Criminal Petition No. 3161 of 2024 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15018 CRL.P No. 3161 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3161 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: H.M. SHIVAPRASAD S/O LATE H. MUDDANANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, CHIEF VETERINARY OFFICER, VETERINARY HOSPITAL, TYAMAGONDLU, NELAMANGALA TALUK, R/O PRABHA NILAYA, 6TH CROSS, 1ST BLOCK KUVEMPU NAGAR, TUMKUR, KARNATAKA-572 103. (BY SRI. PARAMESHWAR N. HEGDE, ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: High Court of Karnataka AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY LOKAYUKTHA POLICE BENGALURU RURAL, FORMERLY A.C.B. BENGALURU RURAL REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-01.
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. K. PRASANNA SHETTY, ADVOCATE) …RESPONDENT THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S. 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN SPL.C.NO.243/2021 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 13(1)(e) READ WITH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15018 CRL.P No. 3161 of 2024 SECTION 13(2) OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE (LOKAYUKTHA P.S., BENGALURU RURAL, FORMERLY A.C.B.) AND PENDING ON THE FILE OF IX ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER The petitioner, accused who is prosecuted for offenses punishable under Sections 13(1)(e) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is before this Court seeking relief. 2. The prosecution alleges that the petitioner who is working as a Veterinary Doctor is possessing assets disproportionate to his known source of income for a check period 11.11.1993 to 16.12.2016 to an extent of 44.09%. 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 & Anr. reported in (2020) 9 SCC 636. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15018 CRL.P No. 3161 of 2024 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: Adjudication (i) prosecution can be launched simultaneously; proceedings and criminal (ii) Decision in adjudication proceedings is not necessary before initiating criminal prosecution; Adjudication criminal (iii) proceedings are independent in nature to each other; proceedings and finding against facing (iv) The prosecution in the adjudication proceedings is not binding on the proceeding for criminal prosecution; the person (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 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15018 CRL.P No. 3161 of 2024 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 facts and circumstances cannot be allowed to continue, the underlying principle being the higher standard of proof in criminal cases." the same set of 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. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15018 CRL.P No. 3161 of 2024 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 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:15018 CRL.P No. 3161 of 2024 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 PUNEET SABARWAL VS. CBI, 2024 SCC ONLINE SC 324, wherein at para 40 it was ruled as follows: 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 findings in the latter cannot be a ground for discharge of accused person in the former. Therefore, on similar set of charge, when the petitioner has been exonerated in the departmental enquiry by the competent authority, the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:15018 CRL.P No. 3161 of 2024 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. 13. In the present case all the charge sheet witnesses were examined in the departmental enquiry and Enquiry Officer after examining the statement of all the charge sheet witnesses and also material on record held that the charges against the petitioner is not proved and subsequently, the Enquiry Officer was exonerated of the charges on merits. 14. Therefore, the continuation of the criminal proceedings against accused would be an abuse of the legal process. Accordingly, I pass the following:
Decision
ORDER The petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings in Special i) ii) CC.No.243/2021 on the file of IX Additional Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District insofar as it relates to petitioner-accused herein stands quashed. iii) Bail bond, if any, stands discharged. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE HR