Revanna Vs. The State of Karnataka By

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU Dated this the 24th day of March, 2017 R BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR Criminal Revision Petition No.57/2017 c/w Criminal Revision Petitions No.1257/2016, 153/2017, 160/2017, 178/2017, 199/2017, 8/2017, 9/2017, 185/2017, 228/2017, 10/2017, 244/2017, 290/2017 & 324/2017 In Criminal Revision Petition No.57/2017 : BETWEEN :

1. REVANNA S/O.HANUMAPPA AGED ABOUT55YEARS OCC: POLICE OFFICER R/O.MACHENAHALLI VILLAGE SHIVAMOGGA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 577 201 2.

3. SMT.INDRAMMA W/O.REVANNA AGED ABOUT49YEARS OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O.MACHENAHALLI VILLAGE SHIVAMOGGA TALUK AND DISTRICT- 577 201 RAVI S/O.MUKKAHARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT46YEARS OCC: POLICE CONSTABLE R/O.BHOVI COLONY1T CROSS, HOSAMANE ROAD BHADRAVATHI SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 301 ... PETITIONERS (By Shri. RAVINDRA B. DESHPANDE, Adv.,) 2 AND : THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SHIVAMOGGA RURAL POLICE STATION SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 201 (REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BENGALURU - 560 001) ... RESPONDENT (By Shri. M.MUNIGANGAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W. 401 Cr.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE

DATED1512.2016 PASSED BY THE III ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA IN S.C.NO.205/2016 AND DISCHARGE THE PETITIONERS FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE. In Criminal Revision Petition No.1257/2016 BETWEEN : R.RAGHAVENDRA S/O.S.B.RAMASWAMY ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER ZONAL OFFICE - 3 MYSORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE MYSORE - 570 001 ... PETITIONER (By Shri.R.SATISH, Adv.,) AND : STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA POLICE MYSORE, REP. BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE - 560 001 ... RESPONDENT (By Shri.VENKATESH S ARBATTI, Adv.,) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W. 401 Cr.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE

DATED0407.2016 PASSED BY THE III ADDL. SESSIONS AND SPL. JUDGE, 3 MYSURU IN SPL.C.NO.44/2013 PROPOSING TO FRAME CHARGE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S7R/W132) OF P.C. ACT, 1988 AND TO DISCHARGE HIM FROM THE CASE. In Criminal Revision Petition No.153/2017 BETWEEN : SMT.KHAJI NAFEESA W/ O.ABDUL MUTHALIQ AGED ABOUT47YEARS PRESENTLY RESIDING AT E-503, MBR SHANGRILLA MYSORE ROAD NEAR R.V. COLLEGE BANGALORE - 560 060 ... PETITIONER (By Shri.M.G.S.KAMAL, Adv.,) AND :

1. STATE BY C.B.I ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU BANGALORE REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE - 560 001 2.

3. K.SARADHI S/O LATE K SUNDAR RAO THE THEN SENIOR MANAGER ALLAHABAD BANK, BELLARY BRANCH RESIDING AT C/O.R.RAJKUMAR D.No.29/211A, KASKARNOOR MAIN ROAD OPPOSITE SONA COLLEGE SALEM - 636 005 P.VENKATAKUMAR SWAMY S/O LATE P RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT38YEARS W.NO.34, 3RD CROSS DEVINAGAR, BELLARY - 583 101 4 P.SATYANARAYANA S/O LATE PREMAIAH AGED ABOUT50YEARS2D CROSS, VIDYANAGAR NEAR VIMS OPD HOSPITAL KOLAGALL ROAD BELLARY - 583 101 D.VINOD KUMAR S/O LATE D BABU RAO AGED ABOUT44YEARS D.NO.30, W.NO.23 GANESH TEMPLE STREET RADIO PARK COWL BAZAR BELLARY - 583 101 V.N.VEERABHADRA SWAMY S/O LATE NINGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT49YEARS COMMISSIONER RAMNAGAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, RAMNAGAR RESIDING AT NO.19, 2ND PHASE IDEAL HOMES, C.ROAD RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BANGALORE - 560 098 ... RESPONDENTS (By Shri.P.PRASANNA KUMAR, Adv.,) 4.

5.

6. THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 Cr.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE

DATED0812.2016 IN REJECTING THE APPLICATION (I.A.14) FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN U/S227OF CR.P.C. PRODUCED AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND DISCHARGE THE PETITIONER FROM FRAMING THE CHARGE IN C.C.NO.450/2015 ON THE FILE OF XLVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPL. JUDGE, FOR CBI CASES, BANGALORE. In Criminal Revision Petition No.160/2017 BETWEEN : SRI.CHIKKA KRISHNA S/O.SRI.VENKATESH5AGED ABOUT34YEARS R/AT.SAPTHAGIRI NILAYA3D CROSS, JAYANAGAR TUMKUR TOWN TUMKUR - 572 101 ... PETITIONER (By Shri .R.B.SADASIVAPPA, Adv.,) AND : STATE OF KARNATAKA BY TUMKUR TOWN POLICE TUMKUR, REP. BY THE LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BENGALURU - 560 001 ... RESPONDENT (By Shri.M.MUNINAGAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W401CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED

DATED1801.2017 PASSED BY THE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU ON THE APPLICATION FILED U/S227OF CR.P. IN S.C.NO.21/2016 AND CONSEQUENTLY DISCHARGE THE ACCUSED FROM THE ALLEGED OFFENCES. In Criminal Revision Petition No.178/2017 BETWEEN : SYED IFTHEKAR AHMED S/O LATE SYED SHAFIQ AHMED AGED ABOUT56YEARS RESIDING AT: No.88, 2ND CROSS3D STAGE, JP NAGAR BANGALORE - 560 078 ... PETITIONER (By Shri.P.S.RAJAGOPAL, Sr. COUNSEL FOR Shri.R.NAGENDRA NAIK, Adv.,) 6 AND : STATE BY KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA CITY DIVISION, M.S.BUILDING BANGALORE REPRESENTED BY ITS SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE - 560 001 ... RESPONDENT (By Shri.VENKATESH S. ARBATTI, Adv.,) 24.01.2017 AND DISCHARGE THE ACCUSED THE

DATED THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 Cr.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE IN SPL.C.C.NO.59/2013 ON THE FILE OF LXXVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPL. JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-77) IN SPL.C.C.NO.59/2013 ON THE FILE OF LXXVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPL. JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-77). In Criminal Revision Petition No.199/2017 BETWEEN : Mr.FAKIR AHMED @ FAKIR S/O.D.AHMED ISMAIL R/O.MANSOOR HOUSE SRI.GURUNARAYANA KRUPA ROAD, UCCHILA UDUPI DISTRICT - 574 117 ... PETITIONER (By Shri.V.BHARATH KUMAR, Adv.,) AND : STATE OF KARNATAKA THOUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER ULLALA POLICE STATION MANGALURU - 575 020 REPRESENTED BY: STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA7BENGALURU - 560 001 ... RESPONDENT (By Shri.M.MUNIGANGAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 AND401CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE CHARGE FRAMED AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER HEREIN VIDE

DATED311.2017, IN MATTER BEARING S.C.NO.60/2009, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K., MANGALORE AND CONSEQUENTLY, DISCHARGE THE PETITIONER HEREIN OF ALLEGED OFFENCES U/S120,121A,122,123,212 AND SEC.10,11,13,16,17,18,19,20 AND21OF THE UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT, SEC.9(b) R/W SEC.5A AND6OF THE INDIAN EXPLOSIVE SUBSTANCE ACT AND SEC.3 IN MATTER BEARING AND25OF THE ARMS ACT S.C.NO.60/2009, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K., MANGALORE (ANNEXURE-A). R/W IPC149OF In Criminal Revision Petition No.8/2017 BETWEEN :

1. M/s.ILC INDUSTRIES LTD A REGISTERED COMPANY D-6/7, NEAR INDUSTRIAL ESTATE DAM ROAD, HOSPET - 583 203 REPRESENTED BY ITS REPRESENTATIVE SRI.K.SOMASHEKAR K.SOMASHEKAR AGED ABOUT46YEARS S/O.K.SUBRAMANYAM DIRECTOR, M/s.ILC INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., D-6/7, NEAR INDUSTRIAL ESTATE DAM ROAD, HOSPET - 583 203 ... PETITIONERS (By Shri.RAVI L. VAIDYA, Adv.,) 2. 8 AND : THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, ANTI-CORRUPTION BRANCH GANGANAGAR, BANGALORE - 32 ... RESPONDENT THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 AND401CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE

DATED0212.2016 PASSED BY XXXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND S.J., AND SPL. JUDGE FOR CBI CASES, BANGALORE (CCH-34) IN THE SAID SPL.C.C.NO.14/2014 REJECTING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS U/S239R/W227OF CR.P.C SEEKING FOR THEIR DISCHARGE AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS U/S239R/W227OF CR.P.C AND THEREBY DISCHARGE THEM IN SPL.C.C.NO.14/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED XXXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND S.J., AND SPL. JUDGE FOR CBI CASES, BANGALORE (CCH- 34). In Criminal Revision Petition No.9/2017 BETWEEN:

1. M/s. ILC INDUSTRIES LTD A REGISTERED COMPANY D-6/7, NEAR INDUSTRIAL ESTATE DAM ROAD, HOSPET - 583 203 REPRESENTED BY ITS REPRESENTATIVE SRI.K.SOMASHEKAR K.SOMASEKAR AGED ABOUT46YEARS S/O.K.SUBRAMANYAM DIRECTOR, M/s.ILC INDUSTRIES PVT LTD., D-6/7, NEAR INDUSTRIAL ESTATE DAM ROAD HOSPIET - 583 203 … PETITIONERS (By Shri.RAVI L VAIDYA Adv.,) 2. 9 AND THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ANTI-CORRUPTION BRANCH GANGANAGAR BANGALORE - 32 … RESPONDENT THIS CRL.R.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION U/S.397 R/W401CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE

DATED3011.016 PASSED BY THE XXXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPL. JUDGE FOR CBI CASES, BANGALORE IN SPL.C.C.NO.36/2014 REJECTING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER U/S239R/W227OF CR.P.C. SEEKING FOR THEIR DISCHARGE AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS U/S239R/W227OF CR.P.C. AND THEREBY DISCHARGE THEM IN SPL.C.C.NO.36/2014 ON THE FILE OF XXXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPL. JUDGE FOR CBI CASES, BANGALORE. In Criminal Revision Petition No.185/2017 BETWEEN: K.V.NAGARAJ @ SWASTIK NAGARAJ S/O LATE K GOPAL SETTY AGED ABOUT45YEARS DIRECTOR, M/s.SWASTIK STEEL HOSPET PVT. LTD., RESIDING AT8H CROSS, M.J.NAGAR GEETA GOPAL MANSION HOSPET - 583 201 … PETITIONER (By Shri.R.NAGENDRA NAIK, Adv.,) AND CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ANTI CORRUPTION BRANCH10GANGANAGAR, BELLARY ROAD BANGALORE, REP.BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE - 01 ... RESPONDENT THIS CRL.R.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION U/S.397 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE

DATED1011.2016 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE FOR CBI CASES, BANGALORE (CCH-34) IN SPECIAL.C.C.NO.38/2014 IN AND TO DISCHARGE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED SPECIAL IN SPECIAL.C.C.NO.38/2014 ON THE FILE OF XXXII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE FOR CBI CASES, BANGALORE (CCH-34). BANGALORE CASES, COURT, CBI In Criminal Revision Petition No.228/2017 BETWEEN: SRI.V.N.VEERABHADRASWAMY S/O LATE NINGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT49EARS COMMISSIONER RAMANAGARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, RAMANAGAR R/AT NO.19, 2ND PHASE IDEAL HOMES, C ROAD RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 098 R/AT.HUNASEKATTE CHITRADURGA TALUK AND DISTRICT … PETITIONER (By Shri.K.M.PRAKASH, Adv.,) AND STATE BY CBI/ACB No.36, BELLARY ROAD DENA BANK COLONY GANGANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 032 11 REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILIDNG BANGALORE - 560 001 ... RESPONDENT THIS CRL.R.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION U/S.397 R/W401CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED

DATED812.2016 PASSED BY THE XLVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU IN SPL.C.C.NO.450/2015 (CCH:47) AND TO ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER U/S227OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. In Criminal Revision Petition No.10/2017 BETWEEN:

1. M/s.ILC INDUSTRIES LTD A REGISTERED COMPANY D-6/7, NEAR INDUSTRIAL ESTATE DAM ROAD, HOSPET - 583 203 REPRESENTED BY ITS REPRESENTATIVE SRI.K.SOMASHEKAR2 K.SOMASHEKAR AGED ABOUT46YEARS S/O.K.SUBRAMANYAM DIRECTOR, M/s.ILC INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., D-6/7, NEAR INDUSTRIAL ESTATE DAM ROAD, HOSPET - 583 203 ... PETITIONERS (By Shri.RAVI L. VAIDYA, Adv.,) AND : THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, ANTI-CORRUPTION BRANCH GANGANAGAR, BANGALORE - 32 ... RESPONDENT THIS CRL.R.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION U/S.397 R/W401CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE

DATED1911.2016 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXII ADDITIONAL CITY12CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE FOR CBI CASES, BANGALORE (CCH-34) IN SPECIAL C.C.NO.37/2014 REJECTING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS U/S239R/W227OF CR.P.C SEEKING FOR THEIR DISCHARGE AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS U/S239R/W227OF CR.P.C AND THEREBY DISCHARGE THEM IN SPECIAL C.C.NO.37/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED XXXII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE FOR CBI CASES, BANGALORE (CCH-34). In Criminal Revision Petition No.244/2017 BETWEEN : M.R.HIREMATH S/O.RACHAIAH AGED ABOUT58YEARS NEW EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR KRIES, CUNNINGHAM ROAD BENGALURU, R/O.No.1,16TH CROSS6H MAIN, MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU ... PETITIONER (By Shri.B.V.ACHARYA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR Shri.S.BASAVARAJU, Adv.,) AND : THE STATE BY KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA POLICE STATION BENGALURU - 560 001, REPTD. BY THE SPL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 560 001 ... RESPONDENT (By Shri.M.MUNIGANGAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP FILED U/S.397 R/W401CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE IMPUGNED

