Nagaratna D/O. Shivayogappa ... vs The State Of Karnataka
2025 Latest Caselaw 4023 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Nagaratna D/O. Shivayogappa ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 17 February, 2025

Author: Hemant Chandangoudar

Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar

                                                                     -1-
                                                                                  NC: 2025:KHC-D:3122
                                                                             CRL.P No. 102418 of 2023




                                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
                                                 DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
                                                                  BEFORE
                                             THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
                                         CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102418 OF 2023 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))

                                        BETWEEN:

                                        NAGARATNA D/O. SHIVAYOGAPPA SAJJANSHETTAR
                                        AGE. 57 YEARS, OCC. COMMUNITY ORGNIZER,
                                        WORKING AT T.M.C. ANNIGERI,
                                        R/O. PUTTARAJ NAGAR, SAMBAPUR ROAD,
                                        NEAR HAVAMANA ILAKE GADAG.
                                                                                 ...PETITIONER
                                        (BY SRI. SHANKAR P.HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

                                        AND:

                                        1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
                                             BY LOKAYUKTA POLICE GADAG,
                                             R/BY SPECIAL PP, HIGH COURT BUILDING,
                                             DHARWAD-580011.

                                        2.   PREMA W/O. ASHOK KAMATAR
                                             AGE. 41 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
                                             R/O. B.B. BANNADA NAGAR,
                Digitally signed by B
                                             BETAGERI, TQ. BETAGERI,
                K
                MAHENDRAKUMAR
                Location: HIGH
                                             DIST. GADAG-582102.
BK
MAHENDRAKUMAR   COURT OF
                KARNATAKA
                DHARWAD BENCH
                                                                                     ...RESPONDENTS
                Date: 2025.02.20
                16:40:19 +0530          (BY SRI. SRINIVAS B.NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R1)

                                              THIS CRIMINAL PETITION FILED U/SEC 482 OF CR.P.C.
                                        SEEKING TO, QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET FILED IN KARNATAKA
                                        LOKAYUKTA GADAG PS CRIME NO. 01/2014 DATED 14.11.2014
                                        (VIDE ANNEXURE-A) AND THE CRIMINAL P0ROCEEDINGS
                                        INITIATED AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN LIEU OF THE SAME IN
                                        SPL. SVC NO.1/2014 FOR OFFENCES P/U/S 7,8 AND 13(1) (d) r/w
                                        SECTION 13(2) OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988
                                        IN SO FAR PETITIONER/ACCUSEDNO-1 CONCERN, PENDING ON
                                        THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SPL.
                                        JUDGE GADAG.
                                    -2-
                                               NC: 2025:KHC-D:3122
                                         CRL.P No. 102418 of 2023




    THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

                             ORAL ORDER

The petitioner, who is facing trial for offences punishable under Sections 7, 8, and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is before this Court seeking relief.

2. The prosecution alleges that while the petitioner was working as a Community Organizer, he demanded a gratification amount of Rs. 5,000/- from the complainant in exchange for releasing a subsidy amount of Rs. 12,500/-. The petitioner was allegedly caught red-handed while accepting the gratification amount. A departmental inquiry was also initiated on similar charges, in which the petitioner was exonerated on merits.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a departmental inquiry was conducted by the Lokayukta based on similar allegations. The Enquiry Officer, after conducting the inquiry, submitted a report stating that the charges against the petitioner were not proven, thereby exonerating him on merits. In support of this submission, reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashoo Surendaranth Tewari vs. Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW, CBI & Anr., reported in (2020) 9 SCC 636.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent - Lokayukta submits that merely because the petitioner

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3122

has been exonerated in the departmental inquiry, it does not necessarily lead to exoneration or acquittal in the criminal case. In support of this argument, reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Ajay Kumar Tyagi, reported in (2012) 9 SCC 685.

5. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties have been duly considered.

6. 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;

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3122

(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."

7. 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.

8. 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 the case of Radheshyam is said to be per incuriam.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3122

9. 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 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.

10. 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.

11. Learned counsel for the respondent - Lokayukta has relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3122

PUNEET SABARWAL VS. CBI, 2024 SCC ONLINE SC 324, wherein at para 40 it was ruled as follows:

"40. The decision in Ashoo Surendranath [Ashoo Surendranath Tewari v. Dy. Superintendent of Police, EOW, CBI, (2020) 9 SCC 636.] is not applicable to the present case because the decision in Ashoo Surendranath [Ashoo Surendranath Tewari v. Dy. Superintendent of Police, EOW, CBI, (2020) 9 SCC 636.] concerned a singular prosecution under the provisions of the Penal Code, 1860 where the sanctioning authority had, while denying sanction, recorded on merits that there was no evidence to support the prosecution case. In that context, the court was of the opinion that a criminal proceeding could not be continued. However, in the present case, the charges were framed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, while the appellants seek to rely upon the findings recorded by the authorities under the Income-tax Act. 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 the accused persons in the former. The proceedings under the Income-tax Act and its evidentiary value remains a matter of trial and they cannot be considered as conclusive proof for discharge of an accused person."

12. 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 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

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3122

findings in the latter cannot be a ground for discharge of accused person in the former.

13. In this instance, on a similar set of charges, the petitioner has been exonerated in the departmental inquiry by the competent authority. Therefore, the decision of the Apex Court in Ashoo Surendaranth Tewari (supra) is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Consequently, the continuation of the criminal proceedings against accused No. 1 would amount to an abuse of the legal process. Accordingly, I pass the following:

ORDER

i) The petition is allowed.

ii) The impugned proceedings in Spl.SVC No.1/2014 pending on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Spl.

Kudge, Gadag insofar as it relates to the petitioner - accused No.2 herein stands quashed

Sd/-

(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

BKM Ct:vh