Manjunathkorvi vs State By Karnataka Lokayukta Police on 23 February, 2024

Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member services — Free for one month.

Karnataka High Court

Manjunathkorvi vs State By Karnataka Lokayukta Police on 23 February, 2024

Author: Rajendra Badamikar

Bench: Rajendra Badamikar

                            1
                                    CRL.P./200757/2023


          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

                  KALABURAGI BENCH

    DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

                        BEFORE

  THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR

           CRL.P.NO.200757 OF 2023 (482)


BETWEEN

MANJUNATHKORVI S/O BASAVARAJUKORVI,
AGED 41 YEARS,
OCC: MOTOR VEHICLE INSPECTOR,
RTO CHECK POST, HUMNABAD, BIDAR,

                                             ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHANKAR HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

AND

STATE BY KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA
POLICE, BIDAR,
REPRESENTED BY SPL. P.P,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI-585101.
                                            ...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI GOURISH S. KHASHAMPUR, ADDL. SPP)

     THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. BY PRAYING TO,
CALL FOR ENTIRE RECORDS FROM THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER,
POLICE SUB INSPECTOR, KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA PS BIDAR;
QUASH F.I.R BEARING KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA BIDAR PS CRIME
NO.1/2023 (ANNEXURE-A), CONSEQUENTLY, PANCHANAMAS
                               2
                                       CRL.P./200757/2023


DATED 30.09.2023 (ANNEXURE B AND C) REGISTERED AGAINST
THE PETITIONER FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION
7(a), 7A, 12, 13(1)(B) R/W SEC 13(2) OF THE PREVENTION OF
CORRUPTION (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2018 PENDING ON THE FILE OF
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SPL JUDGE, BIDAR.
PASS ANY SUCH ORDERS/RELIEF AS THIS HON'BLE COURT
DEEMS FIT JUST AND EXPEDIENT.

     THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
01.02.2024 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                           ORDER

The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482

of Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR registered by Lokayukta

Police, Bidar in Crime No.1/2023 for the offences punishable

under Sections 7(a), 7(A), 12, 13(1)(b) read with Section

13(2) of the Prevention Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018

(for short ‘P.C. Act’), pending on the file of the learned

Principal District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Bidar.

2. The brief factual matrix of the case are that on

the basis of the credible information, the Hon’ble Lokayukta

of Karnataka was pleased to issue search warrant to search

Humnabad checkpost situated on NH-65. On the basis of the

said search warrant, Kalaburagi Superintendent of Police,
3
CRL.P./200757/2023

Bidar Division and Dy.S.P. Bidar along with Lokayukta

officials have conducted raid on the incoming and outgoing

checkposts and panchanama was drawn. On the basis of

this, FIR came to be registered.

3. It is alleged that the raid was held in the

checkpost wherein the accused was present and there a sum

of Rs.53,986/- was found in excess, which was seized by

drawing a mahazar. However, no amount was found from

the possession of the petitioner, but the amount was

recovered from his table drawer. It is further alleged that

other raiding party has also raided the other checkpost,

which was also monitored by the petitioner simultaneously

and Rs.1,00,550/- was said to have been recovered as per

the second panchanama. Thereafter, the matter was

reported to the Lokayukta and as per the instructions, the

complaint was lodged. On the basis of the complaint, the

crime came to be registered and a notice was also issued to

the petitioner calling his explanation. The petitioner is said

to have given reply, which was not satisfactory and hence,
4
CRL.P./200757/2023

the complaint came to be lodged. Being aggrieved by

registration of the complaint, the petitioner is before this

Court by way of this petition seeking quashment of initiation

of the proceedings.

4. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned

counsel Sri Shankar Hegde appearing for the

petitioner/accused and the learned counsel Sri Gourish S.

Khashampur appearing for the respondent – Lokayukta.

Perused the records.

