I IN HIH t ICC FrO <ARN AK 1 ENrIA r cD3I1E PRO”Q’ “i(E kT PfrIIJCIIL BE4Ch AT ANGAflRF DWED ThIS rj.a 23 ‘AY Cr DECEMBER 2010 L R THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JAWAD RAHIM RL$ETI1J.QN ND..° Q8J2009 F WI REVAPPA GURAPPA GADDAD Sb GURAPPA P GADDAD A DA UT5OYFAR .AI1RU 4 SADASHI NAGP , SOt \PUR .OAD, BUAPUR 586 103 PEflTIONER YSPISHAN ARIEDGF FORN KAS R AD I KARNAAKA LOKA’r IJICrA, • Ffl r 1 HE ThVL-5 T iGAtIN( ‘)h-L>R P ‘F H’ 1J R r ,T NI! AKI iR SF. •fra_.f’t I PIOIJ T5 ,iLEE uS PC. r ‘ : ! T LL FOP ‘iF’ Rt( RP FFPI1h!1 NC ‘ ‘ IAL i R 14 C. n bc c r. B .L r,., t”J’L -‘fr flRD’, iii WA’-”gA,Au(M ‘flVAv’J, 1 ItA IJAP’JP “Li • AllOt’ c. rcThlr r:fl / - a OJ6 A II H 4 rz, . Ii . ‘lFçj !J(. I :‘U .J •‘it— I i I ii V ON 14-11-2008 ALONG WITH FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PENDING IN THE FILE OF SPECIAL JUDGE PRLDISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BIJAPUR OR ANY OTHER RELIEF AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIRST JUST AND EXPEDIENT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE. This Criminal petition having been heard finally and reserved at Guibarga Circuit Bench, this day the court pronounced at the Principal Bench at Bangalore the following order: ORDER Petitioner who Is arraigned as 1 accused for the offences punishable Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 19988, (hereinafter referred to a the Act, for brevity) in Spi. C.C.1/09 on the file of Special Judge, Bijapur, seeks quashing of proceedings. 2. Heard learned counsel Sri Shankar Hegde for the petitioner and Sri Vijaykumar, Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. Perused records in supplementation thereto. It reveals: a) Deputy Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta, on the basis of credible information aileging petitioner-Revappa Gurappa Gaddad, working as Deputy Director of Karnataka Land Army, had amassed wealth k ‘2..•-•• 3 disproportionate to his known sources of income, registered a suo moto case on 21.11.2005 in Crime NO.7/09 and raided his residence and other places under his control. During such raid, he seized gold and silver articles, fixed deposit receipts, bank accounts and other documents evidencing acquisition of immovable properties. He seized those properties and documents under mahazars in the presence of witnesses and continued further Investigation. b) During further investigation, he Is said to have collected information about his known sources of income and compared it with the estimated value of movable and immovable properties possessed by the petitioner. Ultimately he filed final report alleging petitioner had amassed wealth disproportionate to known sources of income and thus, had committed an offence punishable under clause Ce) of Section 13(1) of the Act read with Section 13(2). Final report was registered on the file of Special Judge in Spl.C.C.1/09. 4 c) All the properties seized were reported to the court. Petitioner filed an application seeking release of movable and Immovable propertIes which was rejected. He has questioned the tenability of prosecution on the ground that computation done by the 1.0. to record the value of assets Is in excess to known sources of income, is factually incorrect. His contention is, he is an honest officer who joined Govt. service on 15.5.1987 and has proven unimpeachable record of service. He has not only income from salary and other service benefits, but also owns agricultural lands from which he has a regular yield, substantially augmenting his income. He alleges his brother-in-law who Is a practlsing advocate Is inimical towards him and had submitted false information to the Lokayukta officer, acting on which a sue moto case has been