Exoneration In Departmental Proceedings Doesn’t Furnish Ground For Dropping Criminal Charges Particularly In Trap Cases: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court reiterated that the mere fact that a decoy/Complainant in a trap case turns hostile would not adversely affect the case of prosecution.
Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court clarified that exoneration in the departmental proceedings does not, ipso facto, furnish a ground for dropping the criminal charges more particularly in Trap Cases.
The Court clarified thus in Criminal Appeals seeking to question the Order of the Karnataka High Court, which decided two Criminal Revision Petitions.
The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed, “Though the core facts in both proceedings may bear resemblance, the viewpoint, scope, and standards for adjudication are entirely different, and each is governed by a distinct forum and procedure. Hence, exoneration in the departmental proceedings does not, ipso facto, furnish a ground for dropping the criminal charges more particularly in Trap Cases.”
The Bench explained that Explanation below Section 19(4) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) operates only in situations where the finding, sentence, or Order of the Special Judge on the aspect of sanction is under scanner before the Appellate or Revisional Court on the grounds specified therein.
Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat appeared on behalf of the Appellant, while AAG Aman Panwar appeared on behalf of the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The Appellant-accused was working as a Senior Inspector of Motor Vehicles at RTO Office when a trap was attempted/arranged against him. The Lokayukta Inspector secured two independent witnesses who were Government servants, and in their presence, conducted the pre-trap proceedings. During the pre-trap proceedings, an amount of Rs. 15,000/- was entrusted to the Complainant to be handed over to the accused upon demand. Thereafter, the Lokayukta Inspector, along with his trap team, two independent witnesses, and the Complainant, left for the RTO office where the accused was working. Allegedly, the accused was trapped while demanding and accepting illegal gratification of Rs. 15,000/- from the Complainant through co-accused who allegedly received the amount at the instance of the accused.
The trap proceedings led to the registration of crime under the PC Act and during investigation, sanction was granted under Section 19 of PC Act by the Commissioner of Transport for prosecution of the accused under Sections 7, 8, 13(1)(d), read with 13(2) of the PC Act. The accused preferred an Application under Section 227 read with Section 239 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), seeking discharge. The Trial Court allowed the same and discharged him as well as the co-accused. However, liberty was given to the investigating agency to file a fresh chargesheet after obtaining sanction from the competent authority. This was challenged by both the State and the accused via Revision Petitions. The High Court allowed the State’s Petition and dismissed that of the accused. Being aggrieved, the accused was before the Apex Court.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, noted, “We feel that the conclusion drawn by the disciplinary authority that guilt of the delinquent employee could not be proved merely on the testimony of the trap laying officer, is premature and unfounded.”
The Court reiterated that the mere fact that a decoy/Complainant in a trap case turns hostile would not adversely affect the case of prosecution and that conviction can be based even on the evidence of the trap laying officer, if found reliable and trustworthy.
“We may further observe that when a witness deposing on oath in a criminal trial resiles from the original version and does not support the prosecution case, he would be liable to face prosecution for perjury. Under this pressure, the witness may choose to speak the truth. Thus, the mere fact that some of the witnesses did not support the department’s case in the disciplinary proceedings would, by itself, not give any assurance that they would behave in the same manner at the criminal trial”, it said.
The Court added that the exoneration of the accused in the departmental proceedings is merely on the ground that the decoy and associating witnesses did not support the case of department.
“The possibility of the criminal case still resulting into conviction, irrespective of the factum of the witnesses turning hostile being a realistic possibility, we feel that there is no merit behind the argument of Shri Kamat that exoneration in the departmental proceeding should lead to automatic discharge in the criminal case”, it remarked.
Conclusion
The Court was of the view that for a proper and effective resolution of the controversy, it would be expedient in the interest of justice to remit the matter to the Trial Court for fresh adjudication on the limited issue regarding the actual appointing authority of the accused and the consequential bearing thereof on the validity of the sanction order.
“The contention advanced on behalf of the accused-appellant that he is entitled to be discharged on account of his exoneration in the departmental proceedings does not merit acceptance and is, accordingly, rejected”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the Apex Court disposed of the Appeals, set aside the High Court’s findings, and remitted the case to the Trial Court for determination of the issue of sanction in accordance with law.
Cause Title- T. Manjunath v. The State of Karnataka and Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1356)
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat, AOR Sahil Raveen, and Advocate Hruday Bajentri.
Respondents: AAG Aman Panwar, AOR Naveen Sharma, Advocates Swati Bhushan Sharma, S.K. Sharma, Abhinav Kumar, and Manav Kaushik.