5. The main contention of learned counsel for the

petitioner is that no money was found in possession of the

petitioner, which speaks in volume about him that he had

neither demanded nor accepted any illegal gratification. It is

also asserted that maintenance of cash declaration register is

the responsibility of the RTO and since no money was found,

maintaining the cash declaration register becomes

inconsequential. He admits that a sum of Rs.1,02,890/- was

found in the table drawer, where the petitioner was working,
5
CRL.P./200757/2023

but the entire amount was accounted. He would contend

that mere recovery of the amount is not an offence unless

there is a demand and acceptance. He would also contend

that the search warrant was issued on behalf of the

Lokayukta by the Senior APP, who has no power and

Superintendent of Police does not have any power to issue

authorization under Section 165 of Cr.P.C. It is further

contended that without registration of the FIR and without

permission of the Magistrate, the investigation could not

have been commenced and while acting under Section 10 of

the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, the Police Officer has no power

to exercise his power under Section 165 of Cr.P.C. He would

also contend that the Additional Registrar of Lokayukta has

no power to issue direction to register a case and even

Lokayukta has no power to issue instructions for registration

of the case. He would also contend that the principles

enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Lalitha

Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh reported in

(2014) 2 SCC 1 were not complied with. He would contend
6
CRL.P./200757/2023

that only the material, which can be legally translatable into

evidence can be considered and in the instant case, no such

evidence is forthcoming. He would also contend that

ingredients of Section 7(A) of the P.C. Act are not attracted.

He would also contend that the presumption under Section

20 of the P.C. Act can only be applied if fundamental

ingredients are forthcoming. He would contend that

registration of the FIR is illegal and delay is not properly

explained and the provisions of Section 17(A) of the P.C. Act

are not complied with. He placed reliance on number of

citations in support of his case and hence, he would seek for

allowing the petition by quashing the proceedings.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent

– Lokayuka would contend that as per Section 17 of the P.C.

Act authorization was given by issuing notification by the

Government in the year 1991 itself and the warrant was

issued by the Lokayukta under Section 10 of the Karnataka

Lokayukta Act and regarding delay, he would contend that

the same is required to be considered only at the time of trial
7
CRL.P./200757/2023

and that cannot be a ground for quashing the proceedings.

He would also contend that after the search, a show cause

notice came to be issued and when the reply was not

satisfactory, the case came to be registered, which cannot be

termed as illegal. He would contend that though the

recovery of excess amount was denied by the

petitioner/accused, but he did sign the mahazar and it is not

his case that his signature was obtained by force or

otherwise and he did not explain the circumstances, which

compelled him to sign the mahazar and the same discloses

the excess amount was in his custody. It is also admitted

that excess amount was found in the table drawer of the

petitioner and he admits that certain amount was kept in the

drawer and he is not prepared to give explanation regarding

excess amount. It is further asserted that he is the

custodian and in-charge of both the checkposts and it is for

him to explain as to under what circumstances the excess

amount was recovered. He would also assert that if the

excess amount found is not a legal remuneration, then the
8
CRL.P./200757/2023

presumption under Section 20 of the P.C. Act becomes

mandatory as per the Constitutional Bench decision of the

Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 1960 SC 548 in the case of

Sri C. I. Emden vs. The State of U. P., as well as in the

case of Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Government of N.C.T. of

Delhi) reported in 2022 Live Law (SC) 1029. Hence,

prima facie there are sufficient materials to proceed against

the petitioner and sought for dismissal of the petition.

7. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel

for the respondent – Lokayukta has also produced the copy

of the search warrant issued by the Lokayukta, which is

signed by the Lokayukta himself. Further, he has also

produced the notification issued by the Government in the

year 1991 authorizing the Inspectors of Police in the office of

the Karnataka Lokayukta to investigate the matter under

Section 17 of the P.C. Act. Hence, the arguments advanced

regarding authorization holds no water.

9

CRL.P./200757/2023

8. There is no dispute of the fact that the petitioner

was in-charge of both the Checkposts i.e., incoming and

outgoing in NH-65 on Humnabad – Molkhera (Bolkere)

checkpost. One checkpost is situated on the left side of

Humnabad RTO checkpost, wherein, the search was held

which is also attached to NH-65 and another checkpost was

on NH-65 of Humnabad-Molkhera road and two independent

teams have raided these two checkposts. The main

argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that there

was no authorization. But, the records disclose that the

search warrant was issued by the Lokayukta under Section

10 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act. Section 10 of the

Karnataka Lokayukta Act empowers the Lokayukta or Upa-

Lokayukta to issue search warrant and it is to be treated on

par with Section 93 of Cr.P.C.

9. Much argument has been advanced regarding

Section 165 of Cr.P.C., but the provisions of Section 165 of

Cr.P.C. cannot be made applicable as the search warrant was

issued under Section 10 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act and
10
CRL.P./200757/2023

the powers under Section 93 of Cr.P.C. were conferred.

