- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2984 CRL.P No. 100547 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100547 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SRI. RAVINDRA S/O. RAGHAVENDRA KULKARANI AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. PDO, R/O. SRI RANGA KUTIRA, (PRESENT ADDRESS), VIJAYA NAGAR COLONY, NEAR GOVERNMENT LADIES HOSTEL, GANGAVATHI, TQ. GANAGVATHI-583231, DIST. KOPPAL, R/AT. VIJAY NAGAR COLONY, NEAR BUS STAND GANGAVATHI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NEELENDRA.D.GUNDE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY LOKAYUKTA P.S. KOPPAL, REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING –DHARWAD. 2. SRI. SANTHOSH S/O. VENKATESH POJAR AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. MECHANIC, R/O. SANGAPUR VILLAGE-583231, TQ. GANAGAVTHI, DIST. KOPPAL. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SRINIVAS B.NAIK, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. (528 OF BNSS), SEEKING TO, QUASH ORDER 09.11.2020 PASSED BY PRL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE KOPPAL IN SPL.C. (PC) NO.5/2020 THEREBY TAKING COGNIZANCE FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 7(a) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT AND NOW THE CASE IS TRANSFERRED TO ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE KOPPAL (SITTING AT GANGAVATHI) AND NUMBERED AS SPL.C. (PC) NO.4/2024 AND ALL FURTHER CONSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS THERETO, IN CRIME NO.2/2019 Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.02.19 13:15:25 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2984 CRL.P No. 100547 of 2025 ACB/LOKAYUKTA POLICE STATION KOPPAL, ALLOW THE ABOVE CRIMINAL PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER 1. Petitioner who has been charge sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, is before this Court seeking relief. 2. The prosecution alleges that when the petitioner was working as Public Development Officer had instructed accused No.2-Bill Collector to demand a sum of Rs.3,000/- for the change of katha in the property records in the name of complainant and in the trap, the accused No.2 was caught red handed, accepting gratification amount of Rs.2,000/-. On similar set of charge, the departmental enquiry was conducted and in the department enquiry, Inquiry Officer, Lokayukta, after recording the statement of the complainant, shadow witness, investigator officer and the panch witnesses, recorded the findings that the charge against the petitioner is not proved and following the inquiry report, the petitioner has been exonerated in the departmental enquiry and the same has attend finality. 3. Learned counsel for respondent No.1-Lokayukta submitted that the exoneration from the departmental enquiry will not absolve the accused of criminal liability and such, the allegations made against the accused have to be proved - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2984 CRL.P No. 100547 of 2025 independently before the Criminal Court and sought for dismissal of the petition. 4. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Ajay Kumar Tyagi1. 5. The arguments of the learned counsel for the parties have been duly considered. 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radheshyam Kejriwal Vs. State of West Bengal2 has laid the principle which reads thus: “38. The ratio which can be culled out from these decisions can broadly be stated as follows: i. Adjudication proceedings and criminal prosecution can be launched simultaneously; ii. Decision in adjudication proceedings is not necessary before initiating criminal prosecution; iii. Adjudication proceedings and criminal proceedings are independent in nature to each other; iv. The finding against the person facing prosecution in the adjudication proceedings is not binding on the proceeding for criminal prosecution; v. Adjudication proceedings by the Enforcement Directorate is not prosecution by a competent court of law to attract the provisions of Article 1 2012 (9) SCC 685 2 (2011) 3 SCC 581 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2984 CRL.P No. 100547 of 2025 20(2) of the Constitution or Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; vi. The finding in the adjudication proceedings in favour of the person facing trial for identical violation will depend upon the nature of finding. If the exoneration in adjudication proceedings is on technical ground and not on merit, prosecution may continue; and vii. In case of exoneration, however, on merits where the allegation is found to be not sustainable at all and the person held innocent, criminal prosecution on the same set of facts and circumstances cannot be allowed to continue, the underlying principle being the higher standard of proof in criminal cases.” 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court consisting of three learned Judges in the case of the State (NCT of Delhi) (supra) without reference to the decision in the case of Radheshyam Kejriwal (supra) has held that the High Court misread the judgment in P S Rajya Vs. State of Bihar3 and exoneration in departmental proceeding ipso facto would not lead to exoneration or acquittal in a criminal case. It was further noted that the decision of P S Rajya's case which was rendered by the Bench consisting of two learned Judge was distinguished in a subsequent decision in the case of State Vs. L Krishnamohan which was again rendered by the two Judges and accordingly held that the decision in P S Rajya's case was not an authority for the presumption that exoneration in departmental proceeding ipso facto would lead to judgment of acquittal in a criminal trial. 3 (1996) 9 SCC 1 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2984 CRL.P No. 100547 of 2025 8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Hyder Consulting (UK) Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa4 has held that a decision can be said to be given per incuriam when the court of record has acted in ignorance of any previous decision of its own, or a subordinate court has acted in ignorance of a decision of the court of record. Therefore the decision of State (NCT of Delhi) which has not taken into account and consideration of the earlier decision of the Supreme Court in Radheshyam is said to be per incuriam. 9. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Govindanaik G Kalaghatigi Vs. West Patent Press Co. Ltd. has held that where there is a conflict between two decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of the same Bench strength, it is latter of the decision that would prevail. The decision of the Bench consisting of three Judges in the case of Ashoo Surendranath Tiwari would prevail over the decision in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) rendered by a Bench consisting of three Judges, the decision in State (NCT of Delhi) is a later judgment. Though the ruling in State (NCT of Delhi) was unanimous, whereas in Radheshyam Kejriwal, it was a majority decision (2:1), the total strength of the Bench that decided the case is considered the Bench strength of that decision, despite the dissenting opinion, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shanti Fragrances v. Union of India. 10. In view of the legal principles established in the aforesaid cases, as the petitioner has been exonerated in the 4 (2015) 2 SCC 189 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2984 CRL.P No. 100547 of 2025 departmental enquiry, the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law, considering the higher standard of proof required in criminal cases. 11. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings in Spl. C. (PC) No. 04/2024 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Koppal (sitting at Gangavathi), insofar as they relate to petitioner/Accused No.1, are hereby quashed. 12. Learned Sessions Judge to proceed against other accused in accordance with law without being influenced by any observation made in this order and the observation made, if any, only for the present petitioner. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE AC Ct:vh List No.: 3 Sl No.: 31