2016 (2) TMI 1368 - HC - Indian Laws

Court upholds FIR against petitioner, cites evidence and legality of Lokayuktha Police actions. Seek remedies at Trial Court.

M.R. Hiremath Versus The State of Karnataka and Ors.

The Court rejected the petition challenging the FIR registration against the petitioner, finding it legal and within procedural compliance. The ... Legality/sustainability of the FIR registered against the petitioner - Bribery - mandate under Section 154(1) of Cr.P.C. - HELD THAT:- Divergent views are taken regarding recording of the voice of the accused prior to registration of the case. The Apex Court in the matter of Dr. Rajkumar Agarwal [2012 (8) TMI 1220 - SUPREME COURT], though noticed that the voice of the accused while demanding the bribe was recorded did not touch upon the legality or otherwise of such voice recording. In Criminal Petition No. 3750/2013 D.D. 11.2.2016 in the matter of LAKSHMIKANTHA S.G. VERSUS THE STATE AND ORS. [2016 (2) TMI 1366 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT]], the transcription of the voice recording of the accused prior to registration of the case since was incorporated in the trap mahazar, was held as vitiating the further investigation. But here is a case where somebody on behalf of the complainant goes to the office of the Investigating Officer and is provided with a spy video camera on 15.11.2012. For the first time, the complainant meets the petitioner on the very same day and the said meeting is recorded in the camera. On 16.11.2012, FIR is registered by translating the prior events in chronological order. In the entrustment mahazar carried out subsequent to registration of the case on the very same day, the spy camera is seized after transferring its audio and video contents to a Laptop. The contents are incorporated in the entrustment mahazar. The investigation is proceeded by successfully trapping the second accused along with tainted currency notes. It is not just on the material gathered from the spy camera the prosecution case rests, but also on the information brought in the written complaint by the complainant. When the information disclosed a cognizable offence, the S.H.O. had no other go except to register the FIR as per mandate of Section 154(1) of Cr.P.C. The oral allegation and the supporting materials placed by the complainant have culminated in registration of the complaint. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer has investigated the matter and formed opinion to file his final report and the Court is also said to have taken cognizance of the offence - there are no illegality in registration of the case. Though a contention was taken by the petitioner that the Lokayuktha Police have no jurisdiction to register the case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, at the time of argument, such contention is not pressed. The irregularities pointed out during investigation cannot be counted upon in view of the fact that petitioner is restricting his claim only on illegality of registration of the FIR. Now the matter since is before the Trial Court, the petitioner has to work out his remedy for discharge before the Trial Court only, if so advised. When an alternative remedy is provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court usually refrains from exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Petition dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Legality of the FIR registration.2. Allegations of corruption and bribery.3. Procedural compliance by the Lokayuktha Police.4. Validity of preliminary enquiry and evidence collection.5. Jurisdiction of Lokayuktha Police.Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of the FIR Registration:The petitioner contended that the FIR registered against him by the Lokayuktha Police under Sections 7 and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, was illegal. He argued that the investigation began before the FIR was registered, which is against the procedural mandate. The Court referred to Section 154(1) of Cr.P.C., which mandates immediate registration of FIR upon receiving information about a cognizable offence. The Court concluded that the FIR was registered correctly as the information disclosed a cognizable offence. The Court also noted that the petitioner had previously withdrawn similar petitions, indicating awareness of the investigation's progress.2. Allegations of Corruption and Bribery:The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, an Assistant Commissioner, demanded a bribe of Rs. 20 lakhs for de-notifying land acquired by the Bangalore Development Authority. The second accused, acting as an agent, was caught receiving Rs. 5 lakhs as advance bribe. The petitioner argued that the conversations recorded did not pertain to the de-notification but to statutory betterment charges. The Court found that the totality of allegations, including the recorded conversations and the complainant's statements, disclosed a cognizable offence, justifying the FIR.3. Procedural Compliance by the Lokayuktha Police:The petitioner argued that the Lokayuktha Police began the investigation by handing over a spy camera before registering the FIR, which he claimed was illegal. The Court discussed the procedural requirements, citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Lalita Kumari's case, which allows preliminary enquiry in corruption cases. The Court found that the preliminary enquiry and the subsequent registration of the FIR were in compliance with the law. The spy camera was part of a discreet preliminary enquiry to gather information, not an illegal investigation.4. Validity of Preliminary Enquiry and Evidence Collection:The petitioner cited the case of Ramesh Desai, arguing that recording conversations before FIR registration amounted to evidence collection, which should invalidate the proceedings. The Court differentiated the present case from Ramesh Desai's case, noting that the preliminary enquiry was justified to ascertain the commission of a cognizable offence. The Court also referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Lalita Kumari, which permits preliminary enquiries in corruption cases, and found no illegality in the preliminary actions taken by the Lokayuktha Police.5. Jurisdiction of Lokayuktha Police:Although the petitioner initially contended that the Lokayuktha Police lacked jurisdiction to register the case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, this argument was not pressed during the hearing. The Court noted that the petitioner's primary focus was on the alleged illegality of the FIR registration. The Court concluded that the Lokayuktha Police had acted within their jurisdiction and that any procedural irregularities pointed out did not invalidate the FIR.Conclusion:The Court rejected the petition, finding no illegality in the registration of the FIR against the petitioner. The Court emphasized that the petitioner should seek remedies for discharge before the Trial Court, as provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure. All contentions were kept open for further proceedings.