Much argument has been advanced regarding bar under

Section 17(A) of the P.C. Act, but the bar under Section

17(A) of the P.C. Act is pertaining to the offences relatable to

recommendations made or decision taken by public servant

in discharge of his official functions or duties without the

previous approval. But, in the instant case, receiving

gratification or securing favourable things other than the

legal remuneration cannot fall under Section 17(A) of the

P.C. Act so as to assert regarding the bar.

10. Further, regarding authorization to lodge a

complaint and conducting investigation, the notification of

the Government in the year 1991 is produced by the learned

counsel for the respondent which clarifies that the Inspectors

of all the Lokayukta Offices were authorized and hence, the

said argument holds no water.

11. The undisputed fact is that on the basis of the

search warrant issued by the Lokayukta, the search was held
11
CRL.P./200757/2023

in Humnabad-Molkhera checkpost on 30.09.2022 around

4.30 a.m. to 10.00 a.m. The mahazar also clearly discloses

that no amount was found in person from the petitioner, who

was present there, but in his table drawer Rs.1,02,890/- was

found and in his right side table drawer a sum of

Rs.1,75,480/- was also found. The total amount recovered

was Rs.2,78,370/-. On verification of the receipt books from

29.09.2022 to 30.09.2022 including the payment receipt

passed under online, total amount of Rs.2,24,384/- was

accounted, but the total amount found was Rs.2,78,370/-

and the excess amount found was Rs.53,986/- and there is

no explanation on the part of the petitioner. Undisputedly,

this amount was recovered from the table drawers of the

petitioner. In the written submission, the recovery of

Rs.1,02,890/- came to be admitted. But, the dispute was

raised in respect of recovery of other amount. However, the

mahazar was drawn in this regard and the entire process was

video-graphed. Further, the mahazar was drawn in the

presence of the petitioner and he signed on the mahazar.
12

CRL.P./200757/2023

Now the petitioner is disputing the excess amount, but the

documents speak tracing of excess amount of Rs.53,986/-.

Undisputedly, the petitioner was in-charge of both the

checkposts.

12. The other raiding party has conducted

simultaneous raid on the other checkpost and there also the

amount was found in the table drawer and some private

persons were also found possessing some amount. For this

mahazar also, the petitioner has signed and it is not his case

that he was forced to sign or his signature was obtained by

any coercive methods. Interestingly, after the search and

seizure, except the accounted amount, rest of the amount

was seized and the matter was reported to the Lokayukta.

Thereafter, considering the entire report, the Lokayukta

instructed to lodge a complaint. The main contention of the

learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is a delay in

lodging the complaint, but for quashing the proceedings

under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the delay cannot be a ground
13
CRL.P./200757/2023

and the same is required to be considered only during the

course of trial.

13. The other contention raised is regarding

investigation being undertaken without authorization, but as

observed above, the investigation was undertaken on

authorization only and further as per the notification of the

Government, the complainant is authorized in this regard.

14. The other contention raised by the learned

counsel for the petitioner is that there is clear violation of the

mandate as held in the Constitutional Bench decision of the

Hon’ble Apex Court in Lalitha Kumari’s case (supra) as the

investigation commenced before registration of the FIR, but

there are certain exceptions carved out in Lalitha Kumari’s

case (supra), which is referred there itself and under such

circumstances, considering the nature of the offences, the

said principles cannot be directly made applicable to the case

in hand.

14

CRL.P./200757/2023

15. The learned counsel for the petitioner asserted

that the material collected prior to registration of the FIR

cannot be a ground and it needs to be excluded and in this

context, he placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble

Apex Court in the case of L. Shankaramurthy vs. State by

Karnataka Lokayukta reported in 2012 SCC OnLine Kar.