registered without basis. He further submits he has been pleading with the 1.0. to furnish him the basis of evaluating properties seized, but the officer has failed to furnish the required information. According to him, the value of properties mentioned by the 1.0. is an ‘S x jeratio d d € t rel 3luc s ken, set sowces of irnme and will not bt seizure. He ‘sould rurther submit r oerties, hau t’ the (as e as dy d’ Referring to the him in Schedule 1 to 2005 ‘ubmi KnDa CL St ha.. ncome from kncwn cour,..es and perniissible un’ler cld’Ise (c o cectijr. )utthe ct n te C .0 actior was 13(1: nf SOon o ast pro s nk oe v: ‘.1 z,r,rro eva preuqur 1 q tn-s T L1 tcu’-d tj •p f jcets r, Li. mra,- tr ta.. k.wii i.:i€ tS ‘4 .r)e )::‘C . t ‘ I I r he C the t alue he elc. t tit wn liable fer attachrne 1t or for arquinng immovable uired p r ussion f the er Ia Inateria 16 ano has particulars furnisned by 23 on 25.8.2005 and ght to noticc.. Sri ( ,t it , q .ikc nh • •. An t 6 land income. He submits without soliciting any information fror petltlone v 0 will be best pen to speak to thoe fat a iatra op orr e wt c unsust inabic He ub lit on th as of suct material, no charge can be laid. 4. Referring to the Information compiled in the form of charge sheet, he su mits manifestly It is exag erated and fa or ruth vtic or peus i ersti prceed g vitate For stai e, he ubnts th be vay t compute income frcm agricultural lands was to have obtained statistical information from agricultural produce market committee which is the normal method to be ado He subrr there is estigat the 1.0 a eld cro ut 1€ ter s oney. mits i icome d to h income frc’rn salary from other sources, no charoe would be tenable S. le has app 4d to the ttlon Sc.he e 1 to 16 a lsc urn air ult as K 0 0’ c. ibittlit ne taken into consideration by this court to prevent misuee t,f the process of law and to avoid the ordeal of unjustified -e of cet Per wntrd. ledrned Special Public Prosecutor for Via Lokayukta, has refuted al contentions pointing cut to the tt c e. a o ii fu g lue of )Ssets, ot only t the t me of seizure• t dunrj further investigation, which he has failed to do. In the ernat he mts -e is tag wed 0 dur st e ed tt iluc es,ets uecause it .s the duty of tte I 0 ic value tie assets ce-zej, rak’ng “to corsidnatior all itterid’r’, C C i.’bim,yJ rio ‘ ‘iippc. ‘d !yj i’ .T’3tC.r.al ,nf rr,iatn :i ted ‘ij.., fri • I:’ i’; t’n f rrsja steat it- sit .wt! to “‘ s-r i” w U dV qjji il ii U aqe ‘‘it• .:‘ iI..tt, i. :‘ I i (3 rifj.at; r All contentions i v e considc ration. It must be observed that not r or investigation, but even during nvestigation, I 0. r secured information about the movable and immovable assets owned by the etitioner. rhe value of prope’-ties seized is indicated in the inventory prepared and it is further substantiated from the mahazars. It is material tc note apart from movable and immovable properties, value o which is brought in question by the accused, I 0 has seized fixed deposit receipts showing iiquid cast ovS . by the petitioner. Of course, the et is more I imassi i thc ed ¶ ie f p.s inc d 1 50 c 4 rti ‘:wi’ a”. r—t’; or itic’. : jj er, .,. 1-1 t e.i f 0 V t the total value ne indicirg e ‘ncorr acc to h in• h ihoi.it his t rid” ,httdly c d 1r ‘i”u n’ 9 lflCEflC 3t tell ct n s W”iethe qua higof proceedings is justified? r’t n .ncpite jq ‘esttg t’r ii in let’ cid a’ d t ial report has been filed Therefore, the proceedinqs before the s[.eudl judge in Spl.C C .1. O nas o reach i og;cai It r L’s bc n mc ed th ciarge iqains U e peti loner T°c isibi d C) (. 