IN 'THE HIGH COURT 0;? KARNATAKA AT BANGs§Lfi}fR;E§',,A
DATED Tins mg 22nd my 0? A?}\'IL,_.'4L43;V{'A$(§§ '*. A.
8EF'OFN "N9; 239i§ii?;Sfi8 crm--- *
233l2Q€}8 to 24()i2U08 6%. 28?}"2§308 to 29?_/'Z2008
BEYWEEN: V ' '
Dr. Lakshmipathy Babu _
91:2, R Naxasimhaégh *
Private Medir' 4Pifz§;§;_tii:iQner
Nc>.24;?., wizrgzxgs, :1 i'31_o'c1;'
III Stage, ._
Ba13.gai§:>m--56G .,._C'.0mmo11
* = Petitioner
(gygj Sr;F.;Basavag§4abhn§ 3 Pan}, Sr.Adv far 811 R Natarajfidv.)
'V ' xmfa: hf
"' Sfiitfli of
By 'i;»s3ka}?1i3§ja5'
MES Btfilfliflg
Ba1:1g;alO2'._*e-1 ,,,Ccmmon Respoadent
(By Sri Rajenxrlra Raddy, Standing Counsel)
' N This czémina} mvisien pfififion is fiiad under Sc-Ciior:
* .V fir, 48}. Cr.P.sC. praying ta set at naught 33} pmcefidings
against tim gmtittioner prassmi in Spl.C.C.N0s.99/20045
111/2904, 94/2304, 143/2983, m0,I2&::;4, 14:;2004,
K"?
A ' 3
' '
12912003, 96/2004, 116/2004, 143/2004, 23QféGo4,
146/2094, 142/2004, 201/2004, 112;2004,W19?j2Qa2,
9?} 2004, 145/2004, 144;' 32004 8:, 344/ 2003 I'€§p'3f§2-flV:€}¥'
dafad 18m4-2095 on the file {pf Spldudge, Bangs;{g)mjV'ii1'ban '
Rural Diatzicts, Bangalore City.
This criminal revision pctitidur; {hf-
this dafl 1116 Court mafia t]:16i¢\'i>I1s;)'fl':fl._3¢"--.V ' ' '
All thssc ztVis;':o:_1,-- h'y;Afi1e p§;t.iti<)11cr' -
i}1xLak3h1n;ipathi Baht?' the order dated
18~4w2005 pgs§c¢_ fig s§;c§§:3a§{99}éd94, 1:1/204,
94/2004;yziaffiééggi;Q§;2094; §%i]20o4, 129/203,
95/2¢a4,'1i$;2Q§4; §§3j2b04, 200/2004§ 146/2004,
142/2oé4, 2Q1;2dé§;:;ifi/2004, 197/2002, 97/2004,
14532034514%f?§04é%.b@4]2031tsptcfiveb?and.H3sct3t
Q1 tfie. Vprmrcdmgs initiatcd against him,
%. 2; .S:nc'<:-9," "2116 petifioner as well as mspendants are one
that. Saific in 522} the case and since: the question of law
fairté. itnvaived fl16I'f;iIft am also one and the same, all
" cases art takfin up together for fina}. dispcssal with the
écrnsfint -pf Icarzmci ceuxzsei for bath partiase
/3
a . _.
.3. The cast: of {he respondent is that pc£:.itionc1f.._ai0ng
with other accused persons among fhrzm same .*:»z;t_’é’–.’:j§s’.t.11′:53.i-.::
servants, ceiiectcd ameunts from the candiciaitfis *
them medical scat; thcrlzforc sue m9t.Q_cascsV u
by the Karnataka Lokayukta and iv
fiied bcfom the sp1.Judgc;[V._’3*3ngé30″§, %9;e,i~€,,¢€%%f%
pufiishabic under Sections .. ~ WC and
Sections 8, 9, 12 5:. 13.:.ii{d;(i}_ r,-§w~ . 13(2) 9:” ?.C.Act.
