Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be discontinued on 31-07-2025
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please
let us know via our feedback form
so we can address them promptly.
Home
2016 (2) TMI 1368 - HC - Indian LawsLegality/sustainability of the FIR registered against the petitioner - Bribery - mandate under Section 154(1) of Cr.P.C. - HELD THAT - Divergent views are taken regarding recording of the voice of the accused prior to registration of the case. The Apex Court in the matter of Dr. Rajkumar Agarwal 2012 (8) TMI 1220 - SUPREME COURT though noticed that the voice of the accused while demanding the bribe was recorded did not touch upon the legality or otherwise of such voice recording. In Criminal Petition No. 3750/2013 D.D. 11.2.2016 in the matter of LAKSHMIKANTHA S.G. VERSUS THE STATE AND ORS. 2016 (2) TMI 1366 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT the transcription of the voice recording of the accused prior to registration of the case since was incorporated in the trap mahazar was held as vitiating the further investigation. But here is a case where somebody on behalf of the complainant goes to the office of the Investigating Officer and is provided with a spy video camera on 15.11.2012. For the first time the complainant meets the petitioner on the very same day and the said meeting is recorded in the camera. On 16.11.2012 FIR is registered by translating the prior events in chronological order. In the entrustment mahazar carried out subsequent to registration of the case on the very same day the spy camera is seized after transferring its audio and video contents to a Laptop. The contents are incorporated in the entrustment mahazar. The investigation is proceeded by successfully trapping the second accused along with tainted currency notes. It is not just on the material gathered from the spy camera the prosecution case rests but also on the information brought in the written complaint by the complainant. When the information disclosed a cognizable offence the S.H.O. had no other go except to register the FIR as per mandate of Section 154(1) of Cr.P.C. The oral allegation and the supporting materials placed by the complainant have culminated in registration of the complaint. Thereafter the Investigating Officer has investigated the matter and formed opinion to file his final report and the Court is also said to have taken cognizance of the offence - there are no illegality in registration of the case. Though a contention was taken by the petitioner that the Lokayuktha Police have no jurisdiction to register the case under the Prevention of Corruption Act at the time of argument such contention is not pressed. The irregularities pointed out during investigation cannot be counted upon in view of the fact that petitioner is restricting his claim only on illegality of registration of the FIR. Now the matter since is before the Trial Court the petitioner has to work out his remedy for discharge before the Trial Court only if so advised. When an alternative remedy is provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure this Court usually refrains from exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Petition dismissed.
|