8923 and Babulal Parasurampuria vs. State of

Karnataka reported in 2015 SCC OnLine Kar. 5233, but

the facts and circumstances of the said cases are entirely

different. Further, this issue has been again dealt in detail

by the Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the

case of Neeraj Dutta vs. State (Govt. of N.C.T. Delhi)

reported in 2022 Live Law (SC) 1029, wherein, certain

exceptions were carved out and it is further observed that

the complainant as well as the prosecution to make sincere

efforts to ensure that the corrupt public servants are brought

to book and convicted so that the administration and

governance becomes unpolluted and free from corruption as

observed in by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
15
CRL.P./200757/2023

Swatantar Singh vs. State of Haryana and Others

reported in (1997) 4 SCC 14. Hence, the material initially

connected cannot be termed as an investigation and it is only

a preliminary enquiry as certain complaints were received by

the Lokayukta and he wanted to get it verified by issuing

search warrant, which ended in positive results.

16. The learned counsel for petitioner further placed

reliance on the decisions in Criminal Petition No.11477/2011

(Hemanth Kumar vs. State by Karnataka), Criminal

Petition No.10442/2013 (Somashekharappa vs. State by

Karnataka Lokayukta), Criminal Petition No.7611/2010

(Nagashetty vs. Karnataka Lokayukta) and Criminal

Appeal No.391-392/2022 (Thippeswamy C. and Another

vs. Lokayukta Police), wherein, this Court as well as the

Hon’ble Apex Court have quashed the proceedings. But, the

facts and circumstances in the said cases are entirely

different and in the said cases the amount was recovered

from the third persons and hence, the principles thereunder

will not assist the petitioner in any way.

16

CRL.P./200757/2023

17. He further placed reliance on a decision of the

Hon’ble Apex Court in Lalitha Kumari’s case (supra) as well

as in the case of Hasmukhlal D. Vora vs. State of Tamil

Nadu reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1732 regarding

delay in registration of FIR, but those aspects are required to

be tested only during the course of trial and this issue has

been elaborately considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in

Neeraj Dutta’s case (supra) and in the petition under

Section 482 of Cr.P.C., it cannot be looked into.

18. The learned counsel for the petitioner further

placed reliance on an unreported decision of the Hon’ble

Apex Court in SLP No.3508/2013 dated 24.09.2014 in the

case of State of Karnataka vs. N.A.Ramesh along with

L. Shankaramurthy’s case (supra), Babulal’s case (supra)

and an unreported decision of this Court in the case of

Somashekharappa vs. State by Karnataka Lokayukta

passed in Criminal Petition No.10442/2013 and argued that

seizure in the absence of FIR is illegal. But, that fact has

been considered in detail by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
17
CRL.P./200757/2023

Neeraj Dutta’s case (supra) as well as in Lalitha Kumari’s

case (supra) and exceptions are carved out and same rule

cannot be made applicable to all the facts and circumstances.

He would contend that the material collected prior to

registration of FIR is not legally translatable into evidence,

but this issue is required to be tested only during the course

of trial.

19. It is to be noted hear that the corruption is going

rampantly in the public offices especially in Sub-Registrar

Office, Commercial Tax Office and RTO including the

Checkposts. The Court cannot be a mute spectator as the

corrupt officials are availing the services of third private

persons for collection of illegal gratification by unofficially

engaging them in order to get the benefit of the technical

lacunas in the statute. In the instant case, the amount was

recovered from the drawer of the accused and he is required

to explain, but he does not want to explain anything except

formal denial that too by a reply notice issued after nine

months later on.

18

CRL.P./200757/2023

20. The learned counsel for the petitioner further

contended that for incorporating the offence under Section

7(A) of the P.C. Act, there should be a specific demand. The

offence is not registered only under Section 7(A) of the P.C.

Act, but it is also registered under Sections 7(a) of the P.C.

Act. The Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in

Sri C. I. Emden’s case (supra) has held that if it is shown

that the stated amount was found in possession/custody of

the accused and if it is not a legal remuneration, then the

presumption is mandatory. The said principle is reiterated by

the Hon’ble Apex Court in the decision reported in 1964 AIR

575 in the case of Dhanvantrai Balwantrai Desai vs.

State of Maharashtra and again it is reiterated in the case

of N.Narsinga Rao vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported

in AIR 2001 SC 318. Further, in Neeraj Dutta’s case

(supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down certain

guidelines and it is held that the demand and acceptance

need not be proved by direct evidence and it can be inferred

from the circumstances also. Admittedly, in the instant case,
19
CRL.P./200757/2023

prima facie there is material evidence to show that the

excess amount was found in the table drawer of the accused,

which is not accounted for and that too the petitioner was

present in the checkpost and he was the head of the

checkpost during the relevant time. Hence, it is for the

petitioner to explain, but he is not prepared to explain

anything.

