It is pertinent to note that without exhausting
the remedy before the Forensic Laboratory of Karnataka,
sending the voice sample to the Truth Labs, which is a
private agency and collecting the report which is been
placed as a gospel truth in filing the charge sheet has also
resulted in affecting the rights of the accused. Therefore,
the very cognizance itself should not have been taken by
the learned Special Judge and charge sheet should have
been returned. {Para 19}.
The Karnataka High Court upheld a trial court order discharging a public servant of graft charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act as the Lokayukta police sent the voice sample of the conversation between the official and the complainant wherein he allegedly demanded a bribe, to a private agency instead of sending it to government Forensic Science Laboratory for analysis.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
CRL.RP No. 699 of 2017
STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs G. RAMACHARI
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024
Citation: 2024:KHC:50561.
Heard Sri Prasad B.S., learned counsel for the
revision petitioner and Sri M.B.Rajashekar, learned counsel
for the respondent.
2. A charge sheet came to be filed by the Lokayuktha
Police, Chikkaballapura against the accused for the offence
punishable under Section 7 read with Section 13(2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act.
3. Accused appeared before the Court and filed an
application under Section 227 of Cr.PC, seeking discharge.
Prosecution opposed the said application by filing the
detailed objections.
4. Learned Special Judge heard the parties in detail
and by the impugned order dated 16th November 2016
allowed the application of the accused and discharged the
accused from the charges.
5. Being aggrieved by the same, the Lokayuktha
Police is in revision petition before this Court.
6. Facts in the nutshell led to filing of the charge
sheet are as under:
7. A complaint came to be lodged with the
Lokayuktha Police, Bengaluru Rural District, stating that
on 26.08.2014, complainant met the accused for release
of the vehicle which was seized during the election time.
Accused said to have demanded illegal gratification in a
sum of Rs.5,000/- for release of the seized vehicle.
Complainant had obtained the Court order for release of
the vehicle and met the Sub-Inspector, Rural Police
Station, Chikkaballapura on 23.08.2014, who in turn
directed him to meet the accused. Accordingly, the
complainant met the accused on 26.08.2014 at about
12.30 p.m. making a request to release of the vehicle. It is
further alleged by the complainant i.e. at this juncture the
accused demanded bribe amount of Rs.5,000/- to release
the vehicle in terms of the Court order.
8. Based on such complaint, the Lokayuktha Police,
Bengaluru Rural District registered the case and the
investigation was commenced by the Inspector,
Lokayuktha Police, Bengaluru Rural District. Later on, file
was transferred to Lokayuktha Police, Chikkaballapura,
who completed the investigation and filed the charge
sheet.
9. It is also found from the records that there was no
trap, as the attempted trap became unsuccessful. Based
on the demand of Rs.5,000/-, in the presence of two
eyewitnesses, the charge sheet came to be filed.
10. Sri Prasad B.S., learned counsel for the revision
petitioner has contended that even in the absence of a
successful trap, solely on the demand made by the
accused for the illegal gratification, a charge sheet can be
filed under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
In support of his arguments, he placed reliance on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2024 (5)
SCC 629 in the case of Sita Soren -vs- Union of India.
11. He also contended that for attracting the
ingredients of the offence under Section 7, successful trap
is not a sine qua non. Therefore, the order of discharge by
the learned Special Judge has resulted in miscarriage of
justice and he sought for allowing the revision petition.
12. Per contra, Sri M.B.Rajashekar, learned counsel
representing the accused, supports the impugned order.
On care full perusal of material on record is found that the
filing of charge sheet had inherent lacunae. Firstly, the
Lokayuktha Police, Bengaluru Rural District had no
jurisdiction to register the case nor conduct the
investigation.
13. Admittedly, the incident had occurred in the Rural
Police Station, Chikkaballapura on 26.08.2014 at 12.30
p.m. Nothing prevented the complainant to approach the
Lokayuktha Police, Chikkaballapura District and complain
about the illegal demand made by the complainant. But for
the reasons best known to the complainant, he has chosen
to approach the Lokayuktha Police, Bengaluru Rural
District.
14. Even though there is no bar for any Lokayuktha
Police to receive the complaint, after receipt of the
complaint, it was the bounden duty of the concerned Police
to verify the place of incident and transfer the complaint to
the jurisdictional Lokayuktha Police Station.
15. At the most an FIR could be registered in Zero
Number (usually termed as zero FIR) and transfer the
complaint and FIR to the jurisdictional Police station for
the purpose of investigation. The said procedure is now
recognized in the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita
(for short, 'BNSS'). In fact the principles of law enunciated
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari
Vs Govt. of U.P. and Ors. reported in 2013 (14) S.C.R.
713, envisages such a procedure to be adopted by the
Police. In the case on hand, for the reasons best known to
the complainant and the Lokayuktha Police, Bengaluru
Rural District, such a procedure has not taken place.
Instead, the Inspector Lokayuktha Police, Bengaluru Rural
District proceeded with the investigation partly. Later on
he has transferred the file to the Lokayuktha Police,
Chikkaballapura.
16. Admittedly, the part investigation conducted by
the Inspector, Lokayuktha Police Bengaluru Rural District
was without jurisdiction. Therefore, a fresh investigation
should have been conducted by the Lokayuktha Police,
Chikkaballapura.
17. Instead, the Lokayuktha Police, Chikkaballapura,
continued with the investigation which was conducted in
part by the Inspector Lokayuktha Police, Bengaluru Rural
District. Same has resulted in procedural lapses besides
being the further proceedings thereof stood vitiated.
18. Secondly, it is found from the records that the
alleged voice sample was not referred to the Forensic
Science Laboratory of Karnataka. Instead, the said sample
has been sent to a Private Laboratory namely, 'Truth Labs'
and a report has been obtained.
19. It is pertinent to note that without exhausting
the remedy before the Forensic Laboratory of Karnataka,
sending the voice sample to the Truth Labs, which is a
private agency and collecting the report which is been
placed as a gospel truth in filing the charge sheet has also
resulted in affecting the rights of the accused. Therefore,
the very cognizance itself should not have been taken by
the learned Special Judge and charge sheet should have
been returned.
20. Be what it may. The learned Judge having heard
the parties on the discharge application, perused the
material on record and accepting the contentions urged on
behalf of the accused as referred to supra and passed the
impugned order whereby the learned Special Judge has
discharged the accused from the alleged offences by
reasoned order dated 16th November 2016.
21. This Court having regard to the scope of the
revisional jurisdiction revisited into the above factual
aspects and does not find any legal infirmity or perversity
or patent factual defects so as to interfere with the
impugned order.
22. There cannot be any dispute as to the principles
of law enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Sita Soren (supra). But the facts and the circumstances
involved in the present case are altogether different.
Therefore, the principles of law enunciated in Sita Soren's
case (supra) are not applicable to the case on hand in view
of the inherent defects in the charge sheet noted supra, so
as to set aside the impugned order.
23. Accordingly, viewed from any angle, this Court
does not find any merit whatsoever in the grounds heard
on behalf of the Lokayuktha. Hence, the following.
ORDER
Revision Petition is meritless and accordingly,
dismissed.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
No comments:
Post a Comment