Omar allagatistms made and afher
accusfiti and }3Zi3}pI”‘éi<3tiC€S are
'flfié of candidates fiom CST –
payr;w:::1t CE;fCg:f)I’jg7. “cf ..§Fcar M838 studants in the year
i;<:u, Aa,depg1:ifig""vmaipmcfic¢s ta flit': axttnt <31' 26
considering the material placeci an mcoifig
v_ Jndga found that thsm: are sufflcicnt
g1'1m’c:1V$A’:.i:::3 fl'{:3I£l€ czharggs against accuscé pcrsans and
A ” V’_a(;%:§5:5éi§1giy fiamcd charges against them far that offmixce
fgiunishabic under Sc<:'i:i:):£15 1205, 4235 468 $5 169 K36 and
Sectiorzs 8, 9,, 12, l3{Z}{d) 2"/W Section 13$?) of P,C,A:.:{ .1988,
'H -av' _
Eienca ihfi petifioncr has come 3.113 with this
to set at nayaght all proceedings initiatfid aga_insjt" ' 3
4. Heard the iearnad counsei ‘
5. it is contended by l£:a113ed”:.Sr.:£:’;t;s;i.:1Sc:1 34:31?
rm: pstitioncr that p€i’:’I:i’§i1.£Z)I1lffI”1′-9′.:’r ‘a_Vpriva’€e=: :1r.si; L’
a public sewantg t.'{1€rcfQm orégf i’i–‘a_1fiing ?0f charge
against the p<:1:i1::i<3nei"'*– .f:t'}I'_' {rhc;Vj_»'c§.f§c–.,r1_c:::;'punishable uncicr
Scctéon 1208 {iota n::;tVV-aiisc, V Jfi§:§.V"(iharg€: ctouid be
frzamcité the pmvisiens 01'
P.(3.AeV§i;' .j'ic§§med."VVVVS;pccia1 Judge ccmmittctvzi
in péésifig '.jii;j3p11gncci order Lmdcr chaflttnge.
The (10"urui;§i;féIqwxiZaiis._tt3.§i0nsid€r that petitioner is a privats
thET{ifMVié 11¢: nexus bctweén GET; that accusad
'V " :'.=3:11u§eg§:d to haw ceiicctcd amoumi from 26 candidates
i';4:a_ \'«'–zt%! c:?§;;,q§§_1..t1:.ra11gh CE'? cell. It is argued that aiieged
éfifgiicc to have 133631 wmmitmd in the 3:331' 1993; but
C§1a§"gW€ishé§ét {tame to be fiiitd sniy {hiring 2092 which gems 1:0
Lshgjsaz tiiat a false charge sheet came: to bf: fficd against 1:h.<:s<:
' ficfifionem. Hangs it is graycci to allow this ysetiiion,
…»;»~
6. While: argtling, ifiagmcd Sfiiiifli’ C'(}I1I1SC].’ ~
peiritiancxs submitted that this C’3o11rt__= ”
Cr1.R.P.N<:3.11. 14/2065 set asidc t1:1¢mc}rder" 2
passed by 111:: Special :;,¥11{i:g'c::.,. ii'
S}§31,C.C'No.13Q/2003 and 1'eIi1a§1deC1 "a;?_1£§ 3IV3€si¥;5f1fi'} 'A.i1': .V$ {} 1_:§;arVaa.:V »
petitioner-accused No.5 and '.f.}'_i'.'3.u: to
afihrd reasonabie 1; {(3 pass
appropriate orc1t:rS- VA that thssc
cases are fig " 'byV:' sctfzing aside the
1: . V
the' «'i'éa;.rnsd Standing cotmscl for the
L0kaj;"ukta,' ' accused No.2 to 4 am public
seivanisg {if} deu1:éi""i€visiQ11 pefitioner hcrain is a private;
statcimtznts of P.W,18, 10, 19? 35 xftsctzztied
133% :(iur§.:1g investigation clearly indicatts that
petiti<§z;c5f: playsd a Vital role in commission of csfilzncc. The
":i"_;:t4%:if}é';nfint of wimcssts ztcoxficzé by rim LC': clearly disciosss
' that pctitiuenzir received ameunts fmm variaus persons
assuxting to secure them medical seat. while arguixxg,
if
leaznsd counsci fer the mspcandcnt submitted that
sctizcd scverai dectzmcnts fmm the house of v¢:fy"'pt;'iiti0§;cr..