21. No doubt, the petitioner is not obliged to give

explanation in respect of money recovered from other

people, as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of

Thippeswamy C. and Another vs. Lokayukta Police in

Criminal Appeal No.391-392/2022 arising out of SLP (Crl.)

Nos.6608-6609/2021 and he is required to give explanation

in respect of the amount found in his possession, but he did

not gave any explanation. When the amount was found in

his custody, which he has not accounted for, then the

presumption under Section 20 of the P.C. Act becomes

mandatory.

20

CRL.P./200757/2023

22. The learned counsel further argued that trap

protocol is required to be followed, but it is not a case of trap

and it is the case of raid. Hence, the decision of the Hon’ble

Apex Court relied in this regard in the case of Girish

Chandra vs. State by Lokayukta reported in ILR (2013)

KAR 983 and this Court in Criminal Petition No.7611/2010

dated 23.12.2010 in the case of Nagashetty vs. Karnatka

Lokayukta cannot be made applicable to the case in hand.

23. The learned counsel further argued that mere

recovery of the money is not an offence and in support of his

contention, he placed reliance on the decisions of the

Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.200473/2023 in

the case of Prakash Halabutti vs. State of Karnataka and

in Criminal Petition No.200589/2017 in the case of Latif vs.

State of Karnataka. But, the said preposition is completely

against the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble

Apex Court in Sri C. I. Emden’s case (supra) and in

Dhanvantrai’s case (supra) and it is for the petitioner to
21
CRL.P./200757/2023

give explanation for unaccounted amount. Hence, the said

principles cannot be made applicable to the case in hand.

24. Much arguments were advanced regarding non

applicability of Section 7(A) of the P.C. Act. However, as

observed above, the prosecution is not only under Section

7(A) of the P.C. Act, but also under Sections 7(a), 12,

13(1)(b) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act. Section

7(a) of the P.C. Act deals with obtaining illegal gratification,

which can be inferred even by circumstances and Section 12

of the P.C. Act deals with the punishment for offences and

Section 13 of the P.C. Act is pertaining to public servant

committing criminal misconduct by enriching himself illicitly

during the period of his office. These ingredients are prima

facie attracted in the instant case. Hence, the decision of the

Hon’ble Apex Court in the case State of Haryana vs.

Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 (1) SCC 355 in this regard

does not have any assistance to petitioner.
22

CRL.P./200757/2023

25. The learned counsel further submitted that non

following of the mandatory provisions is prejudice and placed

reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the

case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Singhara Singh

reported in AIR 1964 SC 358 and in the case of Babu

Verghese and Others vs. Bar Council of Kerala and

Others reported in (1999) 3 SCC 422 and an unreported

decision of this Court in Criminal Petition Nos.2906/2019,

2932/2019 and 2950/2019 in the case of O.Srinivasa Rao

vs. State of Andhra Pradesh. But, in the instant case, the

authorization was issued by the Lokayukta by issuing search

warrant and hence, the said principles cannot be made

applicable to the case in hand.

26. Learned counsel further argued that Senior APP

has no power to issue search warrant and placed reliance on

a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of

Additional Tahsildar vs. Urmila G. reported in 2023 SCC

OnLine SC 1613 and the decision of this Court in

W.P.No.7122/2022 in the case of Karnataka Lokayukta vs.
23
CRL.P./200757/2023

State of Karnataka. But, the documents produced by the

learned counsel for the respondent – Lokayukta clearly

disclose that the search warrant under Section 10 of the

Karnataka Lokayukta Act was issued by the Hon’ble

Lokayukta himself and not by Senior APP as asserted.

Hence, the said argument holds no water and the citations

do not assist the petitioner in any way.

27. He further placed reliance on the decisions of the

Hon’ble Apex Court reported in AIR 1960 SC 866 in the

case of R.P.Kapur vs. State of Punjab, in the case of

Suresh Budharmal Kalani @ Puppu Kalani vs. The State

of Maharashtra reported in 1998 (7) SCC 337 and in the

case of State of Maharashtra and Others vs. Arun Gulab

Gawali and Others reported in 2011 CRI L.J. 89 and

argued that the materials, which are legally translatable into

evidence can be looked into even at the stage of considering

the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. But, the Hon’ble

Apex Court in the decision reported in AIR 2021 SCC 1918

in the case of M/s.Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.,
24
CRL.P./200757/2023

vs. State of Maharashtra and Others has held that the

power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the

investigation at the preliminary stage is required to be used

very sparingly and in exceptional cases only. This case does

not fall under any of the exceptions and only on the basis of

certain technicalities, the petitioner wants to get rid of the

proceedings without giving proper explanation for excess

amount. Hence, the said principles cannot be made

applicable to the case in hand.