3’2 of he Ae which a-e br.ablc only by he. Ctslcna “sd cneciai judge appointed for the purpose by virtue of Sect.on 3 of the A•t. By s’tue of Sect,ori 5, the spec’a’ dei g7’ err ito se Lti CirhtOtoi t al ‘ tyig • ust’cl rerc’jr”s. shall fr;iio:: t’w procedure prescribed by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), fi tie trial of var art ca e by msgstratcs. itt + L :. ‘&u ‘-.sr.ç. J€t u’i ti’i tr ‘“ I0 procedure prescribed for trial of warrant cases by the magistrate as enumerated in Chapter XIX. 10. There are several stages carved out in the proceedings during such trial, one amongst which is the stage provided to hear before charge engrafted in Section 239, Cr.P.C. which envisages ‘if. upon considering the — police report and documents sent with it under Section 173 and making such examination, if any, of the accused as the magistrate thinks necessary and after giving the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard, the magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless, he shall discharge the accused, and record his reasons for so doing.’ 10. SrI Shankar Hegde expressed apprehension contending if the accused makes a request to the special judge go give him an opportunity to refer to all the material in his defence, it will not be considered as the trial judge will only look into the material and documents submitted in the form of charge sheet. In other words, his I.. • i•••••\ If) II prelerlo i mr tdpec do aynt nit h petitioner to rely on material docurnentc which accrue to nis defence on the ground it is only the matenal available the fo in ot ct rgc. ie t nt tas o be cons’lercd. ‘i ipp rci ) c ldbciIs°lldoyorpari) he orovision of Section 227, Cr P C and the ‘anguage of Section 239, rr.P.C 11. The provision of Section 227 is a part of Chapter XVIII which lays down the procedure for trial betore the out sessor. Di irj ic p c edngs. he se sions de sbetoe t r ye Sc r17 cusrharqe the accused Th iarguage of Sec.ticn 227 spells out Discharqe If upon co-isicieratio•7 of the recOt(I ,f the c ist. a id ttic ci xv ‘it its sub,, itt ci ..herowit!., nd tei 0’ 7 Ii ( aue 7 F prcuUos ,iti, v ri U j (IC con d -c h tt -Ic fle! ,.,ffs ‘eat .,ru,s1 to: ,j,ntsedrnc, qr”s t tt-e a’ cuced ‘‘ .,haIi a.&.t’ge .he •w’iaei a: I rec&Iu hic ,cacam t’ c )7, rcs ri ‘ ttc cai°h ace’ 12 itus vh le Sectior ‘27 does nct pci-mit examinat’on of the accused, Section 23 permits examir.atioi of the accused I/ tae magistrate 1? At this stage it s also necessary tu larify that thouqh the special j idge appointel u ider prov sioi s of the Act w II bt of the rank f district and sessions judge yet few trial of cases for offence punishable under the provisions of the Preven ior f Cor’upt or A t by vat c 1 S°ct oi 5 of the Act the procedure prescribed to try warrant ase by Vagistrate only ap.l’es. I have already adverted to th said rovis.oi b v ver n at ds - te at i tnt eve.n t ough h sperial judge will be of ‘he rank of se,sions udge for all i itent and pur?uses, r by the acc”sed for it of1’ ret i,Pr tic AC I a to alo’ h Dr eii c preiribei y thc oc’e ci ‘rrnna 1 P—or ‘-sit t- 9 ) - )f 9 4, f) tr.a, of t’ar,’, ‘nSeS t4 •-. 0 cg.st 1 a’%, anr t i r:cc - i .i C. — X%.IIn ciov;’r fjor ).t•’1,tr • ‘ii bep’”a1l ‘t.i-i if • • ‘is 11 13 Itisr w slIcttIedby he ctu oftheipe cou - that if the accused is p epar d to produce material o stering ouahty irh or the fa e of it ind ates ‘to cut n ir tate aga nst im on is’i.f ien ma’enal the proceedings could be quashd or accused could be dis argc. 4 I his ie ho ghlan th pi i ast g proceedings at this stage is not justified yet the right of he ace ed o dvar a pleis t f wa i this petition before the spectal judge to ceek discharge should berservcdadh sho’db giv aropp tur y. the ob .oner-a’c sed nake... suct a rcque 3 t before t te s..ecial wig Vtrri cot.rt. ne sha co isider his lea • tinfi er c a b dfl b 3 c au ‘rr dei (he ..ui eof his rder 4 £ b 1 .s. C. it