Sri Jayaram vs The State of Karnataka

V. Jagannathan

The petitioner seeks quashing of the F.I.R. in Crime No. 8/2012 in this petition filed u/s 482 of the Cr.P.C. A case was registered against the petitioner in the aforementioned crime number in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the complaint allegations, in short, are that the petitioner, while working as the Joint Secretary of Unani Medical College, attempted to take illegal gratification from the complainant''s brother-in-law in connection with the admission of the complainant''s niece to the first year in the said college.

The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that though the complaint given on 8.2.2012 led to a case being registered in the aforementioned Crime No. 8/2012 for the offences under Sections 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the P.C. Act, a plain reading of the complaint would go to show that the demand said to have been made by the petitioner on the brother-in-law of the complainant was one month prior to the lodging of the complaint and, therefore, the entire complaint is in the nature of a hearsay statement.

Secondly, the brother-in-law himself does not lodge any complaint in regard to the alleged demand made by the petitioner. It is then submitted that, even the trap was unsuccessful as could be seen from the panchanama drawn by the Lokayuktha police on 25.2.2012. Finally, even in the alleged conversation between the petitioner and the complainant said to have been recorded by the complainant, absolutely there is no mention of the petitioner demanding any amount nor attempting to take any amount from the complainant. The last of the grounds put forward is that, no sanction was also obtained. Under these circumstances, no purpose would be served in continuing the prosecution against the petitioner.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent-Lokayuktha submitted that Section 7 of the P.C. Act gets attracted to the case and the conversation which is found in the trap panchanama was recorded subsequent to the complaint.

Having thus heard both sides and after going through the complaint allegations, the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is more in the nature of a hearsay statement carries sufficient force. Secondly, the trap was also unsuccessful and more importantly, the conversation between the complainant and the petitioner also does not mention anything about the petitioner accepting or trying to accept any bribe amount from the complainant. One more aspect is the admission of the complainant''s niece also took place long before the date of filing of the complaint. In view of such material on record, at this stage, no purpose would be served in prosecuting the accused. Hence, the petition is allowed and the F.I.R. is quashed in the interest of justice.