“The Very Act of the Trial Court Is Illegal”: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Suo Motu Discharges in BBMP Graft Cases, Orders Retrial for Alleged Loss to State Exchequer
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Karnataka Single Bench of Justice H.P. Sandesh allowed the criminal revision petitions filed by the State, setting aside the suo motu discharge orders issued by the Trial Court in multiple corruption cases arising from civic works in Bengaluru. The Court held that the Trial Court’s act of interdicting proceedings after framing of charges and partial recording of evidence was contrary to law. It directed the Trial Court to reconsider the matters afresh on merits, after permitting the prosecution to place relevant materials and evidence on record, and to proceed in accordance with law.
The State filed multiple criminal revision petitions under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging the orders of discharge passed suo motu by the LXXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru, in several Special C.C. cases concerning allegations of large-scale misappropriation of funds in civil works executed by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP).
The revision petitions pertain to numerous cases wherein the CID had filed separate charge-sheets based on investigations into works carried out in different BBMP wards during the period between 2005–06 and 2011–12. The allegations included manipulation of measurement books, false claims, and collusion between contractors and BBMP officials resulting in financial loss to the State.
The Trial Court, after framing of charges and recording evidence of witnesses in some of the cases, passed suo motu orders discharging the accused persons in all matters without any applications filed by the accused under Sections 227 or 239 Cr.P.C. The State contended that the procedure adopted by the Trial Court was unknown to law and in violation of settled principles governing criminal trials.
The respondents argued that the original Technical Vigilance Committee Cell (TVCC) report was not produced and relied upon to support the charges, and that the prosecution had initiated proceedings without obtaining valid sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. and Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In certain cases, it was also contended that charge-sheets were filed based on a single FIR, which was challenged on the ground of impermissibility under criminal law.
The High Court considered the legal issue of whether the Trial Court had erred in discharging the accused persons at an advanced stage of trial and whether the prosecution should have been given an opportunity to complete the process of presenting its case.
The Court recorded:
“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.”
On the procedure adopted, the Court stated:
“The Trial Court suo motu invoked Sections 227 and 239 and interdicted the proceedings and while discharging the accused, the Trial Court cannot look into the contention or defence of the accused, but the Court invoked the jurisdiction of Sections 227 and 239 considering the defence and law is settled that defence cannot be taken note of while discharging the accused.”
Addressing the discharge in absence of applications, the Court noted:
“The learned Trial Judge relied upon the evidence of half baked meal of the prosecution and not allowed to complete the process of full baked meal by recording the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and interdicted the proceedings considering the grounds urged by the accused persons in the absence of any application for discharge. The procedure adopted by the Trial Court is unknown to law.”
The Court referred to precedent:
“It is held that once the charge is framed, the Magistrate has no power under Section 227 of Criminal Procedure Code or any other provision of the Code to cancel the charge and reverse the proceedings and discharge the accused.”
On evidentiary matters, the Court noted:
“In the absence of original TVCC report, if any secondary evidence is placed, if the same is admissible and reliable as observed by the Apex Court in the judgment referred supra, the Trial Court is directed to permit the prosecution to place on record all the material recording the evidence of witnesses both oral and documentary evidence in full and then dispose of the matter on merits in accordance with law.”
The Court clarified that where sanction had not been granted, the proceedings could not be continued: “If no such sanction is given in respect of the accused persons, which have been relied upon by the respondents, there cannot be any proceedings against those accused persons.”
The Court also noted the limited applicability of previous judgments: “The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel in the case of T.T. Antony (supra) is not helpful to the case of the respondents.”
The High Court issued the following directions:
“All the criminal revision petitions are allowed.”
“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.”
“If no such sanction is given in respect of the accused persons, which have been relied upon by the respondents, there cannot be any proceedings against those accused persons.”
“In the absence of original TVCC report, if any secondary evidence is placed, if the same is admissible and reliable as observed by the Apex Court in the judgment referred supra, the Trial Court is directed to permit the prosecution to place on record all the material recording the evidence of witnesses both oral and documentary evidence in full and then dispose of the matter on merits in accordance with law.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Sri B.A. Belliappa, Special Public Prosecutor along with Smt. K.P. Yashodha, High Court Government Pleader
For the Respondents: Sri Kiran S. Javali, Senior Counsel; Sri Chandrashekara K., Sri Vijaya Kumar V.B., Smt. Anitha N., Sri P.M. Gopi, Sri Parameshwar N. Hegde, Sri R. Swaroop Anand, Sri Shanti Bhushan, Sri Hanumantharaya D., Sri M. Partha, Sri S. Rajashekar, Sri C.R. Gopalaswamy, Advocates
Case Title: State of Karnataka v. B G Prakash Kumar & Others
Case Number: Criminal Revision Petition No. 975/2024 and connected matters
Bench: Justice H.P. Sandesh
[Read/Download order]
