Exoneration Of Employee In Departmental Enquiry Will Not Halt Criminal Trial Under Prevention Of Corruption Act: Karnataka High Court

A single judge bench of Justice H P Sandesh held thus while rejecting the petition filed by T Manjunath who was arrested under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Manjunath had challenged the order dated 23-08-2017, passed by the trial court which on deciding his discharge application in his favour held that the sanction to prosecution granted by the Commission of Transport is invalid and non-est and returned the entire charge sheet papers to the Investigating Agency with a liberty to file a charge sheet afresh after obtaining necessary sanction from the Competent Authority.

Manjunath, who was working as a Senior Inspector at the Regional Transport Office, was arrested for demanding and accepting bribes from a transport vehicle company supervisor. He contended that Lokayuktha police had directed the complainant to secure the voice recorder by furnishing the digital voice recorder and thereafter on obtaining the voice recorder of the petitioner proceeded to register an FIR on 13.06.2012.

This he claimed was contrary to the judgements of the Supreme Court in the case Lalith Kumari v State of Uttar Pradesh, wherein it is held that registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of Cr. P.C if the information discloses that the commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary enquiry is permissible under such situations.

Further, he submitted that in the Departmental Enquiry, it was clearly recorded that there is no material and he was exonerated and there cannot be a criminal prosecution against the petitioner herein.

The counsel for Lokayuktha opposed the plea and sought reversal of the trial court order contending that the employee was appointed as a Group-C employee and then promoted thus the appointing authority was the Transport Commissioner and the sanction accorded for prosecution was correct.

Findings:

The court relied on the Apex court judgment in the case of Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.8254/2023 dated 23.04.2024 wherein also the case of invoking Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Then it said, “In the case on hand also it has to be noted that the accused was trapped and a conversation was recorded and in this regard, FSL report is also collected and demand also made and received alleged bribe of Rs.15,000, through accused No.2.”

It added, “Sanction was granted having considered the material available on record regarding demand and acceptance of the alleged bribery.”

The Court rejected the petition filed by Manjunath holding that when there is evidence of the demand and acceptance of a bribe and when criminal misconduct has been alleged against a Government employee who is discharging the duty as a public servant, it needed to go to trial since exonerating him in Departmental Enquiry will not affect the same.

The court held, “The question of giving liberty also does not arise when sanction is accorded by the Competent Authority in terms of the Notification dated 11.02.2010, which confers on the Transport Commissioner to accord the sanction in view of the order of the Government.”

Accordingly, it allowed the petition filed by the Lokayukhta.

Appearance: Advocate Prasad B S for Petitioner.

Advocate Vijay Kumar V B for Respondent.

Citation No: 2024 Live Law (Kar) 339

Case Title: State By Karnataka Lokayuktha Police AND T Manjunath & ANR

Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.422/2018 C/W CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.599/2018