Shri Sanjeev S/O Veerabhadra Kapali vs State Of Karnataka
2025 Latest Caselaw 3439 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Shri Sanjeev S/O Veerabhadra Kapali vs State Of Karnataka on 3 February, 2025

Author: Hemant Chandangoudar

Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar

                                                      -1-
                                                                  NC: 2025:KHC-D:2076
                                                              WP No. 105989 of 2023



                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
                                 DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
                                                   BEFORE
                             THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
                                  WRIT PETITION NO.105989 OF 2023 (GM-RES)

                        BETWEEN:

                        SHRI. SANJEEV S/O. VEERABHADRA KAPALI
                        AGE. 33 YEARS, OCC. GOVT. SERVICE,
                        R/O. H.NO.599/58/10, 'BASAVA NILAYA', SAUDATTI,
                        TQ. SAUDATTI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591126.
                                                                          ...PETITIONER
                        (BY SRI. JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE)

                        AND:

                        1.   STATE OF KARNATAKA
                             DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND
                             ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS,
                             R/BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
                             VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.

                        2.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
                             DEPARTMENT OF HOME,
                             R/BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
                             VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.
Digitally signed by B
K
MAHENDRAKUMAR
Location: HIGH          3.   KARNATAK LOKAYUKTA
COURT OF
KARNATAKA                    DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
DHARWAD BENCH
Date: 2025.02.05             BELAGAVI, (FORMERLY POLICE INSPECTOR
12:54:41 +0530
                             ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU POLICE STATION,
                             BELAGAVI)-591201.

                        4.   KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA
                             DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
                             BELAGAVI, (FOREMERLY POLICE INSPECTOR
                             ANTI CORRUPTION BUREU POLICE STATION,
                             BELAGAVI)-591201.

                        5.   SHIVAPPA S/O. MUTTEPPA WARAGANNAVAR
                             AGE. 27 YEARS, OCC. NIL,
                             R/O. POST. KODLIWAD, TQ. SAUNDATTI,
                                        -2-
                                                 NC: 2025:KHC-D:2076
                                             WP No. 105989 of 2023



     DIST. BELAGAVI-591126.
                                                      ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. T.HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI. ANIL KALE, SPP FOR R3 AND R4)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO, ISSUE A WRIT
OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE F.I.R. REGISTERED BEFORE THE
BELAGAVI PS CRIME NO. 04/2022 DATED. 08-03-2022 VIDE
ANNEXURE-B TO THE WRIT PETITION WHICH IS PENDING ON THE
FILE OF IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE BELAGAVI
INSOFAR AS PE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED.

    THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM:      THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR


                               ORAL ORDER

The petitioner-accused No.1 who is investigated for the offence punishable under Section 7(a) & 7(A) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is before this Court seeking relief.

2. The respondent No.5 lodged a complaint stating that on 23.02.2022, when he had been to the office of the Sub-Registrar, Murgod, he met a bond writer and requested him to draft the partition deed relating to the subject properties. The bond writer demanded a sum of Rs.6,000/- for drafting the partition deed and additional amount of Rs.10,000/-. In response to the demand of the bond writer, the complainant replies that he has not brought the money and the bond writer shared the mobile number and asked him to transfer the money through phone pay. Accordingly, the complainant transferred the amount of Rs.6,000/- to the said phone pay number. The bond writer demanded the additional amount of Rs.10,000/- in the presence of the witnesses. Later the complainant at the instance of the bond writer met the Sub- Registrar and the amount was reduced to Rs.4,000/-.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2076

3. On conducting trap, the bond writer was caught accepting the gratification amount of Rs.4,000/- and the petitioner-accused No.1 has been arraigned, on the ground that the bribe amount received on behalf, at the instance of the accused No.1 for registration of partition deed.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent-Lokayukta contends that, there is ample evidence in the form of recorded conversation prior to trap and during the course of trap to substantiate that the petitioner-accused No.1 had demanded and accepted the gratification amount of Rs.4,000/- for registration of the partition deed.

5. On identical allegation, an enquiry was initiated by the Disciplinary Authority and after completion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report stating that, there is a contradiction in the evidence of the complainant, shadow witness and Investigating Officer and therefore exonerated the petitioner of the charges leveled against him. The report submitted by the enquiry officer has attained finality.

6. The respondent-Lokayukta contends that although the sanctioning authority exonerated the offence of the petitioner in the departmental enquiry, however granted sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent-Lokyukta.

8. Exoneration of the petitioner and subsequently granting sanction to prosecute him under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is considered contradictory which implies a finding of

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2076

innocence followed by a decision to pursue charges against the same person, which is legally inconsistent.

