9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 1366X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aka [ 2013 (2) TMI 928 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] . Coming to the case on hand, on the showing of the FIR itself, the Contractor approaches the IO on 26.03.2013 with the allegation that the accused is demanding bribe to get an indent for Transformer. Though the information divulged by the contractor discloses a cognizable offence without registering the case on the said information as mandated by Section 154 of Cr.P.C., IO hands over the voice recorder to him. It is only on 28.03.2013, when the contractor comes back with the recorded conversation of bribe demand, he receives a written complaint and registers the case and thereafter proceeds with entrustment mahazar and Trap. By necessary implication in this case, the investigation commen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondent No. 2 is the de facto complainant who is Class-I Electrical Contractor (for brevity, Contractor). As per his complaint allegation, in respect of works order allotted by the Company, Contractor insisted for indent in respect of a converter of 25kv, accused dodged the issue for about two months. The Contractor had already given Rs. 3,500/- to the accused, but the accused demanded a gratification of Rs. 10,000/- to give indent for 2 TCs. The Contractor approached the Lokayuktha Police on 26.03.2013 and divulged the alleged demand of the accused. On that information, IO handed over a voice reorder to him with an instruction to record the conversation of the accused while he is demanding illegal gratification. On 28.03.2013, the contracto ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nherent power of this Court may be exercised to quash the criminal proceeding which is illegally initiated against the petitioner. 4. In reply, Sri. B.S. Prasad, learned Special Public Prosecutor for Lokayukta/Respondent No. 1 submits that it is true, the contractor approached the Lokayukta police for action against accused on 26.03.2013 and IO in accordance with guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of U.P and others. (2014) 2 SCC 1, handed over the voice recorder to the contractor to record the conversation about demand of bribe money. Consequently, the contractor recorded the conversation between himself and the accused and produced the same before IO. On being satisfied about involvement o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Court are relied by each side. In two of the judgments, Crl.P. No. 2018/2013, DD 06.01.2015 and Crl.P. No. 3708/2013 and connected cases, DD 08.10.2015, view taken is, recording of voice prior to registration of the case is not an investigation, but amounts to preliminary enquiry which is permissible as per guidelines of the Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kuman Vs. Government of U.P. Others, (2013 AIR SCW 6386). While in other cases, CrlP. Nos. 5666/2012 and connected cases, DD 27.03.2013, Crl.P.Nos.6130/2010 and connected cases, DD 11.12.2012, (2012 (3) KCCR 1738) Ramesh Desai and Another Vs. State of Karnataka by Raichur Lokayukta P.S., contrary view taken was, handing over the tape-recorder to record the conversation with regard to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on, conversation between the accused and complainant while demanding bribe, the contents which is inadmissible in evidence will not allow to accept the mahazar as legal evidence. If really conversation was recorded was only in lieu of preliminary enquiry, why it should be made a part of investigation/Trap mahazar? That drives an inference that preliminary enquiry made to blend with investigation vitiates the entire investigation itself. 8. Lokayukta relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Yusufalli Esmail Nagree Vs. The State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 1968 SC 147(1), wherein it was held that the contemporaneous dialogue about the demand of bribe during trap mahazar forms part of the res gestae and it is relevant un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before a Magistrate for trial and if so taking the necessary steps for the same by filing a charge sheet under Section 173 . Handing over the voice recorder though was to form an opinion as to whether there is a case for prosecution, still falls under category 5(supra), hence is part of illustration. Hence, by necessary implication in this case, the investigation commenced prior to registration of the case. Had if the IO immediately after receiving the information on 26.03.2013 had followed the procedure under Section 154(1) of Cr.P.C. thereby register the FIR and used his strategies for recording the conversation, by using the electric device, then the accused had no case to seek indulgence of this Court at the crime stage. As such, Lalit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
