IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.5982/2015 BETWEEN:
K.B.VIJENDRA, S/O MR.BABAIAH GOWDA, AGED 41 YEARS, OCCUPATION, RESIDING AT NO.670/4, OPP. KASHIVISHWANATHA TEMPLE, DASARAHALLI, BENGALURU – 560 054.
(BY SRI.
P.PRASANNA KUMAR, ADV) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY AMRUTHAHALLI POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. MR B.N.CHANDRASEKAR, ... PETITIONER S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, AGED 50 YEARS, OCCUPATION: ASST.REVENUE OFFICER, VIRUPAKSHAPURA SUB-DIVISION, YELAHANKA RANGE, BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BENGALURU – 560 064.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VIIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE ADDL. SPP FOR R1 SRI B.S.VISHWANATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 15.02.2015 PASSED BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER, F.T.C-XIII AT BENGALURU IN CRL.REV.PET.NO.69/2014 THEREBY REJECTING THE REVISION PETITION AND CONFIRMING THE ORDER DATED 27.01.2014 PASSED BY THE IV ADDL.
C.M.M AT BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.53347/2010 THEREBY REJECTING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER/ ACCUSED U/S 239 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THIS PETITION.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Addl.SPP for respondent No.1 and Sri.B.S.Vishwanath, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the records.
2. Petitioner is before this Court challenging the orders passed by the Courts below on the applications filed by the petitioner seeking his discharge under Section 239 of Cr.P.C.
3. Both the Courts below have dismissed the application by assigning proper reasons.
4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the prosecution has failed to produce original challans for having made the remittances to BBMP. Secondly, it is contended that the petitioner was not entrusted with the official duty of collecting tax and therefore, the prosecution of the petitioner is legally untenable. Thirdly, petitioner being a public servant, prosecution of the petitioner without prior sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C., is legally unsustainable.
5. All these contentions are considered by the Courts below. The question relating to sufficiency of evidence cannot be a ground to quash the proceedings. Even otherwise, the case of the prosecution is that the petitioner herein collected a sum of Rs.1,959/- and Rs.8,546/- as tax, but remitted only a sum of Rs.159/- and Rs.546/- to the treasury and thereby misappropriated the balance amount. In respect of other transactions also, it is alleged that the petitioner misappropriated a total sum of Rs.36,79,121/-. It is not the case of the petitioner that it was the part of the official duty to misappropriate amount due to the Government and therefore, in the circumstances of the case, prior sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C., is also not necessary.
6. All these contentions having been considered and answered by the Courts below, I do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the well considered orders passed by the Courts below.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE ln.