He has also drawn my attention to g}f" .jf,:I_:s V'
Court's order. in para 13, it
interview siip filktd by accused _P-59. I }–3.Af3 i'3,é"-IS rcI§:\.?é111Vf"'L.
calumns disciosing his ::tVfii;1mberV';21$: '2€)v.§ii2 his
actual ranking is 77:::v":;~.._ It submificéi that the
rccards pmducc before 1.0 files secured
clearly indicafe:é¢&:ViT.:at égfiiifiicnccs to proceed
againeg-1: "_ 3'h_{:1_*'r:fo;"¢, it is submitted that
framirzghff "f2"£e pcfifionsr is cormct. Hence,
prayfdv that"4fi3;§sc§g;-€:tiiio1§'é*; be dismisscd,
" _ 8,,'-~Hav;i&:ng ccaunscl fzzsr both parties, tbs poénf
t§@§_t' 'gonsiderafien is 'whether the triai Court is
"§s);–:i:issing this order under chafisnge against me
' ' V gaciiticxnafi?'
_ V Acimittcdly a case. cams: ':0 he mgsttrmi against
' figiijtiencr and 0:136: s.':3.C€1'£iS€'fC§ far fhe ofiénces punishablfi
u £:ndc1* Sactigsn 1298, 42%, 46$ 5;. 109 IPC am: Snsctiens 8, 9,
"I IV; __
1:2, 13{1)(ci) f[W Sectien 13(2) at" P13. Act 1988. I'~ios:§v:=;v'.:=.'_;"",'[.1'_Vt is
not in disputs that accused No.2 is ~T,-;,,_."@c1
accused No.4 is absconcling and accn$¢d_.NQ;_3.fW'é{S ._r1cet"a..VV
member of fins Sciectigza. Scrutiny» C',<31IfiJ?§.if%i{§€.: 2';i':t:i<iV:§3;s;<f;
was proceeded against accused N33}. 35 5,.I'.:.~;~i:::» 1
private partitzs. Of course, irazy péfifiézzér §V1:–:3{Z1Wt)E31'.'£i\':5I'
filed Crl.R'.P.No.1220f2C{)f? bgzféfé Ca;:.:1,:1't gfiazienging tbs
vciy same: azdfir 13333361 in came to be
dismissed. As 'fagéfas éflsgafian's 'U36: petiirioncr
£5 <3s1';V¥{LV':':r1TV1é~ii'; .f~ft_V11+.:§ claboratciy {iiscuzgscd the
statemézt Gf1:)1'£3$.C3(,;;f'{l'£i§}L£:.:::'§5a?ifi}€SS6s —- G,W$.8, 10? 11, 24 etc.
3:'cve§iisvéi§rVfi%!iiticsn<é:r came to be interview hall
a£;':C;.13{§'s{':dH «£iI£:i$.'2 to 4 and conspimé with them {Q get
the students whom he interested. Thfi
Snafémfint ' "::V§7iif_I1CSS€S I"t':VCaI$ that the petitioner jninczfi
hanfis accusfid H052 to 4 who are a3} public smvants.
A ' . ' trial Gaul? has discussed abeut statements of
fimsacution wimesscs in its ersrtier. Of courscg this Court; in
'CrI.R.P.Nc3.1.§,4Er[20{)7 set aside the order passed against
,
:'v'_ .- ,.
accused No.5 in Spl.C,C.N0.13{}/2003 but a
gmtmd to ailew this petition or to quash the _
against him in all {hit aforesaid cases.
10″ {H ccursc, than: is a §.iA_e1.’:1y:. «3’A.1§
sheet against the accused. But file itscfiéé-Wm flO{; ,
away 81:: prosecution case. factsV”ar§§iT xffiéisfmstancss
involvcci in sp3.c.c,N§;9a/2G64L%’ flit §£ fsp3.Judge§
Baugalora Urban Distiigg the same-
partics which”«T:. fWas;._ this Court 3’11
CrLR.P.No. _ whczreixz thc
co«-ardizlatz (Sf passing detailed order
has dismi;=.sc:¥ 1′?:K;’fiiSiA¢:33)V %V}€f1″{i{3I} which was filed
passed by ma} C’,«0’u1″1;, There
w€::r¢:;:’ :36′ Vnéiw ;;1a{ie out by the petitioner in ail the
:T *aheve $6 the same. Hence these pefifions fail
.. are a<:e0re;ii1'::g1y ciisznissctd.
Sd/…
Judge
” .