B.P. KRISHNEGOWDA Vs. KARNATAKA LOKYUKTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed seeking to quash the Crime No. 7/2009 registered by the Karnataka Lokayuktha, Bellary, which is submitted to the Court of Special Judge, Bellary.

(2.) AS the facts reveal that on 24.07.2009 at 9.00 p.m., the Dy. S.P. of Lokayuktha on receipt of a credible information about the R.T.O. officials in Hagari Regional Transport Office check post indulging in receiving bribe money from the drivers and cleaners, proceeded to the spot on the same day at 9.45 p.m. and observed that four home guards were stopping the lorries passing through the checkpost and insisting the inmates of the lorry to show trip sheets and other documents. On that, the inmates of lorry were running to the check post, and were showing the documents to the officers in the check post paying the money to those officials. Being convinced with the truthfulness of the information, the raid party surrounded a person in the uniform and another person sitting in the check post. On their body search, nothing could be recovered. On an inquiry with the drivers and cleaners who were getting their documents verified, they reveal that they had paid illegal gratification of Rs. 100/ - to the petitioner/R.T.O. Inspector. Totally Rs. 43,500/ - was traced in the office which tallied with the receipts counter receipts in the office. They had not maintained Cash Maintenance Register. Mahazar was drawn; the Police Inspector registered the case and took up further investigation. After investigation, he submitted 'C' report to the Court and the same is accepted.

(3.) IN reply, learned Standing Counsel for Lokayuktha would submit that as per the judgments of Apex Court in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh and Others, reported in : (2014) 2 Supreme Court Cases 1. It is permissible for the I.O., if the information received by him does not disclose a cognizable offence, but indicates a necessity for an inquiry to conduct a preliminary inquiry to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not. However, as per the guideline laid down in the above judgment, the period for preliminary inquiry shall not exceed seven days. The Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, distinguishing the case of our High Court in Crl. P. No. 3213/2012 and connected cases D.D. 03.09.2012, in respect of seizure mahazar conducted prior to registration of the case has observed at para 9 as follows - -