Sri. A. Govindaraju vs State of Karnataka

A.N. Venugopala Gowda

This petition is directed against an order dated 19.03.2012 passed by the Spl. Judge at Bangalore City in Spl. C.C. No. 16/2011 holding that there are grounds to frame charge against the accused for the offences punishable under Ss. 7, 13(1)(d) read with S. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ''the Act''). On a complaint filed by one Ramaiah, the Lokayuktha Police registered a case in Crime No. 39/2010, against the petitioner, conducted investigation and after obtaining sanction for prosecution, filed a charge-sheet against the petitioner for the offences noticed supra. The accused - petitioner filed an application dated 29.07.2011 under S. 227 of Cr.P.C. seeking to discharge him from the case. Considering the said application, the aforesaid order was passed.

Sri R.B. Sadasivappa, learned advocate contended that the Court below has committed material error and illegality in arriving at the conclusion that there are grounds to frame charge against the accused for the offences punishable under Ss. 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Act. Learned counsel submitted that there being no prima facie case, the complaint lodged being false and investigation being faulty, the petitioner may be discharged from the case.

Smt. T.M. Gayathri, learned advocate for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner being a public servant has demanded illegal gratification for doing official acts and in a trap proceedings, was caught red-handed and thereafter, further investigation having been carried out, since the petitioner was found to have committed the offences punishable under Ss. 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Act, by obtaining sanction from the competent authority, charge-sheet was filed. Learned counsel submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, there being prima facie case for framing of charge, the learned Spl. Judge is justified in passing the order dated 19.03.2012, impugned in this petition and that the same does not warrant any interference.

Perused the record. Point for consideration is, whether the Court below is justified in passing the impugned order?

In view of the provisions under Ss. 227 and 228 of Cr. P.C., it is clear that the Judge concerned has to consider all the records of the case, hear the submissions of the accused and the prosecution and, if there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused, by recording reasons. If after such consideration as provided under S. 227 Cr. P.C., if the Judge is of the opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence, he has to direct the accused to appear and try the offence in accordance with the procedure, after framing charge in writing against the accused.

In the instant case, one Ramaiah filed the complaint before the Lokayuktha Police, who registered a case in Crime No. 39/2010 and laid a trap. The matter was investigated and report having been submitted to the competent authority, sanction for prosecution of the petitioner was accorded and thereafter, charge-sheet was filed on 11.01.2011. The records, such as complaint, FIR, entrustment mahazar, trap mahazar, the sanction order dated 21.12.2010 and C.E. report and other materials which have been filed along with the charge-sheet, do depict prima facie case for framing of charge against the petitioner - accused.

At this stage, learned Trial Judge should not make a rowing enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial. Keeping in view the well settled principles of law in the matter of exercise of jurisdiction under Ss. 227 and 228 of Cr. P.C., the records of the prosecution when perused, it cannot be said that there is no case at all to proceed against the petitioner. However, the material brought on record is required to be tested by the learned Judge at the trial. In the fact situation, in my opinion, learned Trial Judge is justified in holding that there are grounds to frame the charge against the accused for the offences punishable under Ss. 7, 13(1)(d) & 13(2) of the Act.

In the result, the petition being devoid of merit, is dismissed.

However, it is clarified that the observations made herein are limited only for the purpose of considering the prima facie nature of the case for framing of charge and should not prejudice the case of the accused during trial. Learned Trial Judge is free to analyse, appreciate and evaluate the record and arrive at a proper conclusion based on the materials placed by the prosecution and the defence, at the time of deciding the case.