DATED0512.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE LXXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS COURT, IN SPL.C.C.NO.101/2013 THIS PETITIONER FROM THE C.C.NO.101/2013. SPL. COURT, BANGALORE DISCHARGE AND TO13In Criminal Revision Petition No.290/2017 BETWEEN : SMT.SHEETAL AGEDA BOUT34YEARS W/O.C.G.M.VISHVAS R/AT.SHIVANANDA NAGAR KALASAPUR ROAD NEAR AYURVEDIC COLLEGE GADAG - 582 103 ... PETITIONER (By Shri.M.T.NANAIAH, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR Shri.B.N.BALASUBRAMANYA, Adv.,) AND : THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY VINOBHA NAGARA POLICE STATION SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201 REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE - 560 001 ... RESPONDENT (By Shri.M.MUNIGANGAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W401CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE

DATED1402.2017 ON THE FILE OF IN S.C.NO.100/2016 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S306OF IPC REGISTERED BY RESPONDENT SHIVAMOGGA POLICE AND DISMISS THE COMPLAINT. III ADDL. S.J., SHIVAMOGGA In Criminal Revision Petition No.324/2017 BETWEEN : L.SRINIVASAIAH S/O.R.LANKAPPA AGED ABOUT70YEARS RETIRED REVENUE OFFICER NORTH EAST ZONE, BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BENGALURU R/AT.No.27, RADHAKRISHNA LAYOUT143RD STAGE, PADMANABHANAGARA BENGALURU - 43 ... PETITIONER (By Shri.VENKATESH P. DALWAI, Adv.,) AND : STATE OF KARNATAKA BY POLICE INSPECTOR KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA BANGALORE CITY DIVISION BANGALORE - 1, REP. BY SPL.P.P HIGH COURT OFFICE AT M.S.BUILDING BENGALURU- 01 ... RESPONDENT THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W401CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE

DATED2202.2017 PASSED ON APPLICATION U/S239OF CR.P.C. R/W SEC.17 AND19OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT PASSED BY THE XXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SPECIAL JUDGE, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, BANGALORE IN SPL.C.C.NO.77/2007 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION BY DISCHARGING THE PETITIONER FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES P/U/S131)(e) R/W132) OF P.C.ACT. THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR

ON2302.2017 AND1603.2017, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF

, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- 15

A common question of law whether a revision petition is maintainable against an order rejecting a prayer to discharge and framing of charges by the Trial Court in view of bar contained in Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is involved in all these petitions.

2. Heard Shri B.V. Acharya, Shri P.S.Rajagopal and Shri. M.T. Nanaiah, learned Senior Counsel & other learned counsel for petitioner/s in respective petitions and Shri Venkatesh S. Arabatti, learned Counsel for Lokayukta and Shri.Munigangappa, learned HCGP for the State.

3. These petitions may be categorized into two batches. One, in which the petitioners are alleged of commission of offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘PC Act’ for short) as also Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’ for short) and another in which they are alleged of commission of offences other than PC Act. The specific offences alleged against the petitioners in respective petitions are as under: Sl No 1 Case No.Crl RP.No.57/2017 (Crime No.236/2014 16 Filed Under Section 397 & 401 Cr.P.C Offences 306 IPC2Crl.R.P.No.1257/2016 397 & 401 Sec.7 r/w. 13(2) of (Crime No.15/2009) Cr.P.C PC Act Crl.R.P.No.153/2017 (FIR No.RC01(A)/ 2014-BLR) Crl.R.P.No.160/2017 (Crime No.117/2015) Crl. R.P.No.178/2017 (Crime No.1/2012) 3 4 5 Sec.120-B r/w. 409, 420, 467, 468 & 471 397 Cr.P.C IPC Sec.13(2) r/w. 13(1)(d) of PC Act 397 & 401 Cr.P.C376 417 IPC397Cr.P.C Sec.7 r/w. 13(1)(d) & 13(2) of PC Act 6 Crl.R.P.No.199/2017 (Crime No.242/2014) 397 & 401 Cr.P.C Sec.120B, 121A, 122, 123, 153-A,212 r/w 149 of IPC and Sec.10,11,13, 16,17,18,19,20 and 21 of the Unlawful activities (Prevention) Act, Sec.9(b) r/w sec.5 and 6 of the Indian Explosive substance Act and Sec.3 and 25 of the Arms Act Sec.120-B r/w. 409 & 420 IPC and Crl. R.P.No.8/2017 (Spl. C.C No.14/2014) 397 & 401 Sections 7, 13(2) Cr.P.C r/w. 13(1)(c) & (d) of PC Act 7 8 Crl. R.P.No.9/2017 (Spl. C.C No.36/2014) 397 & 401 Cr.P.C Sec.120-B r/w. 409 & 420 IPC and 17 9 Crl. R.P.No.185/2017 (Spl.C.C.No.38/2014) 397 Cr.P.C PC ACT Sec.7, 13(2), 13(1) (c) & (d) of PC Act and Sec.120-B r/w. 409 & 420 IPC Sec.120-B r/w. 10 Crl.R.P.No.228/2017 (FIR No.RC01(A) /2014-BLR) 409,420,467,46847 1 IPC & Sec13 (2) r/w 13 (1)(d) of PC397& 401 Cr.P.C Act Sec.120-B, 409, 420 of IPC & Sections 7, 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(c) & (d) of PC Act Sec.7, 8, 10, 13(1) ((d) R/w. Sec.13(2) of PC Act 306 IPC11Crl.R.P.No.10/2017 (Spl.C.C.No.37/2014) 397 & 401 Cr.P.C12Crl.R.P.No.244/2017 (Spl.C.C.No.101/2013) 397 & 401 Cr.P.C Crl.R.P.No.290/2017 (S.C.No.100/2016) (Crime No.10/2010 in FIR) Crl.R.P.No.324/2017 (Spl.C.C.No.77/2007) 13 14 397 & 401 Cr.P.C397& 401 Cr.P.C Sec.13(1) (e ) r/w 13 (2) of PC Act 4. The finite consideration in all these petitions is their maintainability. Therefore, detailed narration of facts may not be necessary. However, conspectuses of necessary facts are petitioners accused of certain offences sought for discharge before the Trial Courts. Their prayers have been rejected and the respective Trial Courts have proceeded further to frame charges. Feeling aggrieved, they have filed these revision petitions. 18 5. Registry has raised an objection with regard to maintainability of these petitions in view of bar contained in Sec. 397(2) Cr.P.C.

6. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners may be summarized as follows: i) that an order passed by the trial court declining to discharge an accused is not an interlocutory order; ii) that the objection raised by the registry with regard to maintainability of a revision petition is no more res integra. It has been settled by various pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court holding that an order directing framing of charge is not an interlocutory order and therefore, the revision petitions are maintainable. Hence, applying the doctrine of ‘stare decisis,’ it may be held that a revision petition is maintainable; iii) that the judgment in the case of V.C. Shukla v. State through C.B.I. [1980 Supp Supreme Court Cases 92:AIR 1980 SC962 is not applicable to the facts of these cases because, in the said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was iv) 19 considering maintainability of an appeal under Sec.11(2) of the Special Court’s Act,1979 which was enacted for a special purpose for speedy disposal of cases and the Special Court was headed by a sitting judge of the High Court; that the judgment in the case of V.C. Shukla is rendered keeping in view the purpose and intent of a Special Act and to ensure that flooding of cases is avoided to the Supreme Court; v) though Sub Section (2) of Section 397 Cr.P.C. places an embargo from entertaining a revision petition, all orders cannot be classified only under two categories namely, ‘interlocutory’ and ‘final’. There is a third kind of order namely, ‘intermediate order’ as defined in V.C.Shukla’s case; vi) that the judgments in the cases of Amar Nath and others v. State of Haryana and another [ (1977)4 SCC137]. and Madhu Limaye v. The State of Maharashtra [(1977) 4 SCC551 cover the point involved in these petitions. It is held vii) 20 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in V.C. Shukla that those cases were correctly decided; that in the case of K.K.Patel and another v. State of Gujarat and another [(2000) 6 SCC195, the Hon’ble Supreme Court after applying a ‘feasible test’ has held that an order rejecting a prayer to discharge is revisable. The test applied was whether by upholding the objections raised by a party, would it result in culminating the proceedings, and if so, an order passed on such objections would not be interlocutory in nature; 7. In support of their contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on following authorities: a) Amar Nath and others v. State of Haryana and another [ (1977)4 SCC137]. ; b) Madhu Limaye v. The State of Maharashtra [(1977) 4 SCC551; c) K.K.Patel and another v. State of Gujarat and another [(2000) 6 SCC195 ; 21 d) Bhaskar Industries Ltd. v. Bhiwani Denim & Apparels Ltd. and others [(2001) 7 SCC401; e) Vivek Gupta v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another [(2003) 8 SCC628; f) P.V.Amarnath Prasad v. State by CBI/ACB, Bangalore [(2012) 4 Kar. L.J.

483].; g) An unreported judgment dtd:3.11.2016, in the case of Sri. Katta Subramanya Naidu v. State of Karnataka in Crl.R.P. No.432/2013 c/w. Crl.P.No.2313/2016; h) An unreported judgment dtd:24.2.2010 in the case of Smt.A.C.Kamakshi v. Union of India by Inspector of Police, CBI, ACB Bangalore in Crl.R.P. No.703/2009; i) Haryana Land Reclamation & Development Corporation Ltd v. State of Haryana [(2001) 13 SCC269].; j) Poonam Chand Jain and another v. Fazru [(2004)13 SCC269].; k) K.P. James and Ors. v. Inspector of Police, CBI, in Crl.R.P No:

1245. 2015; 22 l) Krishena Kumar v. Union of India and others [ (1990) 4 SCC207; m) Rajendra Kumar Sitararm Pande and others v. Uttam and another [ (1999)3 SCC134.

