Case Note & Summary
The State of Karnataka, through the Lokayuktha Police, filed a criminal revision petition challenging the order dated 16.11.2016 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura, in P.C.A.C.C.No.3/2015, whereby the accused, G. Ramachari, a police constable, was discharged from the offences punishable under Section 7 read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The case arose from a complaint lodged on 26.08.2014 alleging that the accused demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs.5,000 for releasing a vehicle seized during election time. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed. The accused filed an application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. seeking discharge, which was allowed by the Special Judge. The Lokayuktha Police, being aggrieved, filed the revision petition. The High Court heard both sides and examined the impugned order. The court noted that the Special Judge had discharged the accused by appreciating the defence evidence at the stage of charge, which is impermissible. The court held that the material on record, including the complaint, trap proceedings, and recovery of tainted money, constituted prima facie evidence of demand and acceptance of bribe. The court set aside the discharge order and directed the Special Judge to proceed with the trial in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Discharge under Section 227 - Prima Facie Case - The court must consider whether the material on record, if unrebutted, would lead to conviction; a strong suspicion is sufficient to frame charge - The Special Judge erred in discharging the accused by appreciating the defence evidence at the stage of charge - Held that the order of discharge was unsustainable and set aside (Paras 6-10). B) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7 and 13(2) - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - The complaint alleged that the accused demanded and accepted Rs.5,000 for release of a seized vehicle - The trap proceedings and recovery of tainted money from the accused constituted prima facie evidence - Held that the accused must face trial (Paras 7-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Special Judge was justified in discharging the accused under Section 227 Cr.P.C. in a corruption case where there was prima facie evidence of demand and acceptance of bribe.
Final Decision
The revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 16.11.2016 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura, in P.C.A.C.C.No.3/2015 is set aside. The Special Judge is directed to proceed with the trial in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C. requires a strong prima facie case
- mere existence of defence is not sufficient to discharge accused
- Standard of proof at charge stage is not the same as at trial
- Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988
- Sections 7 and 13(2) require consideration of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification
