Karnataka High Court: While passing the order in a revision petition filed with a prayer to set aside the order passed by the Special Court, a Single Judge Bench of Rathnakala, J. held that the order of the Court below was a well-reasoned order not warranting revisional jurisdiction of the High Court.
The petitioner, a Chartered Accountant, was accused of assisting in taking bribe by the Income Tax Assessing Officer and was charged for offences punishable under Ss. 7 and 8 read with S. 13(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and S. 120-B of IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia submitted that the petitioner was not a public servant and does not fall within the purview of the PC Act. The learned Special Judge disagreed with the contentions of the petitioner-Accused No. 2, and opined that prima facie case was disclosed to suspect that the petitioner-Accused No. 2 had committed the offence under S. 120-B of IPC and S. 8 of the PC Act.
The High Court after perusing S. 8 of the PC Act along with the definition of public servant as contemplated by the definition clause (c) of S. 2 of the Act, held that the words ‘Whoever’ and ‘for himself or any other person’ as accruing in S. 8 covers persons other than public servants. It was also found on perusing the records that the petitioner made demand for bribe on behalf of the first accused.
The Court held that the impugned order was a well reasoned order passed by the Special Judge and there were no grounds to interfere with the same by exercising the revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, the revision petition was dismissed. [H. Naginchand Kincha v. CBI, 2017 SCC OnLine Kar 2171, dated 13.09.2017]
