Karnataka High Court
Ashok S/O Mallappa Devaragudda vs State Of Karnataka on 13 February, 2025
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2974
CRL.P No. 100500 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100500 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
ASHOK S/O. MALLAPPA DEVARAGUDDA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
OCC. ASSISTANT TREASURY OFFICER,
R/O. MEDLERI, NOW RESIDING AT
MRUTHUNJAYA NAGARA,
4TH CROSS, RANEBENNUR,
RANEBENNUR TSLUK,
HAVERI DIST. 581115.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ARAVIND D.KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY LOKAYUKTA BY POLICE INSPECTOR,
LOKAYUKTA POLICE STATION HAVERI,
REP. BY SLP.P.P. HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD-580001.
Digitally signed by B ...RESPONDENT
K
MAHENDRAKUMAR
Location: HIGH
(BY SRI. SANTOSH B.MALAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE)
BK
MAHENDRAKUMAR COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
Date: 2025.02.19
10:43:45 +0530 THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C.
SEEKING TO, ALLOW THE PETITION, QUASH THE ENTIRE CHARGE
SHEET AND ORDER DATED 22.01.2020 PASSED BY PRINCIPAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, HAVERI,
IN SPL. S.V.C.NO. 01/2020 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES
P/U/SEC. 7(a)(b) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT AND ALL
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO THE SAID ORDER
AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED HEREIN.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2974
CRL.P No. 100500 of 2024
ORAL ORDER
1. The statement of objections filed by the respondent -
Lokayukta is taken on record.
2. The petitioner, who has been charge-sheeted for
offences punishable under Sections 7(a) and 7(b) of the Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988, has approached this Court seeking relief.
3. The prosecution alleges that the petitioner, while
serving as an Assistant Treasury Officer, demanded illegal
gratification of ₹1,500/- from the complainant for preparing a
cheque towards two months' rent payable for cars hired by
Government offices through a travel agency run by the
complainant. In a trap operation, the petitioner was allegedly
caught red-handed while accepting the bribe.
4. A departmental enquiry was subsequently conducted
on similar charges. During the enquiry, the statements of the
complainant, shadow witness, Investigating Officer, and panch
witnesses were recorded. After considering the material on record,
the Enquiry Officer exonerated the petitioner of all charges, and
this finding has attained finality.
5. In response, the learned counsel for the respondent -
Lokayukta contended that exoneration in a departmental enquiry
does not ipso facto absolve the accused of criminal liability. It was
further submitted that only five witnesses were examined in the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2974
departmental proceedings, whereas the charge sheet contains
allegations against the petitioner involving 17 charges.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Radheshyam Kejriwal
v. State of West Bengal, (2011) 3 SCC 581, laid down the following
principles:
(i) Adjudication proceedings and criminal prosecution can be
launched simultaneously.
(ii) A decision in adjudication proceedings is not necessary
before initiating criminal prosecution.
(iii) Adjudication proceedings and criminal proceedings are
independent of each other.
(iv) A finding against the accused in adjudication proceedings
is not binding on criminal prosecution.
(v) Adjudication by the Enforcement Directorate is not
prosecution by a competent court of law to attract Article 20(2) of
the Constitution or Section 300 of Cr.P.C.
(vi) If exoneration in adjudication proceedings is on technical
grounds and not on merits, criminal prosecution may continue.
(vii) However, if exoneration is on merits, where the
allegation is found to be unsustainable and the accused is held
innocent, criminal prosecution on the same set of facts cannot
continue, considering the higher standard of proof required in
criminal cases.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2974
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in State (NCT of Delhi) v.
P.S. Rajya, (1996) 9 SCC 1, held that exoneration in departmental
proceedings does not automatically lead to acquittal in a criminal
case. This view was later distinguished in State v. L.
Krishnamohan, and it was clarified that P.S. Rajya is not an
authority for the presumption that departmental exoneration
necessarily leads to acquittal in criminal trials.
8. In Hyder Consulting (UK) Ltd. v. State of Orissa,
(2015) 2 SCC 189, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a decision
is per incuriam when a court has acted in ignorance of a binding
precedent. Consequently, the decision in State (NCT of Delhi),
which did not consider Radheshyam Kejriwal, is said to be per
incuriam.
9. The Full Bench of this Court in Govindanaik G.
Kalaghatigi v. West Patent Press Co. Ltd. held that when there is a
conflict between two decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
equal bench strength, the later decision prevails. Accordingly, the
judgment in Ashoo Surendranath Tewari v. CBI, which followed
Radheshyam Kejriwal, prevails over State (NCT of Delhi).
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Puneet Sabarwal v.
CBI, 2024 SCC Online SC 324, at para 40, distinguished Ashoo
Surendranath Tewari, stating that in that case, the sanctioning
authority, while refusing sanction, had recorded that there was no
evidence to support the prosecution, whereas in Puneet Sabarwal,
the charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act were distinct
from findings under the Income Tax Act. However, in the present
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2974
case, the petitioner has been exonerated on identical charges by a
competent authority in the departmental enquiry, making the
principle in Ashoo Surendranath Tewari directly applicable.
11. In the present case, all material witnesses, namely the
complainant, shadow witness, and Investigating Officer, were
examined in the departmental enquiry, and the petitioner was
exonerated on merits. Given this, the continuation of the criminal
proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
Since the petitioner has already been exonerated in the
departmental proceedings, the prospect of securing a criminal
conviction is bleak, as a higher standard of proof is required in a
criminal trial.
12. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned
proceedings in Special SVC No.01/2020, pending before the
learned Principal District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge,
Haveri, are hereby quashed.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR)
JUDGE
BKM
