Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 786 (KAR)

State of Karnataka v. A. Krishnappa

2005-11-29

N.S.VEERABHADRAIAH

body2005
ORDER N.S. Veerabhadraiah, J.—Though the matter has come up for admission it is taken up for final disposal on merits. 2. This revision is by the State being aggrieved of the order passed in CC No. 2 of 2003 by the Prl. Sessions Judge, Kolar dated 5.7.2004 discharging accused Nos. 1 and 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows: The Police, Lokayuktha charge sheeted three accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on the allegation that on 22.9.2000 at about 2.15 p.m. on the instigation of accused No. 1 - A. Krishnappa, Assistant Controller, accused No. 2 - Seetharama Rao stated to have demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs. 4,000/- for doing official favour to one B.S. Balaji, Sailakahmi Departmental Stores, Doddapet, Kolar and while accepting the said bribe, accused No. 2-Seetharama Rao was trapped by the Lokayuktha Police. After filing of the charge sheet accused Nos. 1 and 3 filed an application to discharge them in respect of the said offences. Learned Sessions Judge, discharged accused Nos. 1 and 3 on the ground that there is no sanction to prosecute them. It is this order, which is questioned in the present Criminal Revision Petition. 4. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner as well as the learned Counsel for the Respondent . 5. It is not in dispute that accused No. 1, A. Krishnappa was the Assistant Controller of Weights and Measures Department, Kolar who came to be retired from service before filing of the charge sheet, whereas accused No. 3-A.V. Abbaiah Kumar was working on daily wages and further accused No. 2-H.G. Seetharama Rao was the Second Division Assistant and official of that office. When it is clear, that accused No. 1 has retired from service and accused No. 3 being a daily wager, the question of obtaining any sanction to prosecute the case does not arise. Each case has to be examined on its own facts and circumstance and the accused persons cannot be permitted to escape from the clutches of law only on technical ground when there are sufficient material. 6. In light of the facts narrated, discharge of accused Nos. Each case has to be examined on its own facts and circumstance and the accused persons cannot be permitted to escape from the clutches of law only on technical ground when there are sufficient material. 6. In light of the facts narrated, discharge of accused Nos. 1 and 3 is not sustainable and the same is hereby set aside and it is made clear that accused Nos. 1 and 3 shall face trial. Learned Sessions Judge is directed to expedite the matter. 7. With the said observations, this Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.