28. The learned counsel has placed reliance on a

decision of this Court in Criminal Petition No.2458/2012

dated 08.01.2013 (Dr.Sadiq Sharief vs. State of

Karnataka), Criminal Petition No.7094/2012 dated

27.08.2013 (Dr.Raviprakash vs. State of Karnataka) and

Criminal Petition No.9347/2009 (Ikram Pasha vs. State of

Karnataka) regarding quashment. But, the facts being

entirely different and in view of the clarification issued by the

Hon’ble Apex in Neeraj Dutta’s case (supra) and

considering the Constitution Bench decision of the Hon’ble
25
CRL.P./200757/2023

Apex Court in M/s.Neeharika’s case (supra) describing the

powers of the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the

said principles cannot be made applicable to the facts and

circumstances of the case in hand.

29. The learned counsel further placed reliance on a

decision of this Court in W.P.No.5633/2023 dated

20.12.2023 (Madal Virupakshappa vs. State of

Karnataka) and argued that there is non compliance of the

provisions of Section 7(A) of the P.C. Act. Admittedly, there

is compliance of Section 17 of the P.C. Act and Section 17(A)

of the P.C. Act is not applicable to the case in hand as the

petitioner was not authorized to secure illegal gratification

and that cannot be held as exceeding the duty and it is not a

case of offence relatable to any recommendation made or

decision taken by a public servant and it is a case of illegal

gratification. Hence, the said principles are also not

applicable to the case in hand.

26

CRL.P./200757/2023

30. All along there is an argument regarding

accountable amount of Rs.1,02,890/- only, but no

arguments advanced pertaining to additional amount of

Rs.1,75,480/- and recovery of additional amount of

Rs.1,75,480/-. The argument in this regard was silent and

the records disclose that the total accountable amount is

Rs.2,24,384/-, but the recovered amount is Rs.2,78,370/-,

which is excess pertaining to first raid, which was held in the

presence of the petitioner and the amount was recovered

from table drawer of the petitioner itself. The petitioner

cannot disown the said amount as it was found in his table

drawer and he admits portion of amount, but did not

specifically dispute the recovery of the other amount. He

simply asserts that there was no excess amount. However,

he is the signatory to both the panchanamas and the one

panchanama regarding excess amount of Rs.53,983/- which

was done in his presence and he is expected to give proper

explanation, but his reply given after more than six months

speaks a different story after issuing the show cause notice
27
CRL.P./200757/2023

and when there is no reply, the complaint was lodged and

the conduct of the petitioner disentitles him from claiming

any discretionary order under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for

quashment of the proceedings without proper explanation.

He cannot take advantage of technicalities at this juncture

and the corruption mania is required to be eradicated and by

quashing the proceedings at the initial stage, the Court

cannot encourage the corrupt officials and if the petitioner

has got proper explanation, he can do so during the course

of trial by putting forward his case and proving his

innocence. Hence, the petition seeking quashment is not at

all sustainable and the citations relied by the learned counsel

for the petitioner cannot be made applicable to the facts and

circumstances of the case in hand.

31. Further, it is evident that no cash declaration

register is maintained in spite of specific directions by the

State Government. The argument that it is to be maintained

by RTO cannot be accepted since the petitioner was in-
28

CRL.P./200757/2023

charge of checkpost and intentionally violating directions of

State disclose the mens rea.

32. The learned counsel for the respondent –

Lokayukta has further placed reliance on a decision of the

Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of V.D.Jhangam vs. State

of Uttar Pradesh reported in 1966 AIR 1762, wherein

again the Hon’ble Apex Court has considered the relevancy of

the presumption.

33. Considering these facts and circumstances, the

petition filed for quashing the FIR and panchanamas is

without any merits and needs to be rejected. Accordingly, I

proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The petition stands dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SRT

[ad_2]

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *