Karnataka High Court Refuses To Interfere With Magistrate Court Order Charging HC's Ex-Deputy Registrar As Co-Accused In Misappropriation Case

The Karnataka High Court has dismissed the petition filed by a former Deputy Registrar of the High Court challenging a Magistrate court's order allowing an application filed under Section 319 CrPC and making him a co-accused in a misappropriation of funds case.

The application was moved by primary accused Jayaram Nayak, who was working as a Section Officer in High Court's Accounts Branch.

The allegation against them was regarding withdrawal of Rs. 20 lakh without orders from the Finance Committee and without any entry in the cheque encashment register of Accounts Branch. The complaint was lodged with the prior permission from the Registrar General and the Chief Justice.

Initially, petitioner was named as CW17 in the chargesheet but during the course of trial, he was made a co-accused on Nayak's application and was charged under Sections 466, 464, 409 R/w Section 34 of IPC.

Petitioner argued that records disclose that there is no ‘mens rea’ on his part and moreover, no sanction was obtained for prosecuting him; powers under Section 319 CrPC are to be exercised sparingly when ultimately it is proved that if the evidence remains uncontroverted, it leads to conviction.

State opposed the plea stating case relates to misappropriation of the amounts of the High Court and the guilty must be brought to books and prima facie there is sufficient material evidence.

At the outset, a Single bench of Justice Rajendra Badamikar noted that the petitioner authorised withdrawal without there being any official memorandum. Therefore, rejecting the petition it said,

“No illegality or infirmity is found with the order of the learned Magistrate and the petitioner holding a key post is required to have responsibility and his behaviour clearly discloses that he has not shown any diligence towards his duty. Under such circumstances, an order passed by the learned Magistrate cannot be said to be erroneous or illegal so as to call for any interference by this Court.”

“Admittedly, the revision petitioner has no authority to sign the proceedings for which DC bill was prepared but he did sign the proceedings without any application of mind,” it added.

Court said the manner in which the petitioner allowed the accused to withdraw the amount, without there being approval and sanction from the Finance Committee and the Chief Justice, discloses that he was too negligent and his mens rea.

“The revision petitioner has given a goby to the duties of a Drawing Officer while preparing the bill and signing the cheque. Prima facie there is material evidence to show that there is collusion and connivance between both the accused which has caused a loss to the tune of Rs.20,00,000/- to the High Court. Further this offence has occurred in the Accounts Branch of the High Court itself and such facts cannot be taken in a casual way,” Court said.

Rejecting the contention of the petitioner that powers vested under Section 319 is an extraordinary power, which is required to be exercised sparingly and for compelling reasons, the bench said,

“There is sufficient material prima facie to show that there is no application of mind and without authorization, the petitioner has also done certain material acts which has resulted in misappropriation. The Investigating Officer, without ascertaining any of these aspects, mechanically proceeded to submit the charge sheet only against accused No.1 by showing the present petitioner as CW.17. But there is no explanation as to what compelled CW.17 i.e., present revision petitioner herein to heed to the pressure of accused No.1 and what compelled him to authorise accused No.1 to draw the amount when he has no such powers.”

Junking the contention that in the absence of sanction, prosecution itself is void, the court said “In the instant case, the offence of misappropriation was committed by the Officers of the High Court who were working as a Drawing Officer and Section Officer and it is not their part of the duty and hence, the question of sanction does not arise at all. The act committed by the accused cannot be said to be part of the duty or in the course of discharge of the duty, but it is beyond the said aspects.”

Further it said “Merely because Investigating Officer has committed an error, whether knowingly or unknowingly that does not help the petitioner to take a shelter and the State itself through learned APP ought to have filed an application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C but that application was moved by accused. Who has moved the application becomes irrelevant but the ultimate consideration is that a just and fair trial is required to be held.”

Accordingly it dismissed the petition.

End Case Title: C M Chandra Shekhar And State of Karnataka

Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 204 OF 2014

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 286

Date of Order: 14-07-2023

Appearance: Advocate Nithin Gowda for Prasanna Kumar P for Petitioner.

HCGP Thejesh P for Respondent.

Click Here To Read/Download Order