IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.1566/2013 BETWEEN:
Hasan Modi Babu, Aged about 46 years, S/o. Iqbal Mulla, R/at No.8, Gundappa Gowda Layout, 9th Main, 3rd Cross, Vivek Nagara Post, Bengaluru – 560 047. …Petitioner (By Sri. Ravi L. Vaidya, Advocate) AND:
State of Karnataka, By Station House Officer, Ulsoor Gate Police Station, Represented by the State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru – 01. … Respondent (By Sri. Vijayakumar Majage, Addl. SPP) This Criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to quash the charge sheet No.38/2010 dated 14.10.2010 at Annexure – A on the file of respondent police and consequently quash the entire proceedings before the learned Fast Track Sessions Court – XV at Bengaluru City in S.C.No.1555/2011 at Annexure – B.
This Criminal petition coming on for Admission, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Petitioner is arraigned as accused No.1 in the charge sheet filed by the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471, 420 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.
2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Addl. SPP for the respondent.
3. The main contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the very same officer who registered the FIR has conducted the investigation and laid the charge sheet against the petitioner. Further, it is contended that even before registration of the FIR, petitioner/accused No.1 was arrested and incriminating material was seized by the respondent which has vitiated the entire prosecution initiated against the petitioner. In support of this contention, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in STATE BY UPPARPET POLICE STATION Vs. SAMPANGI AND OTHERS reported in 2004 (2) KCCR 920.
4. Per contra, learned Addl. SPP has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in R.A.H.SIGURAN Vs. SHANKARE GOWDA @ SHANKARA reported in (2017) 16 SCC 126 and would submit that the contention regarding the invalidity of the investigation having not been set up at the earliest stage and trial having already commenced, petitioner is not entitled for the relief claimed in the petition and thus sought to dismiss the petition.
5. Considered the submissions and perused the records.
6. The material produced before the Court reveals that on receiving credible information, Inspector of CCB Sri.S.Hanumantharaya rushed to the spot and found the petitioner/accused No.1 in possession of the forged FDRs standing in the name of Bank of Baroda. Petitioner/accused No.1 was arrested and brought to the police station. The said FDRs were seized under a Mahazar and the petitioner was brought to the police station and a case was registered against the petitioner in Crime No.293/2010. After investigation, charge sheet was laid against the petitioner by the very same officer who registered the FIR. Charge sheet reveals that the entire investigation was conducted by the Inspector of CCB, who registered the case. In the decision relied on by the learned Addl. SPP, the Hon’ble Supreme Court relying on the decision in H.N.RISHBUD Vs. STATE OF DELHI (AIR 1955 SC 196) in para 17 has held as under:
“17. In A.C. Sharma v. Delhi Admn [(1973 ) 1 SCC 726], provisions of Section 5-A were again considered by this Court and held as under: (SCC p.735, para 15) “15. As the foregoing discussion shows the investigation in the present case by the Deputy Superintendent of Police cannot be considered to be in any way unauthorised or contrary to law. In this connection it may not be out of place also to point out that the function of investigation is merely to collect evidence and any irregularity or even illegality in the course of collection of evidence can scarcely be considered by itself to affect the legality of the trial by an otherwise competent court of the offence so investigated. In H.N. Rishbud v. State of Delhi [AIR 1955 SC 196], it was held that an illegality committed in the course of investigation does not affect the competence and jurisdiction of the court for trial and where cognizance of the case has in fact been taken and the case has proceeded to termination of the invalidity of the preceding investigation does not vitiate the result unless miscarriage of justice has been caused thereby. When any breach of the mandatory provisions relating to investigation is brought to the notice of the court at an early stage of the trial the Court will have to consider the nature and extent of the violation and pass appropriate orders for such reinvestigation as may be called for, wholly or partly, and by such officer as it considers appropriate with reference to the requirements of Section 5-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. This decision was followed in Munnalal v. State of U.P. [AIR 1964 SC 28] where the decision in State of M.P. v. Mubarak Ali [AIR 1959 SC 707], was distinguished. The same view was taken in State of A.P. v. N. Venugopal [AIR 1964 SC 33] and more recently in Khandu Sonu Dhobi v. State of Maharashtra [(1972) 3 SCC 786]. The decisions of the Calcutta, Punjab and Saurashtra High Courts relied upon by Mr Anthony deal with different points: in any event to the extent they contain any observations against the view expressed by this Court in the decisions just cited those observations cannot be considered good law.”
Following the above proposition of law, petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE SV