TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (11) TMI 1586
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is said to have informed the Lokayuktha Police of these illegal demands. On the basis of the same, a case in Crime no.24/2010 is said to have been registered against several officials of the KIADB, for offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'PC Act', for brevity). Other cases followed , on the basis of a source report by the Lokayuktha police, against more officials of the KIADB as well as others, in Crime no.42/2010 to 46/2010. During the course of investigation of these cases, the IO, in Crime no.42/2010 was said to have been directed by the Superintendent of Police, Lokayuktha, to probe into the possible role of M/s Itasca Software Development Private Limited, (Hereinafter referred to as 'Itasca', for brevity) as regards irregularities in acquisition of land and to register a separate case. The Managing Director of Itasca had already been named as an accused in Crime no.43/2010. Searches are said to have been carried out in the offices of Itasca and on the basis of information gathered, a search was said to have been carried out on the offices of one M/s Indu Builde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n agreement with Itasca to fund the project and supplied the funds to Itasca, which in turn was deposited by Accused no. 3, on behalf of Itasca. It was then decided to appoint an agency to identify, interact and negotiate with the land owners to facilitate consent acquisition and accordingly a tripartite agreement is said to have been entered into between Itasca, UTL and Indu Builders, who is said to have been appointed as such aggregator agency. Apart from depositing the compensation amount with KIADB, Itasca had sought to make additional payment of compensation through Indu Builders, to the land owners to obtain consent letters. It was alleged that with respect to the draft proceedings of SHLCC on the word 'consent', whitener had been applied to erase the word and that this was the handiwork of the petitioner, which constituted forgery. It then transpires that Accused no.1 & 2 and their associates had proceeded to forge documents and utilized the same to withdraw the compensation amount through M/s Indu Builders and Developers, which was purportedly acting on behalf of land owners in withdrawing the compensation amounts, which ultimately found its way into the hands of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....having ensured that the application of M/s Itasca was fast tracked for consideration by the SHLCC, over other applications by other applicants, it is contended, is not an objection raised by any entity. There was no such deviation and that even if there was any such lapse, the ultimate decision was that of the Committee consisting of 32 individuals, including the Chief Minister of the State and other high functionaries and not the petitioner alone. It is therefore contended that the petitioner could not be singled out for criminal prosecution on that account. It is contended that the further allegation as to the petitioner and his family members having received the compensation amount in respect of lands belonging to others is also not substantiated by any cogent evidence. It is pointed out that the compensation amount paid to the land owners was in two components. Namely, the compensation amount paid through the medium of KIADB and the compensation amount paid through UTL, Itasca and Indu Builders and Developers. There is no material produced to demonstrate that even a single land owner had come forward to complain of non-receipt of compensation in respect of the arrangement as b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n months. It is stated that Accused no. 6, Basavapurnaiah had died during the pendency of these proceedings and hence the case sought to be made out as to the role of UTL , which entity was sought to be held answerable for the alleged illegal acts through the said accused is no longer possible and therefore the theory of a conspiracy between the petitioner, Itasca and UTL being established is also not possible. It is contended that the first case pertaining to the alleged irregularities in the acquisition and payment of compensation was in Crime no. 24/2010, registered as on 28-6-2010, against a First Division Assistant and a Special Land Acquisition Officer of KIADB. It is thereafter that a series of cases in Crime no. 42 to 46 of 2010, were registered as on 1-10-2010. It is on investigation and seizure of material documents in searches conducted under those cases, that the case against the petitioner and 9 others, in Crime no.57/2010 came to be registered on 1-12-2010, including accused no.3, who was already named as the accused in the case in Crime no. 46/2010. As pointed out by this court in the order in Criminal Petition 5102/2015, the material gathered in the course of inve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er is barred under Section 397 (2) of the CrPC and also under Section 19(3) (c) of the PC Act. It is contended that under Section 227 or 229 of the CrPC, the jurisdictional Court would only cursorily examine the prima facie material or the allegations either to proceed with the trial or otherwise. Hence, for this court to address the alleged infirmities highlighted would result in the scope of the proceedings being enlarged, which the procedure does not contemplate. It is for this reason any such alleged infirmities in investigation or form are not treated as circumstances that would vitiate the