- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2971 WP No. 107996 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 107996 OF 2023 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: JANAKIRAM S/O. LATE OBANAYAKA AGE. 58 YEARS, EXECUTIVE OFFICER, PAVAGADA TALUK, PANCHAYATH OFFICE, TUMKURU DISTRICT, PERMANENT, R/O. STADIUM ROAD, CHITRADURGA-577501. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ANKIT R. DESAI, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE BY ACB POLICE BALLARI, REPRESENTED BY ITS SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD-580011. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SANTOSH B. MALAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND READ WITH SECTION 482 OF Cr.P.C., QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CRIME NO.1/2016 OF ACB POLICE, BALLARI AND IN CHARGE SHEETIN C.C NO. 2/2018 OF ACB POLICE, BALLARI FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC 7, 9, 13(1) (D) R/W 13(2) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.02.25 18:00:39 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2971 WP No. 107996 of 2023 ORAL ORDER The office is directed to delete the name of Sri T. M. Nadaf as the counsel representing the petitioner in the cause list. 2. The petitioner, who has been charge-sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 7, 9, and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is before this Court seeking relief. 3. The statement of objections filed by the respondent– Lokayukta is placed on record. 4. The prosecution alleges that the petitioner, who was working as Chief Executive Officer, was caught red-handed on the spot while accepting a gratification amount of Rs.15,000 for the approval of the 14th financial action plan. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, on the same charge, a departmental enquiry was conducted, and in that enquiry, the petitioner was exonerated from all the charges. In light of the petitioner’s exoneration, the continuation of criminal proceedings against him would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the exoneration from the departmental enquiry does not absolve the accused of criminal liability, and that the allegations against the accused must be proved independently in a criminal court. He further submitted that only five witnesses were examined in the departmental enquiry as compared to thirty charge witnesses. In - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2971 WP No. 107996 of 2023 support, he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sanju Rajan Nayar vs. Jayaraj and Another – 2024 SCC OnLine SC 582. 7. The arguments of the learned counsel for the parties have been duly considered. 8. A coordinate bench of this Court, in the case of Vishwanath N. Naik vs. State of Karnataka – Crl.P. No.4124/2017 c/w Crl.P. No.4480/2017 (DD 10.1.2023), has ruled as follows: “8. Undisputedly, the Departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner-accused No.6 and the Enquiry committee after adjudicating the matter at length has exonerated the petitioner-accused No.6 in the departmental enquiry on the very same set of charge on merits. 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radheshyam Kejriwal Vs. State of West Bengal reported in (2011) 3 SCC 581 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 20(2) of the Constitution or Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2971 WP No. 107996 of 2023 (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.” 10. 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 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 P S Rajya's case was not an authority for the presumption that exoneration in departmental proceeding ipso facto would lead to a judgment of acquittal in a criminal trial. 11. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Hyder Consulting (UK) Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa reported in (2015) 2 SCC 189 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. 12. 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 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2971 WP No. 107996 of 2023 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.” 9. The statements of the shadow witness and the Investigating Officer were recorded. The shadow witness has turned hostile, and nothing incriminating was elicited during his cross-examination to support the prosecution’s case. Although the Investigating Officer supported the prosecution’s case, he is not a material witness to substantiate the allegation that the accused demanded and accepted gratification. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sanju Rajan Nayar (supra) has held that exoneration in the departmental enquiry does not ipso facto absolve the accused of criminal liability. Under these circumstances, the continuation of criminal proceedings would not serve the interests of justice. Accordingly, the petition is allowed, and the impugned proceedings in Special Case No. 5001/2018, pending on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ballari (sitting at Hospet), insofar as they relate to the petitioner/accused No.1, are hereby quashed. BKM Ct:vh List No.: 3 Sl No.: 9 Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE