Munnappa vs The State Of Karnataka
2025 Latest Caselaw 4291 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Munnappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 21 February, 2025

Author: Hemant Chandangoudar

Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar

                                                    -1-
                                                                 NC: 2025:KHC-D:3578
                                                            WP No. 104695 of 2023



                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
                                DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
                                                 BEFORE
                             THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
                                 WRIT PETITION NO. 104695 OF 2023 (GM-RES)

                        BETWEEN:

                        MUNNAPPA S/O. DEVAPPA LAMANI
                        AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCC: FORESTER,
                        ARAVATAGI FOREST NAKA,
                        TQ. ALNAVAR, DHARWAD.
                        PRESENTLY WORKING AS
                        DEPUTY FOREST OFFICER,
                        BENACHI SECTION, RANGE: DHARWAD-580008.
                                                                       ...PETITIONER
                        (BY SRI. ARAVIND D.KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)

                        AND:

                        1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
                             DEPARTMENT OF HOME,
                             REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
                             VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001.
                        2.   HON'BLE LOKAYUKTA
                             REPRESENTED BY DY.S.P. DHARWAD,
                             REPRESENTED BY
Digitally signed by B
K
MAHENDRAKUMAR
                             SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
                             HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD-580008.
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
Date: 2025.02.25        3.   CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS
18:00:38 +0530
                             KARNATAKA FOREST DEPARTMENT,
                             DHARWAD CIRCLE,
                             ARANYA BHAVANA COMPLEX,
                             NEAR KC PARK, DHARWAD-580008.
                        4.   RUDRAPPA GANAPATHI MAMATGERI
                             AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
                             R/O. KOGILAGERI VILLAGE,
                             DIST. DHARWAD-580008.
                                                                   ...RESPONDENTS
                        (BY SRI. T.HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 AND R3;
                        SRI. SRINIVAS B.NAIK, ADV. FOR R2;
                        NOTICE TO R4 IS SERVED)
                                  -2-
                                                NC: 2025:KHC-D:3578
                                             WP No. 104695 of 2023




     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED PRAYING TO, TO ISSUE WRIT
OR ORDER IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE
IMPUGNED COMPLAINT FILED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 VIDE
ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE FIR REGISTERED
BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-B FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 7(A) OF THE P C ACT
AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH THE
SAME AND ETC.

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

CORAM:     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

                            ORAL ORDER

1. The petitioner, who is facing trial for the offence punishable under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is before this Court seeking relief.

2. The prosecution alleges that the complainant had filed an application seeking permission to cut and transport the teakwood trees. In this regard, accused No.1, who was working as Deputy Forest Officer, demanded gratification amount of Rs.3,000/- and after registering the FIR, trap was conducted on 13.02.2020 and in the said trap, accused Nos.2 and 3, who were working as forest guards were caught red handed accepting the gratification. On the same set of charges, departmental enquiry was conduced and in the said departmental enquiry, the complainant, shadow witness, panch witnesses and higher officer were examined and after, enquiry report was submitted a report stating that charges against accused No.1/petitioner was not proved and thus, enquiry report was accepted by the Disciplinary Authority and after issuance of notice, the petitioner was exonerated of all the charges.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3578

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a departmental inquiry had been conducted by the Lokayukta based on similar allegations, and the Enquiry Officer, after conducting the inquiry, submitted a report stating that the charges against the petitioner were not proven, thereby exonerating the petitioner on merits. In support of this, he relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashoo Surendranath Tewari v. Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW, CBI & Another reported in (2020) 9 SCC 636.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent Lokayukta submits that merely because the petitioner 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) v. Ajay Kumar Tyagi, reported in (2012) 9 SCC 685.

5. The submissions made by the learned counsel for both parties have been 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;

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3578

(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."

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.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3578

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 Radheshyam is said to be per incuriam.

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

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3578

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

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

12. 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 the petitioner would be an abuse of the legal process. Accordingly, I pass the following:

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3578

ORDER

a) The petition is allowed.

b) The impugned proceedings in Spl. KLA CC No.7/2023 (ACB Crime No.2/2020), on the file of learned III Addl. District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI and Lokayukta Cases, Dharwad, insofar as petitioner/accused No.1 is concerned.

c) The Special Judge to proceed against the accused No.2 without being influenced by the observation made in this order. The observation made herein is only for the purpose of present petition.

Sd/-

(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

JTR Ct:vh