8. In sum and substance, the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners is that, the ratio in the case of V.C. Shukla is not applicable to the facts of these cases; if the feasibility test described in K.K.Patel’s case is applied, then these revision petitions shall be maintainable.

9. Shri Venkatesh S. Arabatti, learned Counsel appearing for Lokayukta/ACB contesting the petitions, submitted that the issue with regard to maintainability of these cases involving P.C.Act has been decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of V.C.Shukla.

10. He placed reliance on the judgment in the case of R.C.Sabharwal v. Central Bureau of Investigation [166 (2010) DLT362 and pointed out that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, after considering the authorities in the case of Amar Nath, Madhu 23 Limaye and K.K.Patel, has held that a revision petition is not maintainable.

11. Shri. Arabatti further submitted that in the light of law declared in V.C.Shukla, the ratio in the judgments rendered by this Court in the cases of A.C.Kamakshi, P.V.Amarnath Prasad and Katta Subramanya Naidu are not applicable.

12. With reference to P.V.Amarnath Prasad’s case, he pointed out that this Court has considered the minority view in V.C.Shukla’s case which is contrary to the majority view and hence may not be considered.

13. With reference to Katta Subramanya Naidu’s case, he submitted that this Court has placed reliance on Jarnail Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1992 Crl.L.J.810) decided by the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court on the premise that it is rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Hence the ratio in Katta Subramanya Naidu’s case is not applicable to the cases on hand.

14. Replying to the contention with regard to stare decisis, Shri. Arabatti, submitted that in the cases of Madhu Limaye and 24 Amarnath, the issue involved was not ‘framing of charges’. Therefore, in the light of authoritative pronouncement in V.C.Shukla’s case, which is directly on the point, other judgments are not binding.

15. Learned HCGP submitted that revision petitions are maintainable except in cases where offences under PC Act are alleged.

16. I have given my careful consideration to the rival contentions urged by the learned Counsel on both sides, perused material papers and the authorities cited.

17. In the light rival contentions, following points arise for consideration of this Court: Whether an order of framing charge is an interlocutory i) order ?. ii) If so, whether a revision petition is maintainable in view of bar contained in Sec. 397(2) Cr. P.C?. 25 18. The sheet anchor of petitioners’ case is that ratio in V.C. Shukla’s case is not applicable to the facts of these petitions whereas, learned counsel for Lokayukta heavily relied on the said authority. At the outset, it is to be noted that the judgment in V.C.Shukla’s case is rendered by a bench consisting of four Hon’ble Judges. The order of the Court is as per the leading judgment by Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Murtaza Fazal Ali for himself and Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.P. Sen concurred by Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.A. Desai (as their lordships then were). The said case arose out of a challenge to an order passed by a Special Judge directing framing of charges under Section 120-B of IPC, r/w Section 5(1)(d) and 5(2) of PC Act, 1947. When the matter reached the Supreme Court, upon a preliminary objection raised by the Solicitor General of India on behalf of the respondents therein with regard to maintainability of the appeal, it was referred to a larger Bench to consider the substantial question.

19. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said judgment considered several authorities, Dictionaries and Corpus Juris Secundam and summarized as follows:- 26 “24. To sum up, the essential attribute of an interlocutory order is that it merely decides some point or matter essential to the progress of the suit or collateral to the issues sought but not a final decision or judgment on the matter in issue. An intermediate order is one which is made between the commencement of an action and the entry of the judgment. Untwalia, J.

in the case of Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra [(1977) 4 SCC551:

1978. SCC (Cri) 10 : (1978) 1 SCR749 clearly meant to convey that an order framing charge is not an interlocutory order but is an intermediate order as defined in the passage, extracted above, in Corpus Juris Secundum, Vol.

60. We find ourselves in complete agreement with the observations made in Corpus Juris Secundum. It is obvious that an order framing of the charge being an intermediate order falls squarely within the ordinary and natural meaning of the term “interlocutory order” as used in Section 11(1) of the Act. Wharton's Law Lexicon (14th Edn., p.

529) defines interlocutory order thus: An interlocutory order or judgment is one made or given during the progress of an action but 27 which does not finally dispose of the rights of the parties. xxxxxxxxxxxx 20. It is relevant that after noticing the definition given to (Emphasis supplied) ‘framing of charge’ as an ‘intermediate order’ in Madhu Limaye, their Lordships ruled that such an order falls squarely within the ordinary and natural meaning of ‘interlocutory order’.

21. After considering the Judgments in the cases of S. Kuppuswami Rao v. The King (1947 1 FCR180[A.I.R. (36) 1949 Federal Court 1].), Mohammad Amin Brothers Ltd., and others v. The Dominion of India and others (AIR 1950 FC77[A.I.R. (37) 1950 Federal Court 77].), five propositions were deduced. Applying the said propositions, the Hon’ble Apex Court has further held as follows: “35.Applying these tests to the impugned order we find that the order framing of the charge is purely an interlocutory order as it does not terminate the proceedings, but the trial goes on until it culminates in acquittal or conviction. It is true that if the Special Court would have refused to frame charges and 28 discharged the accused, the proceedings would have terminated but that is only one side of the picture. The other side of the picture is that is if the Special Court refused to discharge the accused and framed charges against him then the order would have been interlocutory because the trial would still be alive.” (Emphasis supplied) 22. Finally, it is held as follows:- “47. Thus, summing up the entire position the inescapable conclusion that we reach is that giving the expression “interlocutory order” its natural meaning according to the tests laid down, as discussed above, particularly in Kuppuswami case [1947 FCR180: AIR 1949 FC1:

49. Cri LJ625 and applying the non obstante clause, we are satisfied that so far as the expression “interlocutory order” appearing in Section 11(1) of the Act is concerned, it has been used in the natural sense and not in a special or a wider sense as used by the Code in Section 397(2).xxxxxxx (Emphasis supplied) 23. It was argued on behalf of the petitioners that their cases are covered by the authorities in the cases of Amarnath 29 and Madhu Limaye. On the other hand, it was argued by the learned counsel for Lok-Ayuktha that in the said two cases, framing of charge was not the main issue. The manner in which the said two cases came up before the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been explained in the concurring judgement of Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.A. Desai (as his lordship then was) in V.C.Shukla, which reads as follows: (SCC at p.145 ) “100. In Amar Nath v. State of Haryana [(1977) 4 SCC137:

1977. SCC (Cri) 585 : (1978) 1 SCR222 the matter came before this Court against an order of the Magistrate issuing summons upon a complaint filed by the complainant which the High Court declined to quash in a petition filed by the accused under Sections 482 and 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code (“Code” for short). x x x 104. In Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra [(1977) 4 SCC551:

1978. SCC (Cri) 10 : (1978) 1 SCR749 this Court was concerned with a question whether an order repelling a challenge to the jurisdiction of the court was an interim order not amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 397. There is some dispute as to what was the order challenged before the High Court in this case. ….. It is further held as follows: It is therefore, incorrect to contend that the decision in Madhu Limaye case [(1977) 4 SCC551:

1978. SCC (Cri) 10 : (1978) 1 SCR749 is an authority for the proposition that framing of the charge is not an 30 interlocutory order but it is such an intermediate order as not to fall within the ambit of interlocutory order. There was no challenge to the framing of the charge but there was a challenge to the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the complaint.” (Emphasis supplied) 24. Therefore, learned counsel for the Lok-Ayuktha is right in his submission that the framing of charges was not the issue under consideration in Amarnath and Madhu Limaye. In the leading judgment in V.C.Shukla, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the ‘locus classics’ so far as the nature of interlocutory order is concerned, it is Kuppuswami Rao v. King. The Apex Court has precisely held as follows: (SCC p

119) “ 30. ………….. Thus, it was pointed out that the concomitant of a final order would be the same whether it is a civil case or a criminal case and the definition given by the English Judges would apply to both. This case was noticed in S. Kuppuswami Rao v. The King which, in our opinion, is a leading case on the subject or, if we may say so, it is the locus classics so far as the nature of an interlocutory order is concerned.” xxxxxxx (Emphasis supplied) 31 25. With regard to Kuppuswami and Mohammad Amin’s cases, the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered if the said two authorities were either overruled or departed from and held as follows: (SCC p

149) “106……….. But the test remains unaltered that every interlocutory order merely because it disposes of an aspect, nay a vital aspect in the course of a pending proceeding even adversely affecting a party for the time being would not be something other than interlocutory.” xxxxxxxx (Emphasis supplied) 26. Thus, a careful analysis of above leads to following indubitable inferences: i) that in the case of Amarnath, issue under consideration was an order passed by the learned Magistrate issuing summons; ii) that Madhu Limaye is not authority for the proposition that framing of charge by itself is not an interlocutory order; iii) that ‘locus classics’ so far as the nature of interlocutory order is concerned, it is Kuppuswami Rao v. King. 32 iv) that tests prescribed in Kuppuswami and Mohammad Amin were not departed from.

27. In the case of Kuppuswami, it is recorded as under: “The question then is what is the meaning of “judgment, decree or final order of a High Court” in this section?. The expression “final order” has been judicially interpreted and its meaning is now well settled. In Salaman v. Warner [[1891]. 1 Q.B. 734.]. , Lord Esher M.E. discussed the meaning of the expression “final order” in these terms:- “If their decision, whichever way it is given, will, if it stands, finally dispose of the matter in dispute, I think that for the purposes of these rules it is final. On the other hand, if their decision, if given in one way, will finally dispose of the matter in dispute, but, if given in the other, will allow the action to go on, then I think it is not final, but interlocutory. xxxxxxxxx (Emphasis supplied) 28. Thus, it is significant that, once it is held that the test prescribed in Kuppuswami’s case is not departed from, then an order to qualify itself as a ‘final order’ must pass Lord Esher’s test. That means a decision given either way should terminate the proceedings. In the petitions on hand, if the petitioners’ prayers for discharge were allowed, then they would have 33 concluded the proceedings. But their dismissal has kept the trials in progress. Therefore, the said orders do not pass Lord Esher’s test. After considering other authorities in the cases of State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy [(1977) 2 SCC699:

1977. SCC (Cri) 404 : (1977) 3 SCR113 and Century Spinning and Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra [(1972) 3 SCC282:

1972. SCC (Cri) 495 : AIR 1972 SC545, it was held in unambiguous terms by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in V.C.Shukla’s case that an order framing charge would unquestionably an interlocutory order, by holding thus: (scc p.151) “111. ……….., the order framing the charge even after applying the ratio of the later decisions would not be an order other than an interlocutory order. It would be unquestionably an interlocutory order.” (Emphasis supplied) 29. The next contention urged was that the ratio in V.C. Shukla’s case would not be binding as the said case was under the Special Courts Act containing a non-obstante clause and the Court was headed by a sitting Judge of a High Court. The issue involved is one of principle whether the order of framing charge 34 is an interlocutory order or a final order and that squarely depends on whether it passes Lord Esher’s test. Therefore, the said contention is hardly relevant. But suffice to record that Section 19(3) of the PC Act also contains a non obstante clause as in the case of Special Courts Act, 1979.

30. At this juncture, it may be profitable to notice that the very issue with regard to maintainability of petitions under the PC Act came up for consideration before a Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Anur Kumar Jain v. CBI and several connected cases (precisely 37 cases) reported in 2011 SCC On Line Del 1574. After considering various authorities including the judgments in the cases of Madhu Limaye and K.K. Patel, the reference was answered holding that an order framing charge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is an interlocutory order.

31. In the case of K.K.Patel, the Lord Esher’s test was not applied. In the case of Bhaskar Industries Ltd., it held that it was not permissible for the appellant therein to raise an issue for the first time in an appeal with regard to the nature of the order 35 whether it was interlocutory. It was also held that in the absence of other material, it was difficult to decide whether the order impugned therein was an interlocutory order. In the case of Vivek Gupta, the core question under consideration was whether the appellant therein could be charged and tried together with other two accused by the Special Judge under the provisions of PC Act. In the case of Haryana Land, it is held that an order of discharge on the basis of a police report is not an interlocutory order relying on the judgments in the cases of Amarnath & Madhu Limaye. In the case of Rajendra Kumar, the issue involved was whether an order directing issuance of process is an interlocutory order. In the case of Poonamchand, the matter was remitted back to consider the legality of the order directing issuance of process. Hence all citations which run counter to the larger bench ruling in the case of V.C. Shukla, with utmost respect, would not be binding (see Somawanti v. State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC151.

32. The remaining submission for consideration is with regard to doctrine of stare decisis. It was argued by Shri B.V.Acharya that this Court having taken a view that a 36 revision petition is maintainable in the cases of A.C.Kamakshi, Amarnath Kumar and Katta Subbramanya Naidu, the same may be maintained. Learned counsel for the Lok-Ayuktha relying on the judgment of this Court in the case of Panchaxari Shidramappa Yeligar Vs. Shiggaon Taluka Shikshana Samithi and Others reported in ILR 1998 KAR3748 contended that the judgments in the cases of K.K. Patel, Bhaskar Industries and other cases may be considered as per in curium. Further, he was right in contending that in the case of P.V. Amarnath Prasad, this Court relied upon the minority view in V.C. Shuka’s case. He was also right in contending that the authority in Jarnail singh v. State of Rajasthan (1992 Crl.L.J810 relied upon by this Court in Katta Subramanya Naidu’s case was delivered by the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court and not the Apex Court. In the case of A.C. Kamakshi, V.C. Shukla’s judgment is not cited.

33. The binding nature of judgments has been explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd., (1991) 4 SCC139which reads as follows:

37. “40. ………… The bench held that, ‘precedents sub- silentio and without argument are of no moment’. The courts thus have taken recourse to this principle for relieving from injustice perpetrated by unjust precedents. A decision which is not express and is not founded on reasons nor it proceeds on consideration of issue cannot be deemed to be a law declared to have a binding effect as is contemplated by Article 141.” (Emphasis supplied) 34. Therefore, the above discussion leads to an inescapable conclusion that as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of V.C.Shukla supra, an order framing charge in both categories of cases is an interlocutory order. The said judgment is by a larger bench and hence, binding. Resultantly, a revision petition shall not be maintainable in view of express bar contained in Sub Section (2) of Section 397 Cr.P.C. The points framed for consideration are accordingly answered.

35. Before parting with these cases, the assistance rendered by the learned advocates and the Senior Counsel in deciding these cases is placed on record with appreciation. 38 36. In the result, the following:-

The Revision Petitions are dismissed as not maintainable. Sd/- JUDGE cp*/Yn