Case Law Details
H. Naginchand Kincha Vs. Superintendent of Police (Karnataka High Court)
CA accused of offering a bribe to ITO for performing an official act can be tried U/s. 7 and 13 (1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and section 120-B of the IPC. The fact that the CA is not a “public servant” is irrelevant.
The third fold of argument that the accused No. 2 is not a public servant and is beyond the contemplation of the statute. The words occurring at Section 8 of the Act “Whoever accepts or obtains, or agrees to accept, or attempts to obtain, from any person, for himself or for any other person, any gratification……………………” covers the persons other than the public servants contemplated by definition clause (c) of section 2 of the Act and that does not require much elaboration. Regarding the contention that section 7 of the P.C. Act cannot be invoked against accused No. 1 is not within the competency of the petitioner to urge before this court. Even otherwise the charge sheet material contains voice recording of the accused Nos. 1 and 2 and the complainant and also there is material that this petitioner made demand for bribe on behalf of the 1st accused. For framing the charge under Section 228 of the Cr.P.C. if the Judge is not required to record detailed reasons as to why such charge is framed. On perusal of the record and hearing the parties at the stage of discharge under Section 227 of Cr.P.C., if the Judge is of the opinion that there is ground for presum1ng that the accused has committed an offence, he is competent to frame charge for such offence even if not mentioned in the charge sheet. That was the observation of the Apex Court 1n the case of Dinesh Tiwari Vs State of Uttar Pradesh (Crl. Appeal No. 13615/2014 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 30151 of 2008).
Full Text of the High Court Judgment / Order is as follows:-
The revision petitioner (A-2) is aggrieved by the order of the Special Court in rejecting his application filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. seeking to discharge him of the offences under sections 7 and 8 r/w Section 13(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and Section 120-B of IPC pursuant to a trap, claimed to have been set up by the respondent- CBI, purportedly to trap accused No. 1 in an act of accepting bribe for showing official favour by agreeing to reduce the tax on income of the original complainant.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
