Karnataka High Court
Prashant Kumar S vs State Of Karnataka on 27 November, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:42936
WP No. 32667 of 2019
C/W WP No. 33048 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO.32667 OF 2019 (GM-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.33048 OF 2019 (GM-RES)
IN W.P.NO.32667 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
PRASHANT KUMAR .S
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
S/O. L. SRINIVASAMURTHY,
NO.103, RAJESHWARI MANOR
KUVEMPU ROAD, HELCHENAHALLI,
BANGALORE - 560 062. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI A. VELAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
Digitally
signed by
SUMA 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Location: THROUGH THE 'OFFICER IN CHARGE'
HIGH BHADRAVATHI RURAL POLICE STATION,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA BHADRAVATHI, SHIMOGA - 577 302
SHIMOGA DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY THE
SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA BUILDING,
BANGALORE - 560 001. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. WAHEEDA M.M., HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF THE
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
PROCEEDINGS PENDING BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:42936
WP No. 32667 of 2019
C/W WP No. 33048 of 2019
JUDGE AND JMFC, BHADRAVATHI, SHIMOGA DISTRICT, IN CASE NO.
(OLD C.C.NO.2769/2012) C.C.NO.457/2016 (ANNEXURE-D) IN
RESPECT OF THIS PETITIONER (ACCUSED NO.23) FOR THE
REASONS AND GROUNDS CITED IN THE WRIT PETITION.
IN W.P.NO.33048 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
RAVINDRA S.D.
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
S/O. S. DASAPPA
7TH MAIN, R.P.C. LAYOUT,
NEAR POST OFFICE
BANGALORE - 560 104. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI A. VELAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH THE 'OFFICE IN CHARGE',
BHADRAVATHI RURAL POLICE STATION,
BHADRAVATHI, SHIMOGA - 577 302
SHIMOGA DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY THE
SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING,
BANGALORE - 560 001. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. WAHEEDA M.M., HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
PROCEEDINGS PENDING BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, BHADRAVATHI, SHIMOGA DISTRICT IN CASE
NO.(OLD NO.CC.2769/2012) C.C.NO.457/2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-D IN
RESPECT OF THIS PETITIONER (ACCUSED NO.22) FOR THE
REASONS AND GROUNDS CITED IN THE WRIT PETITION.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:42936
WP No. 32667 of 2019
C/W WP No. 33048 of 2019
ORDER
The petitioner in W.P No.32667/2019 has challenged
the prosecution launched against him in C.C.No.457/2016
pending trial before the Additional Senior Civil Judge and
JMFC, Bhadravathi, Shimoga District (henceforth referred
to as the 'the Trial Court') for the offences punishable
under Sections 109, 120B, 168, 179, 183, 186, 201, 381,
408, 411, 417, 465, 467, 468, 471, 472, 474, 475 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC') and Sections
120 and 121 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983. The
petitioner in W.P. No.33048/2019 has also sought
quashing of the prosecution launched against him in
C.C.No.457/2016.
2. The summary of the charge-sheet filed by
respondent No.2 is that the Deputy Superintendent of
Police received credible information about malpractices
committed by the staff of Kuvempu University in the
conduct of examinations. Based on such information, the
Rural Police, Bhadravathi conducted a search on
NC: 2023:KHC:42936
14.05.2012 at 10.30 p.m. at the house of accused No.1,
who was an attendant at Kuvempu University on contract
basis. A search of his house revealed marks cards of
various degrees from Kuvempu University, various degree
certificates of Kuvempu University, answered and blank
answer booklets, pass certificates, hologram of Kuvempu
University and fake seals. They also seized a computer
and printer that were used to make fake documents.
Later, another house of an accused was searched on
11.06.2012, which revealed some fake blank marks sheets
of Kuvempu University, degree certificates and other
documents and two hard disks. Based on the information
furnished by accused No.1, the house of another accused-
Mr. Ramu was searched. They found 56 blank answer
booklets of Kuvempu University of which the face sheet of
25 booklets were cut off. Likewise, on the information of
accused No.1, the house of Shivakumar-accused No.3 was
also searched, which revealed 100 answer booklets, empty
answer booklets containing 2 strips of hologram and a
sum of Rs.1,62,000/-. A seal of Kuvempu University was
NC: 2023:KHC:42936
seized. Later, the house of one Siddacharya - accused
No.4 was searched and some answer booklets and blank
answer booklets containing the seal of Kuvempu University
were seized. Again, on the information of accused No.1,
the house of one Doodyanaik - accused No.5 was also
searched, where answered booklets and blank answer
booklets containing the seal of Kuvempu University and a
sum of Rs.70,000/- contained in an envelope of Kuvempu
University were seized. Likewise, on the information of
accused No.1, the house of one Shashikumar - accused
No.6 was also searched, from whom blank answer
books containing the seal of Kuvempu University were
recovered.
3. During the course of investigation, the house of
accused Nos.22 and 23 were searched on 30.06.2012.
