- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1799 CRL.P No. 102008 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102008 OF 2024 (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SRI. RAMESH SINDIGI S/O BHEEMAPPA SINDIGI, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: INSPECTOR, R/O: # L I G 97, 7TH CROSS, NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI-580 009, TQ: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD . … PETITIONER (BY SRI. NEELENDRA D. GUNDE AND SRI. HANUMESH M. DESAI, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY LOKAYUKTA P.S. HAVERI, REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING DHARWAD. 2. SRI. RABBANI KATHIB S/O MAHAMAD JAFAR KATHIB, AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: ELECTRICIAN AND PLUMBER, R/O: #1770, 3RD CROSS, AJAD NAGAR, HIREKERURU-581 110, TQ: HIREKERURU, DIST: HAVERI. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ANIL KALE, SPL. PP FOR R1; R2-SERVED) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH ORDER 05.04.2019 PASSED BY PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPL. JUDGE HAVERI IN SPL. S.V.C.NO.01/2019 THEREBY TAKING COGNIZANCE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/SEC.7,13(1), (D), R/W 13(2) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT AND ALL FURTHER CONSEQUENT B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.02.01 13:32:30 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1799 CRL.P No. 102008 of 2024 PROCEEDINGS THERETO, ALLOW THE ABOVE CRIMINAL PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner, who is facing prosecution for offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, has approached this Court. 2. The prosecution alleges that under the relevant scheme, the complainant was entitled to receive certain benefits in relation to his marriage. It is further alleged that in order to facilitate the release of these benefits, the petitioner demanded a sum of ₹5,000 as illegal gratification. A trap was conducted, during which the petitioner was caught red-handed while accepting the bribe amount of ₹5,000. 3. On a similar set of allegations, the Lokayukta conducted a departmental inquiry under. Upon completion of the inquiry, the enquiry officer recorded a finding that the charge against the petitioner was not proved. The inquiry report was subsequently placed before the Upa-Lokayukta for approval, and by order dated 01.03.2024, the Upa-Lokayukta approved the inquiry report. Consequently, the State Government, by an order dated 15.05.2024, accepted the inquiry report and exonerated the petitioner of the charges leveled against him. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1799 CRL.P No. 102008 of 2024 4. Learned counsel for the respondent/Lokayukta places reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sanju Rajan Nayar v. Jayaraj & Another. However, the cited decision is not applicable to the present case. In that case, the trial was not based on the same evidence that was considered by the authorities while exonerating the employee in the departmental proceedings. 5. In the present case, the complainant, shadow witness, investigating officer, and other official witnesses were examined by the enquiry officer during the departmental inquiry. After recording and appreciating their statements, the inquiry officer submitted a report stating that the charge against the petitioner was not proved. Therefore, this is not a case where the evidence to be adduced by the Lokayukta in the criminal proceedings is different from the evidence considered in the departmental inquiry. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Radheshyam Kejriwal Vs. State of West Bengal reported in (2011) 3 SCC 581 has laid principle which reads thus: “38. The ratio which can be culled out from these decisions can broadly be stated as follows :- (i) Adjudication proceeding and criminal prosecution can be launched simultaneously; (ii) Decision in adjudication proceeding is not necessary before initiating criminal prosecution; (iii) Adjudication proceeding and criminal proceeding are independent in nature to each other; (iv) The finding against the person facing prosecution in the adjudication proceeding is not binding on the proceeding for criminal prosecution; - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1799 CRL.P No. 102008 of 2024 (v) Adjudication proceeding by the Enforcement Directorate is not prosecution by a competent court of law to attract the provisions of Article 20 (2) of the Constitution or Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; (vi) The finding in the adjudication proceeding in favour of the person facing trial for identical violation will depend upon the nature of finding. If the exoneration in adjudication proceeding is on technical ground and not on merit, prosecution may continue; and (vii) In case of exoneration, however, on merits where allegation is found to be not sustainable at all and person held innocent, criminal prosecution on the same set of facts and circumstances cannot be allowed to continue 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 PS Rajya Vs. State of Bihar reported in (1996) 9 SCC 1 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 PS Rajya's case was not an authority for the presumption exoneration that in departmental proceeding ipso facto would lead to a judgment of acquittal in a criminal trial. 8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Hyder Consulting (UK) Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa reported in (2015) 2 SCC 189 has held - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1799 CRL.P No. 102008 of 2024 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 earller 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 consisting of three Judges which is a latter judgment. Though the decision of the State (NCT of Delhi) was unanimous and whereas in the case of Radheshyam Kejriwal, it was a majority of 2:1, the total strength of the Bench that they decided the case is deemed to be the Bench strength of that decision despite dissenting opinion as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shanti Fragrances Vs. Union of India reported in (2018) 11 SCC 305. 10. Therefore, in view of the ratio enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the impugned criminal proceeding cannot be continued against the petitioner who has been exonerated on - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1799 CRL.P No. 102008 of 2024 identical charges in the departmental enquiry, the underlying principle being higher standard of proof in criminal cases. 11. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings in Special S.V.C. No.1/2019 pending on the file of learned Prl. District and Session Judge & Special Judge, Haveri, is hereby quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE JTR CT:BCK List No.: 3 Sl No.: 6