ASHIF v. STATE BY ACB POLICE, BELAGAVI

learned counsel for the respondent, who has filed statement of objection.

3. Facts leading to filing of this criminal petition narrated briefly are: Based on the first information received from de facto complainant, FIR in Crime No.9 of 2019 was registered against the petitioner on 27.08.2019 for offence punishable under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12064 CRL.P No. 102247 of 2023 HC-KAR Allegation against the petitioner, who was working as an Assistant Registrar in the Department of Co-operative Societies at Bailhongol, is that he had demanded a bribe of ₹25,000/- to permit the de facto complainant to collect money from the shareholders of the proposed Co-operative Society, intended to be formed by the first informant, his friends and others. The bribe amount on negotiation was allegedly brought down to ₹20,000/-. The complainant was not willing to pay the bribe amount. Thereafter, after recording his conversation with the accused, he had approached the Police and based on his first information, FIR in Crime No.9 of 2019 was registered. In a trap that was held subsequently on 28.08.2019, the petitioner allegedly was caught red handed while receiving the bribe amount of ₹10,000/-. After completing investigation, charge sheet was filed against the petitioner for the aforesaid offence and the Trial Court after taking cognizance of the charge sheet offence had issued summons to the petitioner - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12064 CRL.P No. 102247 of 2023 HC-KAR in Special Case No.43 of 2021. Challenging the proceedings in the aforesaid case, petitioner is before this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the Departmental Enquiry that was held against the petitioner on the same set of facts, petitioner has been exonerated. All the material charge witnesses were examined in the departmental proceedings. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashoo Surendranath Tewari vs. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW, CBI and another1, petitioner’s prayer needs to be allowed.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that, merely for the reason that petitioner has been exonerated in the departmental proceedings, criminal proceedings initiated against him cannot be quashed. He submits that there are many more charge sheet witnesses to be examined. He submits that in the charge sheet, totally 1 (2020) 9 SCC 636 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12064 CRL.P No. 102247 of 2023 HC-KAR 19 charge sheet witnesses have been cited as CW1 to CW19. In the departmental proceedings only 5 witnesses were examined. He submits that in the present case, charge is already framed and trial in the case has commenced. Therefore, at this stage the prayer made in the petition cannot be granted. He submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Neeraj Dutta vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi)2 has held that even in the absence of primary oral or documentary evidence, it is permissible to draw an inferential deduction of culpability or guilt of a public servant under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, based on other evidence including circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution. In support of his arguments that criminal proceedings cannot be quashed after trial has commenced, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu vs. Thirukkural 2 (2023) 4 SCC 731 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12064 CRL.P No. 102247 of 2023 HC-KAR Perumal3. He submits that since all the material charge sheet witnesses are not examined in the departmental proceedings, in view of the law laid down in the case of Sanju Rajan Nayar vs. Jayaraj and another4, the prayer made in the petition is liable to be rejected.

6. In the charge sheet which is filed against the petitioner, prosecution has all together cited 19 charge sheet witnesses. CW1 Fakirappa is the de facto complainant in the present case. CW2 Eranna and CW3 Shivaji Ganapatrao are panch witnesses and CW4 Sunil Patatar is the shadow witness. CW5 and CW6 have identified the voice of the accused found in the conversation that was recorded by CW1. Out of the aforesaid six material charge sheet witnesses, five witnesses were examined Departmental Enquiry that was held by a retired District and Sessions Judge against the petitioner herein. In the Departmental Enquiry, having appreciated the oral and 3 (1995) 2 SCC 449 4 2024 SCC online SC 582 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12064 CRL.P No. 102247 of 2023 HC-KAR documentary evidence placed on record, the Enquiry Officer has recorded a finding that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges alleged against the petitioner and the enquiry report dated 16.09.2022 has been accepted and the petitioner has been exonerated on merits in the said proceedings.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashoo Surendranath Tewari (supra) in paragraph Nos.12 and 13 has observed as follows: “12. After referring to various judgments, this Court then culled out the ratio of those decisions in para 38 as follows: (Radheshyam Kejriwal case [Radheshyam Kejriwal v. State of W.B., (2011) 3 SCC 581 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 721] , SCC p. 598) “38. The ratio which can be culled out from these decisions can broadly be stated as follows: (i) (ii) Adjudication proceedings and criminal prosecution launched simultaneously; Decision in adjudication proceedings is not necessary before initiating criminal prosecution; HC-KAR (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12064 CRL.P No. 102247 of 2023 Adjudication proceedings and criminal proceedings are independent in nature to each other; The finding against the person facing prosecution adjudication proceedings is not binding on the proceeding for criminal prosecution; Adjudication proceedings by Enforcement Directorate 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; finding the adjudication The proceedings in favour of the person facing trial for identical violation will depend upon the nature of finding. If adjudication proceedings is on technical ground and not on merit, prosecution may continue; and exoneration In case of exoneration, however, on merits where the allegation is found to be not sustainable at all and the person 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.” innocent,

13. It finally concluded: (Radheshyam Kejriwal case [Radheshyam Kejriwal v. State of W.B., SCC p. 598, para 39) - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12064 CRL.P No. 102247 of 2023 HC-KAR “39. In our opinion, therefore, the yardstick would be to judge as to whether the allegation in the adjudication proceedings as well as the proceeding for prosecution is identical and the exoneration of the person concerned in the adjudication proceedings is on merits. In case it is found on merit that there is no contravention of the provisions of the Act in the adjudication proceedings, the trial of the person concerned shall be an abuse of the process of the court.”

