Case Note & Summary
The judgment pertains to two connected petitions arising from Special Case No.35/2015 pending before the Principal District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Chikkamagaluru, under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The first petition, Criminal Revision Petition No.506/2018, was filed by Siddappa H. Kalleri (accused No.1) challenging the order dated 26.02.2018 passed by the trial court rejecting his application for discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). The second petition, Criminal Petition No.6664/2017, was filed by K. Chandregowda (accused No.2) seeking quashing of the entire proceedings under Section 482 CrPC. The factual matrix reveals that on 04.06.2015, the complainant approached the Lokayuktha Police alleging that accused No.1, a Senior Regional Transport Officer (RTO), demanded a bribe of Rs.5000 from him for issuing a driving license. The complainant had earlier obtained a learner's license and was awaiting the driving test. Accused No.1 allegedly demanded the bribe through accused No.2, a 'D' Group employee at the RTO office. The complainant, unwilling to pay the bribe, lodged a complaint. A trap was laid, and on 05.06.2015, the complainant went to the RTO office with treated currency notes. Accused No.2 allegedly took the complainant to accused No.1's chamber, where accused No.1 demanded and accepted the bribe. The trap team recovered the bribe amount from accused No.1's possession. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed. The trial court framed charges against both accused. Accused No.1 filed an application for discharge, which was rejected by the trial court. Accused No.1 then filed the revision petition, and accused No.2 filed the quash petition. The High Court considered the submissions of both sides. The court observed that at the stage of discharge, the court is required to consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The court noted that the prosecution had placed material including the complaint, trap mahazar, and recovery of the bribe amount from accused No.1. The court held that a prima facie case exists against both accused for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The court further held that the trial court's order rejecting discharge was justified and that the petition for quashing was premature. Consequently, the court dismissed both petitions, directing the trial court to proceed with the trial in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Discharge under Section 227 CrPC - Prima Facie Case - The court must consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused; if the evidence led by the prosecution discloses a prima facie case, discharge cannot be granted. Held that the trial court's order rejecting discharge was justified as the trap proceedings and recovery of bribe amount from accused No.1 established a prima facie case (Paras 10-15). B) Prevention of Corruption Act - Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - The prosecution's case that accused No.1 demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs.5000 from the complainant for issuing a driving license, and that accused No.2 facilitated the demand, is supported by the trap mahazar and recovery. Held that the allegations are sufficient to frame charges and proceed with trial (Paras 16-20). C) Criminal Procedure Code - Quashing under Section 482 CrPC - Inherent Powers - The High Court should not quash proceedings if the allegations in the complaint and charge sheet prima facie constitute an offence. Held that the petition for quashing filed by accused No.2 is premature and without merit as the trial court has yet to frame charges (Paras 21-25).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioners are entitled to discharge or quashing of proceedings in a corruption case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, based on the allegations of demand and acceptance of bribe.
Final Decision
Both petitions are dismissed. The trial court is directed to proceed with the trial in Spl.C.C.No.35/2015 in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Prima facie case for framing charges
- Discharge under Section 227 CrPC
- Quashing under Section 482 CrPC
- Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988
- Trap proceedings
- Recovery of bribe amount
