfilling the pre-trap formalities had laid a trap and on 19.04.2021 the petitioner herein was successfully trapped while receiving the bribe amount of Rs.15,000/- from the first informant/CW1. CW.4 who is the friend of CW.1 was present along with CW.1 at the time of trap. CW.2 is the shadow witness in the present case who allegedly had witnessed petitioner receiving the bribe amount from the first informant. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has made out a prima-facie

¶52

7 -

¶53

NC: 2026:KHC:1915 CRL.RP No. 730 of 2023

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

case against the petitioner and it cannot be said that charge sheet material is not sufficient to ask the petitioner to stand trial for the alleged offence. Under the circumstances, the Trial Court was fully justified in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Section 227 of Cr.P.C,. I do not find any good ground to interfere with the same.

¶56

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Petition is

¶57

dismissed.

¶58

Sd/(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

¶59

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27

¶60

NMS

Mr Poojarappa P v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Poojarappa P v. State by

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

State by Sarguru Police Station Vs Devendra Kumar Soni

Sri Siddegowda Vs Sri Ravindra Agarwal

Tejash Vs State by Kolar Town Ps

Mr. Mehaboobali @ Mehabubali Vs Ms. S G Jagadeesha

Sri. a. Krishna Vs Sri. C. a. Varadaraju

Sayed Mehaboob Vs Mr. Melwyn D Souza @ Melvin