RAMAKRISHNAIAH C.H v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari or expunge/delete remarks and recommendations made by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Mysore in S.C. No. 149/2018 dated 30.01.2019.

(i) The petitioner who was the Inspector of Police, had investigated a case in Cr.No.27/2018 for offences punishable Sections 302, 379 and 380 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (henceforth referred to as 'IPC' for short). After completing the investigation, he laid a charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 380, 451 read with Section 34 of IPC. (ii) The Trial Court after receipt of the charge sheet, committed the case for trial to the Court of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Mysuru in S.C No.149/2018. The Sessions Court framed charges against accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 380, 451 read with Section 34 of IPC and against the other accused for the offences - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:13942 WP No. 1316 of 2020 HC-KAR punishable under Sections 404 and 511 read with Section 457 of IPC. (iii) After the trial, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused in terms of the judgment dated 30.01.2019. Contemporaneously, the learned Sessions Judge directed initiation of departmental action against the petitioner as well as his superior officer, who had approved the charge sheet.

Being aggrieved by the recommendation to initiate a departmental action against the petitioner, he has filed this petition.

(i) The learned counsel the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had filed the charge sheet based on the investigation conducted by him and therefore he cannot be held liable for any misconduct. He submits that the petitioner is protected against any action taken in good faith. He further contends that the petitioner was not even afforded an opportunity before passing a castigating remark that he had had wrongly filed the charge sheet. - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:13942 WP No. 1316 of 2020 HC-KAR (ii) He contends that the observations made by the Trial Court are based on its own assumptions rather than what actually transpired at the crime scene. He therefore contends that the Trial Court could not have directed initiation of departmental action against the petitioner and his superior officer for approving the charge sheet. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of G.B. Manjunath v. State of Karnalaka - SLA(Crl.) No.10863/2018, where the Hon'ble Apex Court held that "the observations made by the High Court behind the back of the petitioner are not sustainable. The further direction given for appropriate action to be taken against him for fabrication of evidence cannot also be supported. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we set aside the adverse comments made against the petitioner who has retired on attaining the age of superannuation. Para 25 of the High Court Judgment and consequential direction issued in (ix) (at page 35 of the High Court Judgment), which have no bearing on the merits of the criminal case, are deleted from the record. " - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:13942 WP No. 1316 of 2020 HC-KAR (iii) He therefore, contends that the petitioner is similarly placed and therefore, the impugned judgment is so far as it relates to issuing directions to the disciplinary authority of the petitioner to take action is liable to be set aside.

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader submits that the Trial Court had examined whether the facts gathered during the course of investigation justified the filing of the charge sheet. He contends that the Trial Court after perusing the evidence on record, came to a definite conclusion that the case as presented by the Investigating Officer was not believable and therefore rightly held that departmental action has to be initiated not only against the petitioner, but also against his superior officer.

I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State. 7(i). The petitioner had laid a charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 380 and 451 read with Section 34 of IPC. It was the case of the prosecution that on

27.03.2018 at 10:00 a.m., the security guard at the under- - 6 - NC: 2026:KHC:13942 WP No. 1316 of 2020 HC-KAR construction Loco Colony, Type-3 quarters in the Railway Quarters was found murdered. It was alleged that accused Nos.1 to 3 stole four iron grill windows by transporting them in an auto hired by them, which was parked at the gate of Vani Vilas Water Works. After loading the grills, they allegedly conspired to commit the murder of the security guard, fearing that their crime may be revealed by him. It was further alleged that pursuant thereto, the accused went to the under- construction building and accused No.1 assaulted the deceased with a club on his head, while accused No.3 kept vigil and accused No.2 joined accused No.1. It was also alleged that the accused took away the mobile phone of the deceased and attempted to break open the lock of the shed. (ii) The prosecution claimed that the accused were arrested on 08.04.2018 at about 08.45 p.m. The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the relevant witnesses and after drawing the relevant mahazars, filed a charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 384, 351 read with Section 34 of IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses as PWs.1 to 12, relied upon Exs.P1 to P43 and M.Os.1 to 12 were - 7 - NC: 2026:KHC:13942 WP No. 1316 of 2020 HC-KAR marked. The statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C was recorded, and the accused denied the incriminating evidence against them. (iii) The Trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, held that PW.2 was the sole witness who deposed that on 26.03.2018 at 08:15 p.m., near Dodda Gadiyara in Mysuru City, the accused had hired his auto and proceeded towards Vani Vilas Water tank and asked him to wait there. He deposed that the accused brought iron grills and loaded them into the auto. He further stated that the accused again discussed something amongst themselves and asked him to wait. He deposed that after about 10 or 20 minutes, the accused hurriedly returned and asked him to proceed towards Mandi Mohalla where the grills were unloaded. He stated that the accused thereafter went to a scrap shop, returned and paid him Rs.150/- towards the hire charges. He further deposed that on

08.04.2018 the police went near the auto stand to enquire about one Rajesh and that he introduced himself as Rajesh to the police. He thereafter identified the iron grills marked as MOs.1 to 4. The Trial Court, however, doubted as to how the Investigating Officer had zeroed in on this witness as the - 8 - NC: 2026:KHC:13942 WP No. 1316 of 2020 HC-KAR person whose auto was allegedly hired by the accused and held that the said aspect was doubtful. (iv) The Trial Court held that the petitioner who was examined as PW.12 did not disclose how he came to know that the auto of PW.2 was taken on hire by the accused. The Trial Court perused the confession statement of the accused and noted that they did not disclose the name of PW.2 or that his auto-rickshaw was taken on hire by them. The Trial Court therefore observed that the investigating officer was not a clairvoyant to know that PW.2 was the person who had assisted the accused in transporting MOs.1 to 4.

Consequently, it held that PW.2 was a planted witness. (v) During the course of cross-examination of the petitioner, a question was put as to how the accused would return back after stealing the iron gates and it was suggested that such conduct was unnatural. The petitioner deposed that the accused were drunkards and that they could do anything. The Trial Court however, rejected this explanation and observed that it was merely the imagination of the petitioner and that the entire prosecution case was built upon such - 9 - NC: 2026:KHC:13942 WP No. 1316 of 2020 HC-KAR imagination. The Trial Court further held that it was unnatural for the accused to return to the crime scene to commit the murder of the security guard and therefore, doubted the charge sheet filed by the petitioner. Consequently, while acquitting the accused, the Trial Court directed initiation of departmental action against the petitioner as well as the officer who had approved the charge sheet.

(vi) Therefore, the Trial Court, while disbelieving the prosecution case, proceeded on the assumption that the case presented by the prosecution was not believable. However, while holding that the petitioner had filed a false charge sheet and that the superior officer of the petitioner was liable for approving such charge sheet, the Trial Court could not have, on its own, directed initiation of departmental action. The least that was expected of the Trial Court was to afford an opportunity to the petitioner to explain the circumstances under which the charge sheet was filed. The order passed by the Trial Court is therefore behind the back of the petitioner and has prejudicially affected his service conditions. - 10 - NC: 2026:KHC:13942 WP No. 1316 of 2020 HC-KAR (vii) Therefore, the directions issued by the Trial Court in the impugned order to initiate departmental action against the petitioner and his superior officer warrants interference.