BETTEGOWDA Vs. SEETHARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed seeking quashing of the entire proceedings in C.C. No. 684/1995 pending on the file of the Special Court for Economic Offences at Bangalore registered against the petitioner and others for the offences punishable under Sections 326, 327, 345, 338, 355, 357, 367, 368, 395, 397, 500 and 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) THE records disclose that at the earliest point of time, accused No. 6 appeared before the trial Court and filed an application for dismissal of the complaint on the ground that the complainant has not obtained a valid sanction under Section 170 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 and also under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The said application was contested and the learned Magistrate considering all the details of the case as well as the contentions raised by the petitioner herein (accused No. 6) and the complainant, has dismissed the said application on the ground that the sanction is not at all required under the above said provisions. Therefore, accused No. 6 was directed to pay Rs. 1,000/ - to the complainant towards cost of vexatious application being filed by him. The said order of the learned Magistrate was subjected to challenge before the Fast Track Court -XIII, Bangalore, in Crl.R.P. No. 236/2012. The Revisional Court meticulously considered the order of the trial Court and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, came to the conclusion that no sanction is required to prosecute accused No. 6 petitioner herein for the above said offences. The said criminal revision petition came to be dismissed as per order dated 28.02.2013. Calling in question the above said two orders of the Courts below as well as seeking quashing of the entire proceedings, petitioner (accused No. 6) is before this Court.

(3.) REVISIONAL Court considered once again the factual aspects of the case as also the contents of Section 197 of Cr.P.C., and Section 170 of the Karnataka Police Act and re -evaluated the material on record and came to the conclusion that at the stage of taking cognizance and issuing process, the said provisions are not attracted. However, at paragraph No. 21 of the order dated 28.02.2013, Revisional Court has observed that after recording of the evidence, if the party is able to show that all the acts alleged against the accused falls within the four corners of his official duties and he has done that under the colour of his office, the point with regard to sanction can be urged at any stage of the proceedings. Revisional Court has relied upon the ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bakhshish Singh Brar Vs. Gurmej Kaur And Another reported in : 1987 (4) SCC 663, wherein the Supreme Court in similar facts and circumstances with reference to a complaint against Police officer has held that at the initial stage, provisions of Section 197 of Cr.P.C., or 170 of the Karnataka Police Act need not be considered and at a later stage, if the Court finds that there are sufficient materials placed before the Court to show that the alleged acts are done by the Police officer while discharging his official duty as a public servant and the same definitely fall under the colour of his office, then the Court can consider the question of sanction and has held that the trial Court has not committed any error in rejecting the application filed by accused No. 6 and has also put its seal of affirmation to the order of the trial Court dated 25.06.2012.