8. In the present case, in the Departmental Enquiry held against the petitioner, there is a specific find that charges against him with regard to alleged demand and acceptance of bribe was not proved and accordingly he was exonerated in the departmental proceedings. In the case of Neeraj Dutta, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in the absence of any direct primary oral or documentary evidence, it is permissible to draw an inferential deduction of culpability by the guilt of a public servant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2), based on other evidence including circumstantial evidence produced by the prosecution. In the case on hand, the material charge sheet witnesses have been examined in the departmental proceedings and after appreciating the oral and - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12064 CRL.P No. 102247 of 2023 HC-KAR documentary evidence that was produced on behalf of the prosecution, in the departmental proceedings, the Enquiry Officer, who is a retired District and Sessions Judge, has held that the charges levelled against the petitioner has not proved in the departmental proceedings. In spite of primary evidence being available in the departmental proceedings, the petitioner has been exonerated in the said proceedings and therefore, the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Neeraj Dutta (supra) cannot be made applicable to the case on hand.

9. The judgment in the case of Thirukkural Perumal (supra) has been rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case registered for offences punishable under the provisions of Indian Penal Code and since trial had commenced in the said proceedings, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that it was not proper for the High Court to quash the criminal proceedings at the said stage. In the present case, petitioner has questioned the impugned proceedings, placing reliance on the judgment of - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12064 CRL.P No. 102247 of 2023 HC-KAR the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashoo Surendranath Tewari (supra), where the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is totally different. Therefore, the judgment in the case of Thirukkural Perumal (supra) also cannot be made applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

10. In the case of Sanju Rajan Nayar (supra), considering the fact that continuation of the trial as against the accused in the said case was not on the very same evidence that was placed in the disciplinary proceedings, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the High Court was not justified in quashing the criminal proceedings initiated against the accused merely for the reason that he was exonerated in the departmental enquiry proceedings. Same is not the situation in the present case. In the present case, out of the six material independent charge sheet witnesses, five have been examined in the departmental proceedings and other than the aforesaid six, the remaining charge sheet witnesses are also official witnesses. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12064 CRL.P No. 102247 of 2023 HC-KAR Therefore, the judgment in the case of Sanju Rajan Nayar (supra) also cannot be made applicable to the fact of this case.

11. It is trite that judgments can be relied as precedents only if they are applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Haryana Financial Corporation and another vs. Jagdamba Oil Mills and another5 has observed in paragraph Nos.19 to 21 as follows: “19. Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. Observations of Courts are not to be read as Euclid's theorems nor as provisions of the statute. These observations must be read in the context in which they appear. Judgments of courts are not to be construed as statutes. To interpret words, phrases and provisions of a statute, it may become necessary for judges to embark into lengthy discussions but the discussion is meant to explain and not to define. Judges interpret 5 (2002) 3 SCC 496 - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12064 CRL.P No. 102247 of 2023 HC-KAR statues, they do not interpret judgments. They interpret words of statutes, their words are not to be interpreted as statutes. In London Graving Dock Co. Ltd. v. Horton (1951 AC 737 at P. 761), Lord Mac Dermot observed: "The matter cannot, of course, be settled merely by treating the ipsissima vertra of Willes, J. as though they were part of an Act of Parliament and applying the rules of interpretation appropriate thereto. This is not to detract from the great weight to be given to the language actually used by that most distinguished judge."

20. In Home Office v. Dorset Yacht Co. (1970 (2) All ER 294) Lord Reid said, "Lord Atkin's speech..is not to be treated as if it was a statute definition. It will require qualification in new circumstances." Megarry, J. in (1971) 1 WLR 1062 observed: "One must not, of course, construe even a reserved judgment of even Russell L.J. as if it were an Act of Parliament." And, in Herrington v. British Railways Board, (1972) 2 WLR 537 Lord Morris said: "There is always peril in treating the words of a speech or judgment as though they are words in a legislative enactment, and it is to be remembered that judicial utterances made in the setting of the facts of a particular case." - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12064 CRL.P No. 102247 of 2023 HC-KAR

21. Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases. Disposal of cases by blindly placing reliance on a decision is not proper.”

12. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that impugned criminal proceedings is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the following: ORDER Criminal Petition is allowed. The entire proceedings in Special Case No.43 of 2021 pending before the Court of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special Judicial, Belagavi arising out of Crime No.9 of 2019 registered for offences punishable under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as against the petitioner is quashed. RSH / CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 57 Sd/- (S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE