TABBUSSUM ZAHERA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed by the petitioneraccused under Section 397 of Cr.P.C., for setting aside the order of the VII Additional Sessions and Special Judge, Tumakuru in Special Case No.330/2019 dated 30.03.2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and have summoned the petitioner as additional accused and directing the Police to obtain sanction from the Government to proceed against the petitioner for trial on the application filed under Section 319 of Cr.P.C.

(2.) Heard the arguments of Sri Ravi B. Naik, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Sri Manmohan P.N., learned counsel for the respondent-ACB.

(3.) The case of the prosecution in brief is that the complainant-PW.1 filed a complaint/first information to the ACB Police on 23.05.2017 alleging that he has approached the Tahsildar office to enquire about the change of Khata in his name from his father s name in respect of the property survey No.45/2 measuring 1 acre 7 guntas situated at Siddapura Village, Yediyur Hobli, Kunigal Taluk, Tumakuru District. On verification, it was found in the RTC showing to the extent of 1 acre 34 guntas instead of 1 acre 7 guntas and the names of Chandrashekar and his brothers were mentioned as purchaser from one Jyothi Prakash. Hence, he has approached the Assistant Commissioner by filing a case which is numbered as 35/2013-14 to quash the khata which stands in the name of Chandrashekar to change his name on the basis of inheritance. He further alleged that he has approached the Assistant Commissioner, the present petitioner herein (who was named as accused No.1 in the FIR) and he met personally with the Personal Assistant-accused No.2 on the same day. In February 2017, accused No.2 met him and told him to spend some money to get khata work done and accused No.2 demanded an amount of Rs.15,000/- for himself and received Rs.20,000/- in an envelope to be given to the present petitioner as bribe. Accordingly, Rs.15,000/- was given to accused No.2 and Rs.20,000/- was given to the present petitioner in envelope and accused No.2 informed that accused No.1 will pass an order in few days. But in spite of lapse of one month, accused No.2 postponed the matter on one or the other ground. Ultimately on 19.05.2017, the complainant met the present petitioner-Assistant Commissioner at 1.30 p.m., but she has stated that nothing can be done and she has spoken with accused No.2 and asked the complainant to wait outside. At that time, accused No.2 was not in the seat, therefore, he telephoned accused No.2 and in the said conversation, he has spoken about the bribe of Rs.35,000/-. Later, accused No.2 met the complainant and informed that the Assistant Commissioner is not agreeing to do the work and accused No.2 has told the complainant to give an additional amount of Rs.25,000/- to the Assistant Commissioner. The complainant-informant was not interested and not willing to pay the additional amount. Hence, he lodged a complaint to the ACB Police. He has also produced the telephonic conversation held between the informant and accused No.2. After registering a case in Crime No.7/2017 by showing this petitioner as accused no.1 on 23.05.2017, the ACB police set out to trap the accused, but it was a failure. The complainant met the Assistant Commissioner at 5.50 p.m., in her chamber and offered the tainted amount, but she refused to accept the same saying that she will go through his file again and see whether his work can be done and also said that he can come and meet her later. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer decided to trap the accused. The voice identification was done on 8.11.2017. The Additional Deputy Commissioner has identified the voice of accused No.1-the present petitioner and recorded the conversation in the video recording and the Tahsildar, Tumakuru identified the voice of accused No.2 in three audio recordings. The voice recording was sent for FSL analysis. Subsequently, the Investigating Officer has completed the investigation and filed the charge-sheet only against accused No.2 by dropping the name of accused No.1 in the charge-sheet. While recording further statement of the informant, he has stated that the present petitioner has not demanded any bribe from him. Subsequently, accused No.2 faced trial and charges were framed against him. The prosecution has examined four witnesses and during the pendency of the trial, the Special Public Prosecutor has filed an application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C., for summoning the petitioner as additional accused. The notice has been issued to the petitioner and after filing of the objection by this petitioner and hearing the arguments, the impugned order was passed on 30.03.2021 by allowing the application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. and held that there is sufficient material to summon the petitioner as additional accused and in view of the Judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilawar Singh vs. Parvinder Singh , 2005 12 SCC 709 without obtaining sanction, the accused shall not be summoned, therefore, directed the Police to obtain the sanction from the Competent Authority to proceed against the petitioner. Being aggrieved with the order, the petitioner-additional accused approached this Court by filing revision petition.