proceedings under Section 460 CrPC . It is asserted that the petitioner's contention that investigation was conducted prior to the registration of the FIR is incorrect and misleading. It is pointed out that the IO had, on examination of the documents seized during search conducted in the earlier cases, and not in Crime no.57/2010, formed an opinion that cognizable offences were made out which required registration of an FIR and accordingly the FIR in Crime no. 57/2010 was filed as on 1-12-2010 and thereafter a detailed investigation had been taken up. It is asserted that there is no i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rsons and the officials of the KIADB; d) Accused No.1 has committed forgery by applying whitener after the signatures of the Chief Minister of Karnataka (Page 94 of the Charge Sheet and Page 26, para 28 of the Order dated 29.04.2013 and various places in the Charge Sheet book-let); e) Accused No.1 dropped approximately 450 acres of land in Bandikodigehalli from acquisition and notified separately for acquisition without the consent of the land owners (page 94 of the Charge sheet); and f) Accused no.1 got Accused No.7 posted as Special Deputy Commissioner to aid in the commission of the offences. In so far as Accused no. 2 is concerned, the offences committed by him , as disclosed in the charge sheet are as follows: a) Accused No.2 has formed the Company M/s Itasca Software Development Private Limited along with Accused No.3, which applied for allotment of 325 acres of land from KIADB; b) Accused No.2 has got the lands allotted to the name of the Company from the KIADB and paid the initial fees of Rs. 3.00 lakh from his account (Page 94, Para 6 of the Charge sheet and also in Order dated 29.4.2013); c) Accused No.2 has committed forgery in relation to the application for allo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tiation table; agree for giving up their lands for acquisition; and holding out threats in case they do not agree for giving up their lands, they would lose their lands and would not get compensation also. (Page 96, para 12 of the Charge Sheet) b) Petitioner/Accused No.9 was a Corporator at the relevant point of time and in view of his position, he was able to lure and induce the land owners to agree for compensation and also forcibly coerced them to consent for the acquisition, in case they did not agree (Page 96, Para 12 of the Charge Sheet); c) Petitioner/Accused No.9 was also involved in obtaining the documents through deceitful means and also forged the documents. Petitioner/Accused No.9 along with other Accused took maximum advantage of illiteracy of the land holders/owners by keeping them in darkness with the intention of cheating them (Page 96, Para 12 of the Charge Sheet) and also in Order dated 29.4.2013; d) Petitioner/Accused No.9 received payment for repaying his personal loan and some of the amount was paid from M/s Indu Builders & Developers (Order dated 29.4.2013); e) Petitioner/Accused No.9 has committed forgery by appropriating the bearer cheques which were iss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction 11 of the Special Courts Act, 1979. On the other hand , it is held thus by the Apex Court in the case of Jarnail Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1992 Crl. L.J.810, "34. To sum up, we find that an order framing charge is an order of moment; it deprives the liberty of a citizen and puts him to jeopardy of a trial. Such an order finally rejects the plea of the accused that he is entitled to a discharge or that he is not liable to be tried. Such an order concludes the enquiry and the pre-trial proceedings against the accused. The order framing charge takes away a very valuable right of the accused. Hence, in our considered opinion, an order framing charge is not an interlocutory order within the meaning of Section 397(2) CrPC and such an order is amenable to the supervisory jurisdiction of the court of Session and the High Court under Section 397(1) CrPC. We answer the reference accordingly." It is plain that under Section 227 or 239 CrPC, the jurisdictional court would only examine, prima facie, the material or the allegations to decide to proceed with the trial or to discharge the accused. A primary allegation in the Charge sheet against the petitioner is to the effect that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ult. It is to be kept in view that the case of the prosecution is that there were transfer of funds, which were characterized as illegal gratification that was ultimately received by the petitioner through the other accused. The transfer was as a result of a well engineered conspiracy involving two corporate bodies from whose accounts the monies came, namely, Itasca, purportedly represented by Accused no.3 and UTL , represented by accused no.6. Significantly, the said corporate bodies are not named in the charge sheet. This is inexplicable as there is no immunity available to the companies from prosecution, merely because prosecution would be in respect of offences for which punishment prescribed is mandatory imprisonment and fine. It is also to be kept in view that prosecution, conviction and sentencing are different stages in a criminal trial. The stage for sentencing is reached only after a verdict of guilt is pronounced after a full fledged trial. (See : Standard Chartered Bank v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2005) 4 SCC 530.) Further , a corporate body is an artificial person which acts through its officers. If such a company commits an offence involving mens rea, it would no....