Pansale Jaganath vs The State of Karnataka

Jawad Rahim, J.—The petitioner, who is arraigned for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ''the Act'') in Lokayukta P.S. Crime No. 3/2012, seeks quashing of the proceedings. Heard the learned counsel, Sri. V.M. Sheelvant for the petitioner and Sri. Jagadish Patil, learned standing counsel for Lokayukta. Perused the record.

Prosecution has been initiated against the petitioner on the allegation that on 19.04.2012, one Dyamappa Durgappa Bhovivaddar lodged a report against one Mohammad Iqbal-Case worker and the petitioner herein alleging that during the course of his business as Class-IV Contractor, he submitted an application on 18.04.2012 for VAT Clearance Certificate in the office of the petitioner, who was the competent authority, but there was no action. Because of delay, he was not able to procure Class-III Contractor''s licence under the Scheduled Caste category. Thus, he approached the first accused-Mohammad Iqbal repeatedly, but there was no favourable action. Consequently, he approached accused No. 1 again, who asked him to pay Rs. 1,500/- as a bribe, which the complainant was not willing to pay.

Thus, he thought fit to report the matter to Lokayukta, who registered a case in Crime No. 3/2012 and after constituting a team, Entrustment Mahazar was prepared clinically treating the bait money. Thereafter, as planned, they conducted the raid in the office premises of the petitioner and accused No. 1/Mohammad Iqbal. The trap was successful. The accused are said to have received a sum of Rs. 1,500/- as bribe, but the clinical test on the hand wash proved negative as far as petitioner is concerned. However, on the basis of seizure of money from the office during trap proceedings, a Mahazar was drawn and prosecution proceeded further and final report has been filed arraigning the petitioner indicting him for the offences referred to above.

Petitioner has called in question the final report on the ground, no incriminating material has been collected by the investigating officer against the petitioner. In this regard, Mr. V.M. Sheelvant would submit that even the Mahazar and report of trap reveals that petitioner has not handled the bait money and that is proved from the fact that his hand wash did not show colourisation. Therefore, the test was negative. The allegation of demand for illegal gratification is against accused No. 1/Mohammad Iqbal who is the case worker and no allegation is made against the petitioner.

Such a submission of Sri. V.M. Sheelavant certainly is not without substance. The records support his version, but at the same time, it could be noticed that the final report has been filed before the trial court against both of them, i.e., Mohammad Iqbal/accused No. 1 and petitioner alleging connivance between them to collect bribe.

Mr. Jagadish Patil, learned standing counsel for Lokayukta, would submit that the trap proceedings show the trap was successful. The office was occupied by accused Nos. 1 and 2 and the bait money was found in the office itself and it was seized. Therefore, the fact that the bait money was seized from the office premises of the accused require to be explained by the accused in view of the presumption permissible u/s 20 of the Act.

All these aspects will be taken into consideration by the trial court at the stage of hearing before charge. Interference by this Court at this preliminary stage invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings is not justified. The trial for offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1) and 13(2) of the Act is a warrant trial and consequently, a stage is carved out in Section 239 of Cr.P.C. to hear before charge. While doing so, the learned designated Judge will have to take into consideration not only the material compiled in the form of charge-sheet but also other grounds urged by the accused and take a proper decision. Since, all questions raised are based on the facts, it will be improper for this Court to examine it in exercise of power u/s 482 of Cr.P.C.

The right of the accused to seek discharge u/s 239 of the Cr.P.C. was discussed by this Court in a decision in the case of Smt J. Umadevi and Smt J. Usha Vs. State of Karnataka, . Being of that opinion, the petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to seek discharge before the designated court on the grounds urged in this petition and such other additional grounds as the petitioner may feel necessary to urge before the trial Court. The trial Court shall consider it dispassionately in the right earnest, in accordance with law.

The learned counsel for petitioner submits, petitioner being in service, it is difficult for him to appear before the Magistrate on all the dates of hearing.

His submission is placed on record. The petitioner is permitted to move the trial Court seeking exemption, which the trial court shall consider. If petitioner seeks discharge, the trial Court shall hear the parties and decide the matter within an outer limit of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.