- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10140 CRL.RP No. 1015 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1015 OF 2018 BETWEEN: STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE POLICE INSPECTOR, KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA POLICE WING, CITY DIVISION BENGALURU - 560 001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VENKATESH S ARBATTI, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. B. THIPPESWAMY SON OF BHORAPPA, MOTOR VEHICLE INSPECTOR, SENIOR REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER ELECTRONIC CITY BENGALURU - 560 076. RESIDENT OF NO.203, 2ND STAGE, JAGADGURU GANTAKARNA BHAVANA 3RD STAGE B.E.M.L LAYOUT R.R NAGARA, BENGALURU. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. P.V. HEGDE, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 10.05.2018, PASSED BY THE XXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY IN SPECIAL C.C.NO.530/2017. Digitally signed by HARIKRISHNA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10140 CRL.RP No. 1015 of 2018 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL ORDER The petitioner-Karnataka Lokayuktha has preferred this Revision Petition against the Order dated 10.05.2018 in Spl.C.C No.530/2017 by the XIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned Special Judge’), whereby the learned Special Judge discharged the respondent/ accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and under Sections 409 and 420 of IPC in Crime No. 66/2015 dated 13.10.2015 filed by the Lokayuktha Police. 2. The abridged facts of the case are as under: One Sri. Vijimon T.N lodged a complaint against the respondent/accused before the inspector of police, Karnataka Lokayuktha alleging that, on 28.08.2014 while he was travelling by Maruti car owned by him from Kerala to Karnataka. He was intercepted by a Motor Vehicle Inspector at Jigani and found that he was due to pay the Lifetime Tax of the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10140 CRL.RP No. 1015 of 2018 said car in the State of Karnataka. Accordingly a receipt/notice was issued to seize the same; however, he was left on that day. On 19.09.2014 at Jigani once again he was intercepted by the respondent/accused. Albeit, the respondent exhibited earlier notice issued to him on 28.08.2014, but, the complainant failed to remit a sum of Rs.50,000/- as payment towards Lifetime Tax of the said car in the State of Karnataka. As the complainant was short on finances, he paid a sum of Rs.20,000/- and promised to pay the remaining balance later, accordingly he obtained the mobile number of the respondent/accused. The said incident was video recorded by the complainant on his mobile. Later the complainant tried contacting the respondent/accused to pay the balance amount; however, there was no response from the respondent/accused. As such he lodged a complaint before the Lokayuktha police on 10.08.2015 and produced the video clippings of the incident dated 19.09.2014. Accordingly, the case has been registered against the respondent/accused in Crime No. 11/2014 and later the case was transferred to City Division of Lokayuktha and the said crime was re-numbered as Crime No.66/2015 dated - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:10140 CRL.RP No. 1015 of 2018 13.10.2015. On investigation a chargesheet was laid against the respondent/accused for the aforementioned offences. 3. The learned Special Judge took cognizance of the offences and secured the presence of the respondent/accused. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent/accused filed the application under Section 227 r/w Section 239 of Cr.P.C for discharge him from the alleged offences. 4. On assessment of oral and documents placed before the learned Special Judge, the learned Special Judge discharged the respondent/accused by allowing the application as stated supra. The said order is challenged in this revision petition by the Lokayuktha. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and comprehensively perused the materials placed before me. 6. On meticulous examination of the documents on record, it could be gathered that the complainant Sri. Vijimon T.N in the instant case was initially intercepted on 28.08.2014 by a Motor Vehicle Inspector while he was travelling by Maruti - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10140 CRL.RP No. 1015 of 2018 car registered at Kerala. Owing to non-payment of life time tax in the State of Karnataka he was issued notice vide receipt bearing No.0344048. However, he failed to pay the tax amount. Later, on 19.09.2014 he was once again intercepted by the respondent/accused for the same reason and at that time the respondent/accused exhibited receipt/notice issued to him earlier and allegedly paid Rs.20,000/- as part payment towards life time tax and requested the respondent/accused that he would pay the remaining balance amount later and sought his mobile number. On a lapse of few days the complainant called the respondent/accused and the respondent/accused neither responded nor returned the call. As such the complainant lodged a complaint. Admittedly, there is an inordinate delay in lodging the complaint i.e., nearly 11 months and the same is not duly explained. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the respondent/accused after receiving a sum of Rs.20,000/- neither remitted the same to his office nor made entry in the records for having received the same. But the Lokayuktha Police failed to prove its case by placing prima facie document or the statement of any witness that the respondent/accused - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:10140 CRL.RP No. 1015 of 2018 received a sum of Rs.20,000/- from the complainant on 19.09.2014. Further, the video clippings produced by the complainant was reduced to writing, though placed before the Special Court, it failed to establish the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. This is forthcoming in the chargesheet and also in the order passed by the learned Special Judge. Admittedly there is no identification of the respondent/accused by the complainant. The complainant has failed to mention name of the respondent/accused in his complaint before the Lokayuktha Police on 10.08.2015. It is on the basis of True- Caller App the Lokayuktha Police learnt that the respondent/accused was the person who intercepted the complainant on 19.09.2014. Per contra, the earlier officer who had intercepted the complainant on 28.08.2014 was Sri. Shivakumar, RTO, in his statement has stated that, he had seized the RC Book of the complainant’s vehicle and informed the complainant to take back the same after remitting the life time tax. Despite this the complainant failed to pay the said life time tax. When the complainant himself failed to identify the person who intercepted him on second occasion, it could be inferred that the complaint against the respondent/accused was - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:10140 CRL.RP No. 1015 of 2018 solely based on True-Caller App. Hence, the same cannot be considered or be attached with prima facie evidentiary value. Albeit considering the prima facie averments of the complaint, no inference can be drawn that the respondent/accused committed the offences alleged against him. 7. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent/accused that, disciplinary enquiries initiated against him by the department through Karnataka Lokayuktha vide UPLOK-1/DE/92/2020/ARE-11 dated 22.07.2024 as not proved. The copy of the said Order is placed by the learned counsel before this Court. In such circumstances, the learned counsel submitted that, if the charges leveled against the respondent/accused is not proved in a departmental enquiry it cannot be proved in a criminal trial, since the departmental enquiry conducted on the preponderance of probabilities if the same is not proved, there is no such possibility of proving the guilt beyond reasonable doubt in a criminal trial. This position of law is compounded by catena of judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court. By placing reliance on the judgment of Radheshyam Kejriwal V/s State of West Bengal and another reported in (2011) 3 SCC 581, he submitted that, - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:10140 CRL.RP No. 1015 of 2018 the trial of the respondent/accused shall amount to an abuse of Court process. Applying the law laid in the above judgment and on considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I consider that, the learned Special Judge has rightly appreciated the materials on record and passed a well reasoned order, which does not call for any interference by this Court. Against this backdrop, I proceed to pass the following. ORDER The Revision Petition is dismissed. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE HKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27