Sri.Prabhakar S/O Channappa ... vs The State Of Karnataka
2023 Latest Caselaw 2960 Kant

                                               -1-
                                                     CRL.RP No. 100034 of 2021



                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

                                        DHARWAD BENCH


                              DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023

                                             BEFORE

                               THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANIL B KATTI
                          CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100034 OF 2021
                      BETWEEN:

                      SRI.PRABHAKAR S/O CHANNAPPA DABBANNAVAR
                      AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
                      R/O: BAMBALWAD, TAL: CHIKODI,
                      DIST: BELAGAVI-591201.
                                                                  ...PETITIONER

                      (BY SHRI SRINAND A. PACHHAPURE
                        AND RAJENDRA R. PATIL, ADVOCATES)

                      AND:
        Digitally
        signed by J
J
        MAMATHA       THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
MAMATHA Date:         THROUGH LOKAYUKTA POLICE,
        2023.06.08
        13:12:26 -
        0700
                      BELAGAVI,
                      NOW REPRESENTED BY
                      SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
                      HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,DHARWAD,
                      BENCH AT DHARWAD.
                                                                ...RESPONDENT

                      (BY SHRI SANTOSH B. MALAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE)

                                               ***
                           THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S.397
                      R/W 401 OF CR.P.C., TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN SPECIAL
                      CASE NO.188/2018 AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
                      27/11/2020 PASSED BY THE COURT OF IV ADDL. DISTRICT
                      AND SESSION JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE (PCA), BELAGAVI
                      IN SPECIAL CASE NO.188/2018 REGISTERED FOR THE
                                  -2-
                                       CRL.RP No. 100034 of 2021



OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 13(1)(C) R/W
SECTION 13(2) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT AND
SECTION 405, 409, 415 AND 420 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC, ON
AN APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION 227 OF CR.P.C.
MARKED AT ANNEXURE-A IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER/ACCUSED
NO.1 IS CONCERNED AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE
APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 227
OF CR.P.C. MARKED AT ANNEXURE-E.

    THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR
FURTHER HEARING AND THE SAME HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDER ON 23.03.2023, THIS DAY, THE
COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                               ORDER

The revision petitioner/accused No.1 feeling

aggrieved by order passed by IV Addl. District and Sessions

Judge and Special Judge (PCA), Belagavi in Spl.Case.

No.188/2018, preferred this revision petition.

2. Parties to the petition are referred with their ranks

as assigned in the trial Court for the sake of convenience.

3. The factual matrix leading to the case of

prosecution can be stated in nutshell to the effect that accused

No.1 is a contractor in water supply business and accused No.2

was serving as RTO in RTO office, Chikkodi. Accused Nos. 1 and

2 in collusion with each other got transferred water tanker

bearing No. MEI-7850 in the name of accused No.1 without

there being any document, requisite fee or application for

CRL.RP No. 100034 of 2021

transfer of vehicle for unlawful gain. Accused No.2 has used his

separate I.D for the purpose of transferring the said vehicle. On

these allegations, private complaint No.2/2017 was filed before

the trial Court and the same was referred to investigation under

Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. to Anti Corruption Bureau police

station, Belagavi. The case was registered under Anti

Corruption Bureau police station Crime No.6/2017. The

investigation officer after completion of investigation filed

charge sheet against accused Nos. 1 and 2.

4. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 filed application under section

227 of Cr.P.C. for discharge. The trial Court, after hearing both

sides, by order dated 27.11.2020 dismissed the application.

5. The correctness and legality of the dismissal of

discharge application is challenged by revision

petitioner/accused No.1 contending that accused Nos.2 to 4

named in the FIR were dropped from charge sheet. The name

of accused No.1 is recorded as owner of vehicle bearing MEI-

7850 in the RTO records though he is no way concerned to the

said vehicle. On the application of complainant, enquiry was

conducted and it was found that name of accused No.1 has

been wrongly entered in the computer records through

CRL.RP No. 100034 of 2021

oversight. However, in B file, the name of complainant is in

existence. Accused No.1 was distributing water in and around

Chikkodi, Raibag and Hukkeri by taking various vehicles on hire

basis including the complainant upto the year 2013 only. The

trial Court without considering the charge sheet materials has

erroneously proceeded to dismiss the discharge application.

Therefore, prayed for allowing the revision petition and to set

aside order of trial Court dated 27.11.2020. Consequently, to

discharge revision petitioner-accused No.1 for the offences

alleged against him.

6. In response to notice, learned counsel-Sri.Santosh

B Malagaoudar has appeared for respondent.

7. Heard the arguments of both sides.

8. On careful perusal of the charge sheet material, it

would go to show that complainant has purchased TATA heavy

Goods vehicle bearing No. MEI 7850 from it's erstwhile owner

Smt.Srimati W/o Appasab Wadikar, on 6.8.1995. The name of

complainant is recorded in the records of vehicle maintained by

RTO, Chikkodi. The complainant got fitted steal water tank to

the said vehicle for his business and he has never sold the said

vehicle to anybody.

