IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.1119 of 2018 BETWEEN MITHESH, S/O. VAMANA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, TEMPORARY RRT WORKER, RANGE FOREST OFFICE, RESIDING AT VIJAYNAGAR, VIRAJPET, KODAGU DISTRICT – 571 218.
(BY SRI TEJAS N., ADVOCATE) AND STATE OF KARNATAKA BY LOKAYUKTA POLICE, MADIKERI – 571 201.
(REPRESENTED BY LEARNED SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR) (BY SRI B.S. PRASAD, SPL.P.P.) ... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 07.06.2017 PASSED IN SPL.C.C.No.26/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KODAGU - MADIKERI SITTING AT VIRAJPET FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 8, 13(1)(d) READ WITH 13(2) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT AND CONSEQUENTLY, DISCHARGE HIM FROM THE SAID CASE.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This revision petition is filed by the petitioner, who is accused No.4 before the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu, sitting at Virajpet, in Spl.C.(Corpn.) No.26/2015 whereby, the Trial Court dismissed the application of the petitioner filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C., by order dated 07.06.2017.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-Lokayuktha.
3. The case of the prosecution before the Trial Court is that the Lokayuktha Police, Madikeri, have trapped accused Nos.1 to 3 and the present petitioner, who is accused No.4, while demanding and accepting bribe from the complainant in a tune of Rs.10,000/-. It is alleged that accused No.1-Deputy Range Forest Officer is said to have demanded Rs.10,000/- from the complainant for the purpose of selling Timber logs and on the date of trap, the complainant went in a jeep to Gandhi junction, where accused Nos.3 and 4 were said to be on duty. Accused No.1 is said to have informed the complainant to handover money to accused No.2, who in turn gave the said amount to accused No.3 and later, accused No.3 gave the same to accused No.4, the present petitioner. At that time, the Lokayuktha Police trapped accused Nos.2 to 4 and seized the said amount. The hands of the petitioner were washed in Sodium Carbonate solution and found positive. Therefore, accused Nos.2 to 4 were arrested. Accused No.1 ran away from the spot. Subsequently, they have been charge sheeted by the Lokayuktha Police.
4. The petitioner herein, who is accused No.4, filed an application for discharge under Section 227 of Cr.P.C taking various contentions that he has not demanded any bribe from the complainant; he is not aware of the transaction between accused No.1 and the complainant; he has only received the amount from accused No.3 and hence, he has been trapped. Therefore, accepting the amount is not an offence. Many contentions were taken by the petitioner/accused No.4, but the Trial Court has not at all considered the same. No finding has been given while dismissing the application filed by him. Therefore, prayed for setting aside the same.
5. Per contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-Lokyuktha contended that the Trial Court, at paragraph 8 of its order, has clearly stated that the amount was received from the hands of respondent No.3, which was received from accused No.2 on the instruction of accused No.1. The Trial Court, after considering the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court in various matters, has come to the conclusion that the application is not sustainable and hence, rejected. Therefore, there is no illegality or error committed by the Trial Court in dismissing the application. The Court is required to give findings while framing the charges under Section 228 of Cr.P.C., but the order passed is under Section 227 of Cr.P.C rejecting the application for discharge. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the revision petition.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court that in various cases, this Court has remitted the matter back to the Trial Court to give findings based on the charges, while considering the application under Sections 227 and 228 of Cr.P.C. In spite of the same, the Trial Court has not considered the material placed on record and has not at all whispered anything about what was the actual charges to be framed against this petitioner or other accused persons. Therefore, prayed for allowing the revision petition. Learned counsel also produced a copy of the judgment of this Court in the case of Ashwath and another vs. State of Karnataka in Crl.R.P.No.1133/2017 disposed of on 05.01.2018.
7. Upon hearing the arguments of learned counsel on both side and on perusal of the order impugned in this revision petition, it is clear that the Trial Court at paragraph 8 of the order has mentioned the facts of the case in respect of accused No.1 demanding bribe of Rs.10,000/- from the complainant and asking accused No.2 to receive the bribe and accused No.2, thereafter handed over the same to accused No.3, who in turn gave it to accused No.4 and accused No.1 ran away from the spot. The other accused were caught hold by the Police. Accused No.4 was found with money and also stated that if any weakness is available, the benefit goes to accused No.4 and as per Section 8(7) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 need not be a public servant to receive the amount. Learned counsel contended that number of judgments of various Courts were relied upon by the public prosecutor as also by the counsel for the accused, but none of the judgments were considered by the Trial Court. The entire paragraph 10 of the order of the Trial Court mentions all the citations and finally, it has been recorded that all the citations quoted do not help the case of accused No.4 to allow the application.
8. In my opinion, the Trial Court without giving any finding and straightaway holding that the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel are not helpful to the case of the petitioner, is not correct. This Court in similar matters, including the Crl.R.P No.1133/2017, remanded back the case to the Trial Court. In the case of Venkatesh vs. State by Siddapura Police reported in ILR 2012 Kar. 4497, the Court has observed as under;
“ At the time of framing of charge, probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into but, before framing a charge, the Court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was possible. At the stage of Sections 227 and 228 of Cr.P.C., the Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their fact value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence.”
9. This Court, in Crl.RP No.1133/2017, at paragraph 11 of the order, has held as under;
“ Therefore, at the stage of framing of charge itself, where strong suspicion is made for framing of charges, reason has to be given by the Court. If mere doubt arises, it is the duty of the Court itself to find out whether there is any material to frame charge. It casts a burden on the Court to consider the entire records of the case and the documents produced therewith and after hearing the submissions of the accused and prosecution, the Judge has to consider whether there is any sufficient ground to proceed against the accused. Otherwise, he shall discharge the accused recording his reasons for doing so. …”
10. In view of the judgment of this Court in various cases and even the Hon’ble Apex Court has given guidelines in the case of Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal and another reported in AIR 1978 SC 366 wherein, it has been categorically held that the Court is required to give findings in respect of sufficient material to frame charges against the accused persons. But, here in this case, there is no discussion in respect of the documents relied upon by the prosecution in order to frame charges, which is required under the provisions of Section 228 of Cr.P.C. The Court is required to frame distinct charge against the accused persons for the alleged offences. Apart from that, the Court should not forget that accused No.4 only received the amount from accused No.3. The Court is required to find out whether he has accepted the gratification and whether there is meeting of minds of accused No.1 to 4, which were not at all discussed by the Court below. Absolutely, there is no finding given by the Trial Court while passing the order which is against the direction issued by this Court in Crl.RP No.1133/2017. Therefore, the order under revision is liable to be set aside and the matter is required to be remanded back to the Trial Court for fresh consideration.
11. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Petition is allowed.
The order dated 07.06.2017 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu, sitting at Virajpet, in Spl.C.(Corpn.) No.26/2015 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Trial Court to consider the material placed on record and give a finding under Sections 227 and 228 of Cr.P.C as per law and the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in various decisions, as stated supra.
In view of disposal of the main petition, I.A.No.2/2018 for stay does not survive for consideration. Hence, the same is dismissed.
SD/- JUDGE mv