Accused No.22 was found to be in possession of fake
M.B.A marks sheets while accused No.23 was found to be
in possession of fake B.Sc. marks sheets. It was found
that both accused Nos.22 and 23 had paid money to
NC: 2023:KHC:42936
accused No.15 and had procured the fake marks sheets
from accused Nos.1 and 18. The marks sheets which were
seized from the accused Nos.22 and 23 were issued in the
name of accused Nos.22 and 23 and the same were
verified by the Deputy Registrar (Evaluation) of Kuvempu
University and they were found to be fake. The petitioners
along with other accused were therefore charge sheeted
for the aforesaid offences. The III Additional Civil Judge
and JMFC., Bhadravathi, in terms of the order dated
05.09.2012 taking into consideration the charge sheet and
other materials, took cognizance of the offences
punishable under Sections 109, 120B, 168, 179, 183, 186,
201, 381, 408, 411, 417, 465, 467, 468, 471, 472, 474,
475 of the IPC and Sections 120 and 121 of the Karnataka
Education Act, 1983 and directed office to register criminal
case, which was numbered as C.C. No.2769/2012, against
the accused. The petitioners, who were arraigned as
accused Nos.22 and 23 are before this Court seeking
NC: 2023:KHC:42936
quashing of proceedings in C.C. No.2769/2012 (new C.C.
No.457/2016).
4. Learned counsel for the respective petitioner in
these petitions submits that the petitioners' are accused of
commission of an offence punishable under Section 474 of
IPC. He contends that for an offence punishable under
Section 474 of IPC, it is not mere possession of a forged
document, but there should be intention on the part of the
accused to use the said forged document as genuine. He,
therefore, contends that possession of aforesaid marks
sheets by petitioners' itself would not amount to an
offence unless the prosecution is able to establish that
there was intention on the part of the petitioners' to use
the same as genuine. In this regard, he relied upon the
judgment of the Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc in
the case of STATE of Washington v. Vianney VASQUEZ
[No.87282-1 decided:July 25, 2013]. He invited the
attention of the Court to paragraph Nos.13 and 16 of the
said judgment, where it was laid as follows:
NC: 2023:KHC:42936
"13. We conclude that the record before us
discloses insufficient evidence to prove Vasquez's
intent to injure or defraud beyond a reasonable
doubt. First, the Court of Appeals' rhetorical
question, "And here why else would Mr.Vasquez have
them," Vasquez, 166 Wash.App. at 53, 269 P.3d
370, infers intent from mere possession. Such an
inference relieves the State of its burden to prove all
elements of the crime of forgery beyond a
reasonable doubt. As various cases make clear,
possession alone does not support an inference of
intent. Second, although Vasquez might have
acknowledged ownership of the forged cards, the
evidence is equivocal as to whether Vasquez
intended to defraud Englund by convincing him that
the cards were genuine. Equivocal evidence cannot
form the basis of an inference of intent to injure or
defraud. Finally, Englund's shaky recollection of
Vasquez's statement from working in the area does
not support an inference that Vasquez used forged
cards in connection with employment. Beyond
Englund's scant testimony, the State presented no
evidence that Vasquez had ever worked, was
working, intended to seek work in the area, or had
ever used the forged cards in any way. Because the
evidence presented in this case is insufficient to
demonstrate Vasquez's intent to injure or defraud,
NC: 2023:KHC:42936
we reverse the Court of Appeals and remand to
vacate Vasquez's conviction.
xxx
16. For other crimes where possession and intent
are elements of the crime, Washington courts do not
permit inferences based on naked possession.
Rather, this court and the Court of Appeals have
consistently required the State to prove intent
beyond a reasonable doubt."
He therefore contends that it was incumbent upon the
prosecution to produce materials to show that the
petitioners' had intention to use this document and if that
was absent, their prosecution under Section 474 of IPC
cannot be sustained and is not warranted. He further
submits that several of the accused who were employed in
the Kuvempu University were though charge sheeted, this
Court in several petitions had quashed the proceedings
against them as proper sanction under Section 197 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C') was
not obtained. He further contends that several students
who were accused of being part of the illegal activity, have
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:42936
not been prosecuted and therefore, the respective
petitioner in these petitions are selectively discriminated in
being prosecuted. He also relied upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dr. S. Dutt v. State of
Uttar Pradesh [(1966) 1 S.C.R. 493]. He further
contended that except the confession statement of the
petitioners' in these petitions, there is no incriminating
evidence seized or collected by the prosecution and the
confession statements are not substantive evidence and
cannot be pressed into service against the petitioners'. He
submitted that if the confession statements are not
considered, there is no material to prosecute the
petitioners'. Hence, he contended that the prosecution
has to fail. In this regard, he relied upon the judgment of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bheru Singh v.
State of Rajasthan [(1994) 2 SCC 467]. He contended
that this Court should not hesitate to exercise jurisdiction
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C when it is found that there is
no incriminating evidence against the petitioners'. He
relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC:42936
the cases of: Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Another v. Special
Judicial Magistrate and Others [(1998) 5 SCC 749];
Anand Kumar Mohatta and Another v. State (NCT of
Delhi), Department of Home and Another [(2019) 11
SCC 706]; Ashok Chaturvedi and Others v. Shitul H.
