TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (2) TMI 1368
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ioner works as an Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority, Central Office, Bangalore; the land belonging to the mother of the complainant/2nd respondent and a relative of the complainant in Sy. No. 102/2 measuring 23 guntas and 102/1 measuring 27 guntas, totally 1 acre 10 guntas was acquired for developing Arkavathi Layout. The land owners submitted application to de-notify their lands from acquisition. The second accused/N.R. Ramesh is an Advocate, who was acting as the Agent of the first accused; the complainant approached the second accused along with his friend Sunil Kumar/CW-2. The second accused demanded gratification of Rs. 20 lakhs to place the file of the complainant before the De-notification Committee. However, on the request of the complainant, came down for Rs. 16 lakhs and demanded advance amount of Rs. 5 lakhs. The complainant approached the petitioner/first accused in his office on 15.11.2012 at 8.30 p.m. along with accused No. 2. Petitioner consented for Rs. 20 lakhs as expressed by accused No. 2, thereby demanded illegal gratification for carrying out official work and abetted accused No. 2 to receive bribe money on his behalf. While accused No. 2 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion had recommended for de-notification, but it was the petitioner, who disagreed with the said recommendation and recommended against de-notification pointing out the reason to the B.D.A. Committee, since de-notification if ordered, it would adversely affect the layout development. This generated the animosity and the complainant hatched a plan to falsely implicate the petitioner. The notes maintained in the office of the petitioner disclose that he had recommended against de-notification. This is a case which falls within the specific postulate made by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana and Others vs. Bhajan Lal and Others reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. There is a ruling of this Court in the case of Sri Ramesh Desai and Another vs. The State of Karnataka by Raichur Lokayuktha P.S. reported in 2012(3) KCCR 1738 whereby it was held "recording of conversation for demand of bribe does not constitute preliminary enquiry rather it amounts to collecting of evidence applies to the present case". As held by this Court in Girishchandra vs. The State by Lokayuktha Police reported in ILR 2013 KAR 983 (DB), in all trap cases, it is just and necessary that recording of the complaint/re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....11.2012 and pre-trap panchanama/entrustment mahazar was conducted on the very same day. On the very evening of 16.11.2012 on the instructions of second accused, complainant met him at Coffee Day Café near M.E.S. College, Malleswaram, Bangalore. In the video camera, the action i.e., complainant handing over Rs. 5 lakhs to the second accused as a part of demanded illegal gratification is recorded, which money was to be paid to the petitioner as per the demand of the petitioner dated 15.11.2012. The petitioner filed a petition on 10.12.2012 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in Criminal Petition No. 7562/2012 D.D. 26.2.2013 seeking quashing of the entire proceedings. However, he withdrew the petition on 26.2.2013 without seeking any liberty. On 4.3.2013, he files one more petition in W.P. No. 11252/2013 for the same relief on the very same ground by quoting Ramesh Desai's case. The writ petition was the verbatim reproduction of the earlier Criminal Petition No. 7562/2012. On 13.3.2013, after arguing at length, the petitioners sought to withdraw the petition with liberty to take such course of remedy in law. On 6.5.2013, present petition is filed for the same relief with same grou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s case (supra) stating that handing over the voice recorder amounts to collection of evidence. But the facts between the present case and Ramesh Desai's case differ. That was a case where the absence of sanction was quoted as one of the reasons to quash the proceedings. That apart, the report secured from the FSL indicated that voice recorded conversation did not match the voice samples and the complaint was filed with mala fide intention. Hence, the petitioner cannot take the benefit of Ramesh Desai's case. The Apex Court in Lalita Kumari's case (supra) held that, the Police have power to do preliminary enquiry in corruption cases. The entrustment of the Recorder prior to registration of FIR does not amount to collection of evidence in corruption matters as per the judgment of this Court in Criminal Revision Petition No. 187/2014 and connected case D.D. 26.6.2014 (Sri N. Rajanna vs. State of Karnataka by Lokayuktha Police); making discreet enquiry and collection of information about the offence before registration of the case by the Investigating Officer will not vitiate the proceedings as the accused is not aware that such discreet enquiry was being carried out. The a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not. 120.3. If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further. 120.4. The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR information received by him discloses a cognizable offence. 120.5. The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence. 120.6. As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under: (a) Mat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 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 petitioner was conscious about the progress of the investigation, twice he withdrew petitions filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. without assigning any reason and at the fag end, opted to file the present petition. It cannot be said that the S.H.O. of the Police Station ought to have registered the case on 8.9.2011 itself when CW-2/Sunil Kumar, the friend of the complainant approaches him with the hearsay information. As such, there is no direct material from the video of the spy camera against the petitioner. It is the totality of the allegation made against him by the complainant in the complaint that definitely discloses commission of cognizable offence, which was bound to be registered and which is done also. The entrustmen....