CRL.RP No. 100034 of 2021

9. Indisputably, the name of accused No.1 is

appearing in the records of RTO, Chikkodi with respect to

vehicle bearing No. MEI-7850 which belongs to complainant. It

is contended that accused No.1 is no way concerned to vehicle

bearing No.MEI-7850. The name of accused No.1 has been

wrongly entered in computer records through oversight.

However, in the B register maintained by RTO office, still the

name of complainant is in existence as owner of the vehicle.

The enquiry was conducted and order came to be passed by

RTO, Chikkodi dated 27.1.2017 and ordered to correct the

mistake while transferring the particulars of the vehicle in

computer records.

10. The charge sheet material would go to show that it

is not mere mistake of entering the name of accused No.1 in

the records of vehicle maintained by RTO, Chikkodi. On the

other hand, vehicle bearing No.MEI-7850 being used by

accused No.1 for water supply from the year 2012-2016. The

same is evident from payment details. Accused No.1 knowing

fully well that he is not the owner of the said vehicle, by taking

advantage of his name being recorded in the records of RTO,

Chikkodi used the said vehicle and also received payment for

supply of water. The statement of witnesses would go to show

CRL.RP No. 100034 of 2021

that application for the year 2016, tender submitted by accused

No.1 again show that he is the owner of tanker bearing No.MEI-

7850. The statement of CW.2-Sri.Umashankar B.P. and CW.3-

Bilimagga R Manjunath would go to show that without there

being any document of transferring the vehicle bearing No.MEI-

7850, the vehicle was transferred and recorded in the name of

accused No.1. The statements of computer operators CW.6-

Girish Ramappa Bandi and CW.7-Kumar Appanna Munnolli

would go to show that accused No.2-Mehaboob subhan

Dastagirsab Devalapur, office superintendent by using separate

I.D. transferred the vehicle without application in the name of

accused No.1. It was the duty of accused No.2 to verify the

documents before giving approval for transfer by using

separate I.D. Accused No.2 cannot claim that it has gone

without his notice. It appears prima facie that accused No.1

and 2 colluded with each other in getting the transfer of vehicle

bearing No.MEI-7850 in the name of accused No.1. It is

thereafter accused No.1 knowing fully well that he is not the

owner of the vehicle has used the vehicle for supplying the

water and accepted the payment. The payment extract

furnished by Thasildar, Raibag, dated 29.6.2017 for the year

2013-14, 2015-16 would go to show that accused No.1 has

CRL.RP No. 100034 of 2021

shown the vehicle bearing No.MEI-7850 for supply of water and

further accepted the payment for having executed the work as

per the tender.

11. The meticulous evaluation of evidence is not

required at the time of considering the discharge application.

The court has to decide as to whether there is prima facie

evidence warranting trial. The trial Court by referring the

judgment of Honb'le Apex Court in paragaraph 9 and 10 of it's

order and after appreciating the charge sheet materials

recorded finding that there is prima facie evidence against the

accused No.1. The contention of accused No.1 that he has

taken various vehicles on hire basis including the vehicle of the

complainant upto the year 2013 and other grounds urged in the

revision petition require trial.

12. Learned counsel for respondent relied on the latest

judgment of Honb'le Apex Court in State of Rajasthan V/S

Ashok Kumar Kashyap, reported in (2021) 11 Supreme

Court Cases 191 and another judgment in State through

Deputy Superintendent of Police V/S R. Soundirarasu

Etc, reported in AIRONLINE 2022 SC 281. There cannot be

any dispute with regard to proposition of law laid down in the

CRL.RP No. 100034 of 2021

said judgments with regard to the factors that are required to

be considered while deciding the discharge application. In the

present case, the vehicle belongs to complainant was got

transferred in the name of accused No.1 without there being

any document and used the said vehicle for water supply

business and accepted the payment for executing the work as

per the tender. The payment extract produced in this case

evidences the said fact. Accused No.2 by using separate ID

without there being any document for effecting transfer has

recorded the name of accused No.1 in the records maintained

by RTO, Chikkodi. It is submitted by learned counsel for

respondent at the time of hearing that charge has been already

framed on 24.8.2021 and the evidence has been commenced

on 8.11.2021, further two witnesses have been examined and

after 10 days of examination of two witnesses, the present

revision petition is filed. The said fact is not in serious dispute

by revision petitioner. The other contentions raised by revision

petitioner are kept open and the same has to be decided by the

trial Court after taking necessary evidence. Therefore, under

these circumstances and for the reasons recorded above, in my

opinion, interference of this Court is not required.

Consequently, proceed to pass the following:

CRL.RP No. 100034 of 2021

ORDER

Revision petition filed by revision petitioner/accused No.1

is hereby dismissed.

The order of the trial Court in Spl.Case No.188/2018 on

the file of IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge and Special

Judge (PCA), Belagavi, dated 27.11.2020 is hereby confirmed.

(Sd/-) JUDGE

Vb/-