- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:380 WP No. 103646 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 103646 OF 2023 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. HEMANTH KUMAR C, S/O LATE C.V. CHIDANANDAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, WORKING AS SENIOR INSPECTOR OF MOTOR VEHICLES, RTO OFFICE, BALLARI-583101. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SURESH S. BHAT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE BY LOKAYUKTHA POLICE, REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, BALLARI DISTRICT, BALLARI-583101. 2. MOHAMMED RAFI, S/O. MOHAMMED BASHA, MAJOR, WORKING AS INSPECTOR OF POLICE, LOKAYUKTHA POLICE, BALLARI DISTRICT, BALLARI-583101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SANTOSH B.MALAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE RESPONDENTS; ISSUE WRIT OR ORDER QUASHING THE IMPUGNED COMPLAINT DATED: 17/01/2023 GIVEN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT (ANNEXURE-C) AND THE IMPUGNED FIRST INFORMATION REPORT REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 1 IN CRIME NO. 01/2023 DATED. 17/01/2023 UNDER SECTION 7(A), 13(1)(B) READ WITH 13(2) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988, PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE BALLARI (ANNEXURE-D) AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT THERETO, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.01.13 15:17:14 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:380 WP No. 103646 of 2023 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner challenges the registration of the First Information Report (FIR) for the offences punishable under Sections 7(a), 13(1)(b), read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the PC Act’). 2. Upon receiving credible information from the Hon’ble Lokayukta regarding alleged maladministration and large-scale illegalities and irregularities at certain check posts, a suo motu case was registered, and a discreet inquiry was conducted by respondent No.1. On 28.09.2022, the Lokayukta issued a search warrant under Section 10 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984, directing the Superintendent of Police, Ballari, to search the Hagari Check-Post. 3. Pursuant to the search warrant, the Police Inspector, Karnataka Lokayukta, Ballari, conducted a search of the Hagari Transport Check-Post, where the petitioner was working as Senior Motor Vehicles Inspector. During the search, the following amounts were recovered: • A sum of ₹29,300/- from the petitioner, • ₹9,500/- from one Krishnamurthy, • ₹5,600/- from one Nagireddy, • ₹4,500/- from one Ambarish, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:380 WP No. 103646 of 2023 • Additionally, ₹27,246/- was found in a room as fine amounts collected on 29.09.2022. 4. The petitioner submitted an explanation stating that the amount recovered belonged to one Nagireddy. After a lapse of more than three months, on 11.01.2023, the Superintendent of Police, Ballari, directed respondent No.1 to register a case. 5. A similar issue was examined by this Court in W.P. No.200473/2023 c/w W.P. No.200524/2023, disposed of on 24.07.2023, where it was held as follows: “10. Based on the investigation report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, the FIR was registered against the petitioners for the offences alleged. In the investigation report, it is stated that a sum of ₹2,09,600/- in unaccounted money was found in an almirah kept in the tin shed adjoining the office of the check post, which was used as a rest room for Home Guards. Admittedly, the amount of ₹2,09,600/- was not recovered from the possession of the petitioner in W.P. No.200473/2023.” 11. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sri L. Sathish Kumar (supra) at paragraphs 10 to 13 has held as follows: "10. On that background of the principle laid down by hon'ble supreme court and perusal of averments made in complaint and charge sheet. Now coming to the first ground urged by the learned senior counsel for petitioner in respect of demand and acceptance. (I) Demand and Acceptance:- i) Regarding Demand - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:380 WP No. 103646 of 2023 In this regard the petitioner counsel contended there is no demand and acceptance of illegal gratification and contended that the petitioner was Assistant Commissioner and he was not present when there was demand said to be made by the accused No.1 on 4.11.2016 at 12.45 pm by meeting accused No.1 he is said to be demanded Rs.60,000/- at the rate of 10% on Rs.6 lakhs and odd amount refundable by the excise Commercial Tax officer. Subsequently, the complainant lodged complaint to the police and thereafter a trap was laid on 08.11.2016 and even at that time the petitioner was not present, the accused No.1 was trapped. Therefore, it is contended there is no demand and acceptance by this petitioner. on perusal of the complaint filed by the respondent No.2 herein which reveals he is said to be approached accused No.1 on 03.03.2016 but they have not refunded the amount, therefore, the complainant approached accused No.1 on 04.11.2016 at that time accused No.2 was not present. The accused No.1 said to have demanded 10% of Rs.6 lakhs for Rs.60,000/- as bribe, therefore the complainant went back and discussed with Sunil Naik the managing director of their company and CEO of the company, then they lodged the complaint. Admittedly the accused No.1 was demanded bribe at the rate of 10% on 6 lakhs for Rs.60,000/- for refund of Rs.6 lakhs. The complainant has stated that the accused No.1 said to have informed the accused No.1 present petitioner through mobile phone and accused No.2 said to have demanded the bribe through accused - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:380 WP No. 103646 of 2023 NO.1. Admittedly, except the oral statement of the complainant where the accused No.1 told that the accused No.2 had demanded the amount but infact the complainant not met the accused No.2 and also the accused