RATHNAKAR SHETTY Vs. STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner/Accused No. 1 herein is a Police Inspector of Amruthahalli Police Station, Bangalore. Along with a Police Constable/Accused No. 2 at Sampigehalli Police Station, he is charge sheeted for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ('the Act' for short) and Section 120B of IPC.

(2.) THE summary of the prosecution case is, the petitioner/accused No. 1 and accused No. 2 failed to maintain integrity in their public service; on 2.9.2011, first accused inspected the godown of CW -1, locked the same and detained the key with himself. He inspected another godown belonging to CW at Jalahalli Cross and he locked the godown and withheld the key. He procured CW -1 to the Police Station. On 3.9.2011, he insisted for a bribe amount of Rs. 10 lakhs, not verbally but through visual representation, which was mistaken by CW -1 as Rs. 10,000/ -; when he sent Rs. 10,000/ -through his son CW -2, accused No. 1 reprimanded him for tendering only Rs. 10,000/ - instead of Rs. 10 lakhs. Agitated by the above response of CW -1, on 4.9.2011, with the assistance of his staff, he shifted 35 sewing machines from the godown of CW -1 located at Jalahalli cross to the Police Station and detained the same illegally. He conspired with accused No. 2 and through him pleaded fresh demand with CW -1 for a bribe of Rs. 50,000/ -. On 7.9.2011, he was yet to receive Rs. 50,000/ - bribe, by way of cash from CW -1 and the Investigating Officer planned to catch hold of him red -handed at that juncture through CW -4, the matter got leaked and accused No. 1 escaped without receiving the bribe amount. When the Investigating Officer along with Panch witness and Staff visited the Amruthahalli Police Station, accused No. 1 was not available in the Police Station.

(3.) DURING his reply, Sri. Mallikarjun C. Basareddy, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 1/Lokayuktha Police takes me through the complaint allegation wherein the sequence of events commenced on 3.11.2011. He also took me through the decoded conversation from the CD. and the supporting statements of witnesses and submits that, there is enough of incriminating evidence against the petitioner on record for his indulgence in the offence under the Act. It is permissible for the Investigating Officer to hold a preliminary enquiry before registering the corruption case in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P. and Others reported in : (2014) 2 SCC 1. At this stage, this Court cannot evaluate the merits of the evidence collected by the Investigating Agency. The entire case displayed by the petitioner before this Court may be availed by him as his defence during trial and the matter does not call for exercise of extra -ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.