Karnataka HC Set Aside Suo-Motu Discharge Order By Trial Court Against BBMP Officials Accused Of Irregularities Causing Loss To State Exchequer

The Karnataka High Court recently set aside an order passed by the trial court by which it discharged several engineers (present and former) of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP), and contractors in the cases registered against them about irregularities in the works conducted during 2005 and 2012.

Justice H P Sandesh allowed the petition filed by the state government and set aside the order passed in 115 petitions, discharging around 450 people.

The bench said “The order passed by the Trial Court in all the cases are set aside. The matters are remitted back to the Trial Court to consider the matter afresh in view of the observations made by this Court on merits. The Trial Court is directed to consider the sanction order given by the State to continue the proceedings against the accused where the proceedings have already been quashed by giving liberty to file sanction order and continue to proceed against them from the stage of taking cognizance.”

The accused were charged under Section 120B, 409, 465, 468 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 13(1)(c)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, alleging that the accused persons indulged in causing loss to State exchequer in connivance with the private contractors causing huge loss to the State exchequer.

The FIR was registered based on the TVCC report, since there was preliminary enquiry conducted by the authority against the respondents/accused, who were entrusted with the work of allotting, overseeing and checking the civil work undertaken by the BBMP in respect of asphalting of roads, construction of drains and the allegation against the accused is that not properly held any periodical inspections, in order to assess the progress of civil work and quality of the civil work undertaken, helped the private civil contractors in drawing the contract amount which was far more than what was agreed upon.

The trial court had suo moto discharged the accused persons acting under Sections 227 and 239 of Cr.P.C. without any application for discharge by any of the accused persons.

The state government argued that the discharge order is passed in contrary to the evidence, materials on record and opposed to law and facts and probabilities of the case, therefore, the impugned judgment and orders are liable to be set aside. Further, the Trial Court has passed an order on the sustainability of the charge sheet after the commencement of the trial which is highly impermissible in law.

It was also contended that the Trial Court has erred in discharging the accused persons for the reason that original TVCC report is not produced. The counsel further contend that if really the same is required, the Trial Court ought to have given the opportunity to lead secondary evidence by following the procedure prescribed under the Evidence Act and without there being an opportunity to prove the case, interdicted the proceedings and hence, the Trial Court has erroneously discharged the accused persons in an inappropriate manner.

Counsels for respondents contended that Trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that there cannot be several charge-sheets based on the same complaint. Further, no sanction was obtained and only in some of the cases, sanction was given and in some of the cases, sanction was refused. Thus where allegations do not disclose prima facie case and prosecution of accused would result in abuse of process then proceedings can be quashed either at early stage or at later stage.

It was also contended that the Trial Court has rightly observed that the original document of TVCC report is not placed and hence, the proceedings cannot be continued.

Moreover, it was said the improper registration of FIRs and filing of multiple charge sheets were based on a single FIR, which is impermissible in law. The lack of prior sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C and Section 19 of the PC Act rendering the prosecution void and non-production of the original TVCC report which was the basis of the entire charge-sheet is also considered by the Trial Court while interdicting the proceedings.

Findings:

The bench noted that TVCC report is only a preliminary report before initiation of the proceedings and thereafter, case was registered and matter was entrusted to special body to investigate the matter and it is also not in dispute that stand alone charge-sheets are filed before the Trial Court.

The court also noted that in an earlier proceedings before a coordinate bench in detail it is discussed with regard to the competency of the Police to investigate the matter and file the charge-sheet. It also took note of transferring the case from BMTF to CID and answered that there was no error in passing such an order.

Following this it held “After framing of charge and also recording of evidence of witnesses in some of the cases, the Trial Court proceeded to interdict in the midst of the proceedings which is unknown to law and ought to have considered the same after recording the evidence of prosecution by allowing the prosecution to place all the materials before the Court. Hence, the very act of the Trial Court is illegal.”

It observed that in the case on hand, it is not in dispute that the earlier applications filed for discharge are rejected and thereafter, charges are framed in almost all cases and the same is admitted by the learned counsel for the respondents by filing a memo stating that charges are framed in maximum number of cases.

The court said “In the case on hand, the learned Magistrate had committed an error in interdicting the proceedings and not allowing the prosecution to proceed further and place on record the material which have been collected during the course of investigation simply relying upon some of the witnesses, who have been examined and suo moto proceeded to discharge the accused without any application and the same is unknown to law as against the principles laid down in the judgment referred supra as well as criminal procedure code not permits the Magistrate to proceed in such a manner.”

It was emphasised that if the trial proceeds despite the invalid sanction or absence of sanction, the same shall be deemed to be non-est. There is no dispute that without the sanction, the Court cannot proceed against the Government officials and with regard to the validity is concerned, the same could be considered during the course of trial and unless the evidence has been recorded, the validity of the sanction cannot be decided.

Accordingly, it allowed the petitions and set aside the trial court orders.

Appearance: Senior Advocate Kiran S Jawali for Advocate Chandrashekar, Senior Advocate Shanti Bhushan, Advocate P N Hegde, Advocate Vijayakumar, Advocate C R. Gopalaswamy, Advocate R Swaroop Anand, Advocate Partha, Advocate S Rajashekar, Advocate P.M. Gopi, Advocate M. Basavaraj, Advocate Hanumantharaya D, for Petitioners.

SPP B.A.Belliappa A/W HCGP K.P Yashodha for Respondents.

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 137

Case Title: State of Karnataka AND B G Prakash Kumar & Others

Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.975/2024, and others

Click Here To Read/Download Order