No.2 the present petitioner not made any demand to the complainant. It is only the accused No.1 who has stated that he has to pay Rs. 30,000/- to accused No.2, there is no direct or indirect evidence to show this petitioner demanded either Rs.60,000/- or Rs.30,000/- from the complainant and it is also an admitted fact. In this regard, the police relied upon the statement of the complainant where she has stated when she met accused No.1, the accused No.1 who demanded the amount and accused No.1 said to have telephoned to accused No.2 the present petitioner and the petitioner informed the accused No.1 for payment of Rs.60,000/- and Rs.30,000/- for accused No.1 and Rs.30,000/- for this petitioner. Even there is no record of any telephonic conversation to show accused no.2 actually demanded the bribe form the complainant though accused No.1 11. On perusal of the both panchanamas i.e. entrustment panchanama as well as pre-trap panchanama where the conversations are mentioned in the pre- trap panchanama or in the entrustment panchanama, where the complainant has stated accused No.1 informed that accused No.2 demanded but there is no telephone conversations or call records to show the accused no.1 actually contacted accused No.2and contacted the complainant and - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:380 WP No. 103646 of 2023 accused No.2 demanded the money from the complainant. The call digit record does not reveals the accused No.1 actually contacted the complainant through his mobile phone of accused No.1 from the mobile phone of accused No.2. it appears the accused No.1 took up the phone and told the complainant that accused No.2 also demanding bribe of Rs.30,000/-, it reveals purely accused No.1 informed to the complainant that he has to pay Rs.30,000/- to accused No.2. Absolutely there is no connecting material to show the accused No.2 demanded any bribe from the complainant either directly or indirectly through accused No.1 and accused No.2 not spoken with the complaint at all. Therefore, it is not acceptable that the accused No.1 demanded gratification form the complainant. The trial court also, observed, in the order of dismissal of discharge application that there is no occasions for the complainant to record the telephone conversation between accused Nos.1 and 2 and complainant. That apart, the telephone conversation produced by the prosecution is only the telephonic conversation between accused No.1 and the complainant but not by the accused No.2 with complainant. ii) Regarding Acceptance:- It is an admitted fact, that after lodging the complaint the police set up the trap and sent two envelops containing Rs.30,000/- each on 08.11.2016 whether the same was accepted by the accused No.1 and he was trapped, his hand wash - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:380 WP No. 103646 of 2023 turned to pink in order to show that he has accepted the envelope form the complainant. Admittedly, the accused No.2 was not present in the office and said to be in the meeting with Deputy Commissioner and as per the trap panchanama the accused No.1 alone trapped while acceptance of the envelope from the complainant, therefore, absolutely there is no connection between the demand and acceptance of the bribe money by the accused No.1 with this accused No.2 and in the explanation offered by the accused No.1 during the trap, the accused No.1 has stated that he has received the envelops and kept it in the drawer of the table and it was seized from accused No.1 but accused No.2 was in the meeting with Deputy Commissioner and later he was arrested by police, therefore it is a clear case that there is no demand and acceptance by accused No2. from the complainant regarding any illegal gratification. from the complainant regarding any illegal gratification. It is well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the demand and acceptance is sine quo non for establishing the offences under Section 7 of the PC Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the case of K Shanthamma vs State of Telangan stated supra and the co-ordinate bench as well as this court also held in Thejas kumar's case, as well as in Manjunath's case absolutely, there is no demand and acceptance by accused No.2 for illegal gratification from the complainant and he has been implicated only based upon the voluntary statement of the accused No.1 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:380 WP No. 103646 of 2023 12. Therefore, without demand and acceptance the offence under Section 7 of the PC is not made out for the purpose of framing of charge and proceed with trial against accused No.2, which is nothing but abuse of process of law. (II). As regards to the Work Entrustment/Work pending with the accused No.2/petitioner i) The learned senior counsel submits that as on the enquiry made by the complainant with accused No.1 on 4.11.2016 or the subsequent demand on 5.11.2016 the file is not pending with the accused No.2 and he has already sent back the file to the accused No.1 as on 2.11.2016 itself, there is no dispute in this regard. The accused No.2 also given explanation that there is nothing pending with him as on the date of demand and acceptance by accused by No.1. That apart the Investigating Officer seized the file belonging to the complainant from the accused No.1 and there is no order passed by accused No.2 for refund of taxes requested by the complainant. Therefore, in this regard the prosecution utterly failed to connect the accused No.2 with the work of the complainant pending with the accused No.2. He may be an authority for passing the order but accused No.1 had kept the file, it was seized by the police from the custody of the accused No.1 , therefore it cannot be said that the work was pending with accused No.2/ present petitioner. The similar view was taken by this Court in the Tejas Kumar's case. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:380 WP No. 103646 of 2023 Therefore there is no material to proceed against this petitioner for trail. (III) As regard to the regarding Sanction It is an admitted fact, that the Investigating Officer sent requisition to the State Government for seeking permission to prosecute against the accused Nos.1 and 2. The State Government has considered the case of the prosecution and the complainant passing an order on 30.05.2018 by granting the sanction to prosecute case against accused no.1 and rejected the prayer for sanction for the prosecution against petitioner accused No.2. Subsequently, the investigation officer once again requested the State Government to accord sanction to prosecute against this petitioner on 08.02.2019, thereafter once again the State Government accorded sanction to prosecute against this petitioner on 06.05.2019. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has contended there is no specific reason assigned by State while reconsidering the rejection of the Sanction Order an granting sanction to prosecute against this petitioner. Both the rejection order as well as granting sanction order were produced which reveals the Under Secretary of State Government has in detail order, by application of mind had rejected the prayer of the Lokayuktha police for granting sanction against petitioner accused no2. But while according sanction there is no proper reason assigned while granting sanction on 06.05.2019. In - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:380 WP No. 103646 of 2023 order to reconsider the rejection of sanction order the State no assigned any specific reason for reconsidering the previous order. It has just mentioned the fact of the case, seizure of the cash from accused no.1 and granted permission. Absolutely there is no application of mind by State while granting sanction. Therefore, without any adequate reason and application of mind, the State has granted sanction to prosecute case against accused NO.2 by overruling the previous order for rejection of sanction. Hence, the sanction accorded by State is non-application of mind, which cannot be considered as valid sanction. 13. The coordinate bench of this court in case of Manjunath Vs State quashed the criminal proceedings on the same ground in W.P.No. 10027/2022 relying upon the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs Bhajan lal. This court also taken the similar view in Tejas kumar's case. Considering the reason assigned by this court in the above para of the order that there is no demand and acceptance of bribe/gratification for prosecuting case against accused No.2 and in view of the non-application of mind while setting aside the rejection of sanction order and granting sanction, subsequently without any reasons, on this ground the prosecution cannot be proceeded against the accused No.2 for the reason that there is no damand and acceptance of bribe by the accused No.2 from the complainant and there is no work pending with him as on 05.11.2016 and no valid sanction. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:380 WP No. 103646 of 2023 Therefore, continuing the proceedings against this petitioner, is nothing but abuse of process of law, hence the proceedings against the petitioner, is liable to be quashed." 6. To constitute an offence punishable under Sections 7(a) and 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the PC Act”), the following essential elements must be satisfied. • The work of the complainant must be pending before the accused. • There must be a demand by the accused from the complainant for gratification to show official favor. • There must be acceptance of the gratification amount in pursuance of the demand. 7. In the present case, there is no material produced along with the FIR to establish that the petitioner demanded gratification to perform any official work in favor of any person regarding the checking of vehicles or determining whether they were transporting goods with the necessary permits from the competent authorities. 8. The investigation report also reveals that the amount found in possession of the petitioner was returned - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:380 WP No. 103646 of 2023 to the petitioner after the amount was accounted for and reflected in the cash register maintained at the check post office. In the absence of any material showing that the petitioner either demanded or accepted gratification for providing an official favor, the registration of the FIR for offences punishable under Sections 7(a) and 7A of the PC Act lacks substance and merit. 9. To investigate an offence punishable under Section 13(1)(b) of the PC Act, the second proviso to Section 17 of the Act specifies that such an offence cannot be investigated without the prior approval of a police officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police. 10. In the present case, while the Superintendent of Police authorized the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Dy.S.P.) to investigate the offences punishable under the PC Act, the Dy.S.P., instead of investigating the offences as per the provisions of the PC Act, lodged an FIR with the Police Inspector and directed the Inspector to investigate the offence under Section 13(1)(b) of the PC Act against the petitioner. 11. This action is in contravention of the second proviso to Section 17 of the PC Act. Therefore, the registration and investigation of the FIR by the Police - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:380 WP No. 103646 of 2023 Inspector, as initiated by the Dy.S.P., is procedurally and legally unsustainable. 12. In light of the above, the registration of the FIR and the subsequent investigation conducted in this manner stand vitiated. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) Writ Petition is allowed. ii) The complaint dated 17.01.2023 (Annexure-C) and the impugned FIR registered in Crime No.2/2023 (Annexure-D) registered by respondent No.1, are hereby quashed insofar as it relates to the petitioner herein. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE KMS Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55