Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Sri B Thippeswamy on 10 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:10140
CRL.RP No. 1015 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1015 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY
THE POLICE INSPECTOR,
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA
POLICE WING, CITY DIVISION
BENGALURU - 560 001.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VENKATESH S ARBATTI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI. B. THIPPESWAMY
SON OF BHORAPPA,
MOTOR VEHICLE INSPECTOR,
SENIOR REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,
Digitally signed by
HARIKRISHNA V OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER
Location: HIGH ELECTRONIC CITY BENGALURU - 560 076.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
RESIDENT OF NO.203,
2ND STAGE, JAGADGURU GANTAKARNA BHAVANA
3RD STAGE B.E.M.L LAYOUT
R.R NAGARA, BENGALURU.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. P.V. HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 10.05.2018,
PASSED BY THE XXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY IN SPECIAL
C.C.NO.530/2017.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:10140
CRL.RP No. 1015 of 2018
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner-Karnataka Lokayuktha has preferred this
Revision Petition against the Order dated 10.05.2018 in Spl.C.C
No.530/2017 by the XIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge
and Special Judge, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as the
'learned Special Judge'), whereby the learned Special Judge
discharged the respondent/ accused for the offences punishable
under Sections 7, 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as
'the Act') and under Sections 409 and 420 of IPC in Crime No.
66/2015 dated 13.10.2015 filed by the Lokayuktha Police.
2. The abridged facts of the case are as under:
One Sri. Vijimon T.N lodged a complaint against the
respondent/accused before the inspector of police, Karnataka
Lokayuktha alleging that, on 28.08.2014 while he was
travelling by Maruti car owned by him from Kerala to
Karnataka. He was intercepted by a Motor Vehicle Inspector at
Jigani and found that he was due to pay the Lifetime Tax of the
NC: 2025:KHC:10140
said car in the State of Karnataka. Accordingly a receipt/notice
was issued to seize the same; however, he was left on that
day. On 19.09.2014 at Jigani once again he was intercepted by
the respondent/accused. Albeit, the respondent exhibited
earlier notice issued to him on 28.08.2014, but, the
complainant failed to remit a sum of Rs.50,000/- as payment
towards Lifetime Tax of the said car in the State of Karnataka.
As the complainant was short on finances, he paid a sum of
Rs.20,000/- and promised to pay the remaining balance later,
accordingly he obtained the mobile number of the
respondent/accused. The said incident was video recorded by
the complainant on his mobile. Later the complainant tried
contacting the respondent/accused to pay the balance amount;
however, there was no response from the respondent/accused.
As such he lodged a complaint before the Lokayuktha police on
10.08.2015 and produced the video clippings of the incident
dated 19.09.2014. Accordingly, the case has been registered
against the respondent/accused in Crime No. 11/2014 and later
the case was transferred to City Division of Lokayuktha and the
said crime was re-numbered as Crime No.66/2015 dated
NC: 2025:KHC:10140
13.10.2015. On investigation a chargesheet was laid against
the respondent/accused for the aforementioned offences.
3. The learned Special Judge took cognizance of the
offences and secured the presence of the respondent/accused.
Aggrieved by the same, the respondent/accused filed the
application under Section 227 r/w Section 239 of Cr.P.C for
discharge him from the alleged offences.
4. On assessment of oral and documents placed before
the learned Special Judge, the learned Special Judge
discharged the respondent/accused by allowing the application
as stated supra. The said order is challenged in this revision
petition by the Lokayuktha.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the respective
parties and comprehensively perused the materials placed
before me.
6. On meticulous examination of the documents on
record, it could be gathered that the complainant Sri. Vijimon
T.N in the instant case was initially intercepted on 28.08.2014
by a Motor Vehicle Inspector while he was travelling by Maruti
NC: 2025:KHC:10140
car registered at Kerala. Owing to non-payment of life time tax
in the State of Karnataka he was issued notice vide receipt
bearing No.0344048. However, he failed to pay the tax
amount. Later, on 19.09.2014 he was once again intercepted
by the respondent/accused for the same reason and at that
time the respondent/accused exhibited receipt/notice issued to
him earlier and allegedly paid Rs.20,000/- as part payment
towards life time tax and requested the respondent/accused
that he would pay the remaining balance amount later and
sought his mobile number. On a lapse of few days the
complainant called the respondent/accused and the
respondent/accused neither responded nor returned the call.
As such the complainant lodged a complaint. Admittedly, there
is an inordinate delay in lodging the complaint i.e., nearly 11
months and the same is not duly explained. It is the contention
of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the
respondent/accused after receiving a sum of Rs.20,000/-
neither remitted the same to his office nor made entry in the
records for having received the same. But the Lokayuktha
Police failed to prove its case by placing prima facie document
or the statement of any witness that the respondent/accused
NC: 2025:KHC:10140
received a sum of Rs.20,000/- from the complainant on
19.09.2014. Further, the video clippings produced by the
complainant was reduced to writing, though placed before the
Special Court, it failed to establish the demand and acceptance
of illegal gratification. This is forthcoming in the chargesheet
and also in the order passed by the learned Special Judge.
Admittedly there is no identification of the respondent/accused
by the complainant. The complainant has failed to mention
name of the respondent/accused in his complaint before the
Lokayuktha Police on 10.08.2015. It is on the basis of True-
Caller App the Lokayuktha Police learnt that the
respondent/accused was the person who intercepted the
complainant on 19.09.2014. Per contra, the earlier officer who
had intercepted the complainant on 28.08.2014 was Sri.
Shivakumar, RTO, in his statement has stated that, he had
seized the RC Book of the complainant's vehicle and informed
the complainant to take back the same after remitting the life
time tax. Despite this the complainant failed to pay the said life
time tax. When the complainant himself failed to identify the
person who intercepted him on second occasion, it could be
inferred that the complaint against the respondent/accused was
NC: 2025:KHC:10140
solely based on True-Caller App. Hence, the same cannot be
considered or be attached with prima facie evidentiary value.
Albeit considering the prima facie averments of the complaint,
no inference can be drawn that the respondent/accused
committed the offences alleged against him.
7. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for
the respondent/accused that, disciplinary enquiries initiated
against him by the department through Karnataka Lokayuktha
vide UPLOK-1/DE/92/2020/ARE-11 dated 22.07.2024 as not
proved. The copy of the said Order is placed by the learned
counsel before this Court. In such circumstances, the learned
counsel submitted that, if the charges leveled against the
respondent/accused is not proved in a departmental enquiry it
cannot be proved in a criminal trial, since the departmental
enquiry conducted on the preponderance of probabilities if the
same is not proved, there is no such possibility of proving the
guilt beyond reasonable doubt in a criminal trial. This position
of law is compounded by catena of judgments rendered by the
Hon'ble Apex Court. By placing reliance on the judgment of
Radheshyam Kejriwal V/s State of West Bengal and
another reported in (2011) 3 SCC 581, he submitted that,
NC: 2025:KHC:10140
the trial of the respondent/accused shall amount to an abuse of
Court process. Applying the law laid in the above judgment and
on considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I
consider that, the learned Special Judge has rightly appreciated
the materials on record and passed a well reasoned order,
which does not call for any interference by this Court. Against
this backdrop, I proceed to pass the following.
ORDER
The Revision Petition is dismissed.
SD/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
HKV