Chanchani and Another [(1998) 7 SCC 698]; G.
Sagar Suri and Another v. State of U.P. and Others
[(2000) 2 SCC 636] and C.V.K. Balakrishnan and
Anr. v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Anr. [Criminal
Appeal No. of 2023 arising out of Special Leave
Petition (Crl.) No.1733/2023].
5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government
Pleader submitted that four marks sheets in the names of
accused Nos.22 and 23 were recovered from their
possession. She submits that the petitioners' had
obtained these fake marks sheets from the accused No.15
who acted as a middle man between them and accused
Nos.1 and 18. She pointed out to the role of accused No.1
and contended that the accused No.1 along with accused
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC:42936
Nos.15, 18 and 19 had stolen the blank degree
certificates, blank marks sheets, holograms, fake seals of
various colleges, various officers of Universities and with
the help of accused No.18, they used to get the fake
marks sheets printed and had parted the same in favour of
accused Nos.22 and 23 for consideration. She also pointed
out to the statement of Mr. S.A. Javed - CW.42, who had
verified the marks sheets that were seized from the
custody of accused Nos.22 and 23 and who stated that the
marks sheets that were seized were all fake. She,
therefore, submits that there is ample material to establish
that the petitioners' were in possession of the fake marks
sheets and the role of accused Nos.1, 15, 18 and 19 in
fabricating the fake marks sheets in favour of accused
Nos.22 and 23 is writ large on the record. Therefore, she
contends that the petitioners' are also involved in
commission of an offence punishable under Section 474 of
IPC. She contends that the Trial Court has already framed
charge sheet against the petitioners' for the offence
punishable under Section 474 of IPC. She contends that
- 13 -
NC: 2023:KHC:42936
the fact that the marks sheets are issued in the name of
the petitioners' goes to show that these marks sheets
were obtained from accused Nos.1, 15, 18 and 19 to be
used by the petitioners'. She contends that the question
whether there was intention on the part of the petitioners'
to use the marks sheets or not is a matter of trial and the
petitioners' have to establish their innocence before the
Trial Court and not in a petition under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. She, therefore, prayed that the petitions may be
dismissed.
6. I have considered the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the petitioners' as well as the learned
High Court Government Pleader and also perused the
charge sheet and the documents attached to it.
7. The material placed along with the charge sheet
indicates that the petitioners' with an intention to obtain
fake marks sheets in their names, contacted the accused
No.15, who acted as a middle man between accused
Nos.1, 18 and 19 to fabricate the fake marks sheets in the
- 14 -
NC: 2023:KHC:42936
names of the petitioners'. The fact that the marks sheets
so obtained were fake is evident from the statement of
CW.42, who is the Registrar (Evaluation), Kuvempu
University. These fake marks sheets were recovered from
the house/s of the petitioners'. A charge sheet is filed
which discloses that these marks sheets were brought
about by the accused No.1 in conspiracy with the other
accused. The contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioners' that mere possession of a forged document is
not an offence, but there should be some material to
indicate that the petitioners' had intention to use the said
documents as genuine is a fact that has to be established
by the petitioners' before the Trial Court. The very fact
that the fake marks sheets are brought about in the name
of the petitioners' gives an impression that the petitioners'
had obtained these fake marks sheets from the other
accused with an intention to use the same as genuine.
Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioners' that an offence under Section 474 of IPC is not
made out cannot be accepted. In so far as the judgment of
- 15 -
NC: 2023:KHC:42936
the Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc relied upon by
the learned counsel for the petitioners, that was a case
where the Court after a trial found that there was no
intention on the part of the accused to use the product of
crime. In that context, the Court held that mere
possession of document would not be sufficient unless
there is physical evidence to show that there was intention
on the part of the accused to misuse the document. In so
far as the power of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
to quash the proceedings, the position of law is as old as
the hills. This Court would not hesitate to exercise
jurisdiction wherever it is found that the investigation is
done prejudicially to the interest of the accused or that a
perusal of the entire charge sheet material does not
constitute an offence complained by the prosecution. In
the case on hand, there is evidence on record which
discloses that the respective petitioner in these petitions
and the other accused had all conspired to bring about
various documents in the name of the Kuvempu University
and the petitioners' herein knowing fully well that they had
- 16 -
NC: 2023:KHC:42936
not passed M.B.A. and B.Sc. examinations, had obtained
fake marks sheets in their names. Therefore, the question
whether the petitioners had these documents for the sake
of it or whether they had intention to use it as genuine has
to be established by the prosecution before the Trial Court
and this Court cannot prejudge the issue by holding that
mere possession of the document cannot constitute an
offence punishable under Section 474 of IPC.
8. In that view of the matter, both these petitions
lack merit and are dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
para Nos.1 and 2 - MBM
from para No.3