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radheshyam Kejriwal Vs. State of West Bengal, reported in (2011) 3 SCC 581 has laid the principle which reads thus:

"7. The ratio which can be culled out from these decisions can broadly be stated as follows:

(i) Adjudication proceedings and criminal prosecution can be launched simultaneously;

(ii) Decision in adjudication proceedings is not necessary before initiating criminal prosecution;

(iii) Adjudication proceedings and criminal proceedings are independent in nature to each other;

(iv) The finding against the person facing prosecution in the adjudication proceedings is not binding on the proceeding for criminal prosecution;

(v) Adjudication proceedings by the Enforcement Directorate is not prosecution by a competent court of law to attract the provisions of Article 20(2) of the Constitution or Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure;

(vi) The finding in the adjudication proceedings in favour of the person facing trial for identical violation will depend upon the nature of finding. If the exoneration in adjudication proceedings is on technical ground and not on merit, prosecution may continue;

(vii) In case of exoneration, however, on merits where the allegation is found to be not sustainable at all and the person held innocent, criminal prosecution on the same set of facts and circumstances cannot be allowed to continue, the underlying principle being the higher standard of proof in criminal cases."

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2076

10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court consisting of three learned Judges in the case of the State (NCT of Delhi) (supra) without reference to the decision in the case of Radheshyam Kejriwal (supra) has held that the High Court misread the judgment in P S Rajya -vs- State of Bihar ((1996) 9 SCC 1)) and exoneration in departmental proceeding ipso facto would not lead to exoneration or acquittal in a criminal case. It was further noted that the decision of P S Rajya case which was rendered by the Bench consisting of two learned Judge was distinguished in a subsequent decision in the case of State -vs- L. Krishnamohan which was again by a two Judges and accordingly held that the decision in PS Rajya was not an authority for the presumption that exoneration in departmental proceeding ipso facto would lead to a judgment of acquittal in a criminal trial.

11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Hyder Consulting (UK) Ltd. v. State of Orissa, (2015) 2 SCC 189 has held that a decision can be said to be given per incuriam when the court of record has acted in ignorance of any previous decision of its own, or a subordinate court has acted in ignorance of a decision of the court of record. Therefore the decision of State (NCT of Delhi) which has not taken into account and consideration of the earlier decision of the Supreme Court in Radheshyam is said to be per incuriam.

12. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Govindanaik G Kalaghatigi -vs- West Patent Press Co. Ltd. has held that where there is a conflict between two decisions of the Govindanaik Hon'ble Supreme Court of the same Bench strength, it is latter of the decision that would prevail. The decision of the

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2076

Bench consisting of three Judges in the case of Ashoo Surendranath Tewari would prevail over the decision in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) rendered by consisting of three Judges which is a latter judgment. Though the decision of the State (NCT of Delhi) was unanimous and whereas in the case of Radheshyam Kejriwal it was a majority of 2:1, the total strength of the Bench that they decided the case is deemed to be the Bench strength of that decision despite dissenting opinion as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shanti Fragrances vs- Union of India (2018) 11 SCC 305.

13. In the instant case, the departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner-accused and after conducting the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report stating that the charges against the delinquent have not been proved. Hence, in view of the ratio enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the impugned criminal proceeding cannot be continued against the accused, who has been exonerated on identical charges in the departmental enquiry, the underlying principle being higher standard of proof in criminal Cases.

14. Learned counsel for the respondent - Lokayukta has relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of PUNEET SABARWAL VS. CBI, 2024 SCC ONLINE SC 324, wherein at para 40 it was ruled as follows:

15. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid case held that the decision of the ASHOO SURENDRANATH (supra) was not applicable to the present case because the decision of ASHOO

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2076

SURENDRANATH (supra) concerned singular prosecution under provisions of Indian Penal Code, 1860, where the sanctioning authority had while denying sanction recorded on merits that there was no evidence to support the prosecution case and in the present case, the charges were framed under the Prevention Of Corruption Act while the appellants therein sought to rely upon the findings recorded by the authorities under the Income Tax Act and the scope of adjudication in both the proceedings are markedly different and therefore, the findings in the latter cannot be a ground for discharge of accused person in the former. Therefore, on similar set of charge, when the petitioner has been exonerated in the department enquiry by the competent authority, the decision of the Apex Court in the case of the case of ASHOO SURENDRA KUMAR (supra) is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Therefore, the continuation of the criminal proceedings against accused No.1 would be an abuse of the legal process. Accordingly, I pass the following:

ORDER

i) The petition is allowed.

ii) The impugned FIR in Crime No.4/2022 registered by the Belagavi Police Station on the file of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi insofar as it relates to the petitioner herein stands quashed

Sd/-

(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE HR Ct:vh