Sending Voice Sample In Graft Case For Analysis To Private Lab Instead Of Govt Forensic Science Lab Affects Rights Of Accused: Karnataka HC
The Karnataka High Court upheld a trial court order discharging a public servant of graft charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act as the Lokayukta police sent the voice sample of the conversation between the official and the complainant wherein he allegedly demanded a bribe, to a private agency instead of sending it to government Forensic Science Laboratory for analysis.
The court said that the by sending the sample to a private agency and placing the report on it as "gospel truth" used for filing the chargesheet affected the public servant's rights.
Justice V Srishananda dismissed the State's petition challenging trial court's December 16, 2016 order by which the court had discharged G Ramachari who was booked for offences punishable under Section 7 and 13 (2) of the PC Act.
The bench said, “It is pertinent to note that without exhausting the remedy before the Forensic Laboratory of Karnataka, sending the voice sample to the Truth Labs, which is a private agency and collecting the report which is been placed as a gospel truth in filing the charge sheet has also resulted in affecting the rights of the accused. Therefore, the very cognizance itself should not have been taken by the learned Special Judge and the charge sheet should have been returned.”
The accused official was alleged to have demanded Rs 5,000 from the complainant for releasing his vehicle which was seized during the election time. Based on the complaint made to the Lokayuktha Police, Bengaluru Rural District it registered a case and the investigation was commenced by the Inspector, Lokayuktha Police. Later the file was transferred to Lokayuktha Police, Chikkaballapura, who completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet.
The counsel for the State argued that even in the absence of a successful trap, solely on the demand made by the accused for the illegal gratification, a charge sheet can be filed under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The respondent argued that the Lokayuktha Police, Bengaluru Rural District had no jurisdiction to register the case nor conduct the investigation.
On going through the record the bench noted that even though there is no bar for any Lokayuktha Police to receive the complaint, after receipt of the complaint, it was the bounden duty of the concerned Police to verify the place of incident and transfer the complaint to the jurisdictional Lokayuktha Police Station.
It said, “At the most an FIR could be registered in Zero Number (usually termed as zero FIR) and transfer the complaint and FIR to the jurisdictional Police station for the purpose of investigation. The said procedure is now recognized in the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita (for short, 'BNSS').”
The bench held “Admittedly, the part investigation conducted by the Inspector, Lokayuktha Police Bengaluru Rural District was without jurisdiction. Therefore, a fresh investigation should have been conducted by the Lokayuktha Police, Chikkaballapura. Instead, the Lokayuktha Police, Chikkaballapura, continued with the investigation which was conducted in part by the Inspector Lokayuktha Police, Bengaluru Rural District. Same has resulted in procedural lapses besides being the further proceedings thereof stood vitiated.”
Finally it said the principles of law enunciated by the Apex Court in Sita Soren -vs- Union of India (2024), are not applicable to the case on hand in view of the inherent defects in the charge sheet.
Accordingly it dismissed the petition.
Case Title: State of Karnataka AND G Ramachari
Counsel for Petitioner: Advocate Prasad B S
Counsel for Respondent: Advocate M.B.Rajashekar
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 522
Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 699 OF 2017