IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.920/2019 BETWEEN:
IBRAHIM, S/O BUDEN SAB, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINEER, AVINAHALLI & INCHARGE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE BRANCH, UNIT – 2, MESCOM, SAGAR – 577 401.
(BY SRI YATHISH J NADIGA, ADV.) AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA POLICE, SHIVAMOGGA – 577 201.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, BANGALORE – 01.
…PETITIONER ... RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH 401 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 29.04.2019 PASSED BY THE SPECIAL JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA IN SPL.(PC)C.NO.1/2017 AND DISCHARGE THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 7 AND 13(1)(d) READ WITH 13(2) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, BY ALLOWING THIS CRL.R.P.
THIS CRL. REV. PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. The petitioner has sought for discharge under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. on the ground that he did not demand or accept any bribe money from the complainant and secondly, the sanctioning authority has observed in the sanction order that no official favour was required to be done by the petitioner and therefore, the prosecution of the petitioner is illegal and contrary to the material on record.
3. The materials on record indicate that the conversation between the complainant and the accused was recorded prior to laying the trap. It is the case of the prosecution that during the trap, the petitioner received the tainted money and on seeing the raiding team threw it in the gutter. The hand wash of the petitioner had turned pink. In the wake of these evidences, the contentions urged by the petitioner that the tainted money was thrust into his hands by the complainant without there being any demand by the petitioner, is a matter which needs to be substantiated during trial. The said contention cannot be a ground for discharge of the petitioner. Since, the material relied on by the prosecution prima facie disclose the ingredients of the offence alleged against the petitioner, no fault could be found with the impugned order.
4. The second contention urged by the petitioner that the sanctioning authority has observed in the sanction order that no official favour was pending with the petitioner is also a matter of evidence which requires to be clarified during the examination of the sanctioning authority. I do not find any good ground to admit the petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed at the admission stage.
In view of the dismissal of the main petition, I.A.No.1/2019 does not survive for consideration and the same is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE nvj