The absence of prior sanction precludes prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, particularly where allegations arise from politically motivated complaints lacking substantive evidence.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KAROL, J.

“The service of India means the service of the millions who suffer. It means the ending of poverty and ignorance and disease and inequality of opportunity.”

- Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru in ‘Tryst with Destiny’

1. Leave Granted.

2. In these appeals under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, the appellants namely R. Ashoka in SLP (Crl.) 9070 of 2018 and C. Sandeep Sahu in SLP (Crl.) 9614 of 2018, pray that this Court quash and set aside judgment dated 25th September 2018 which are analogously titled, passed in W.P. No. 1775 of 2018 and Crl. Pet. No. 912 of 2018 arising out of FIR in Crime No. 5/2018 dated 8th January 2018 registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau¹ [ACB for short] State of Karnataka.

CRIMINAL APPEAL @ SLP (CRL.) 9070 of 2018

BRIEF FACTS

3. The appellant was an elected member of the legislative assembly in the State of Karnataka. Between 1998 and 2007, he was Chairman of the Committee for regularisation of unauthorised occupation. The members thereof were the Tahsildar as the Secretary and three other persons. It was alleged in terms of the complaint dated 05th September 2012² [First Complaint] submitted to the Lokayukta that under the Chairmanship of the appellant, the land that was originally meant to be allotted to economically downtrodden persons and those below the poverty line as also the Scheduled Caste, was allotted to the members of his family/followers/members of the City Corporation etc. In terms of communication dated November 2012, the Additional Director General of Police, Karanataka Lokayukta, concluded that the appellant, who was at the relevant time a high-ranking Minister in the Cabinet, was in no way connected to the allegations. The conclusion is as under:

“In so far as the allegations relating to alienation of the lands granted in favour of Scheduled Castes/Tribes etc. are concerned, they do not concerned with the Committee for Regularization of Unauthorized Occupation. It would be between the grantee and the purchase of the land. Those issues cannot be answered by the Committee for Regularization of Unauthorized Occupation and they are all of separate entity under the separate set of Acts and Rules.

It is submitted that, the entire issues raised and allegations made by the Complainant against Shri R. Ashok in the instant cases are from truth and arbitrary and has no base.

Under the above facts and circumstances, the allegations made by the Complainant against Shri R. Ashok do not stand to reason, they are misconceived and it is without proper verification of the matter.”

The Deputy Inspector General of Police, by way of memo no. LOK/ADGP/MEMO/2013 dated 27th May 2013, directed conduction of a revised inquiry on the allegations made in the first complaint. In compliance thereof, the Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta, submitted a Report dated 04th August 2014, by which again it was concluded that no charges against the appellant would be substantiated and, as such, the complaint had to be closed. Relevant extract thereof is reproduced below:

“In his petition, the petitioner had alleged that during the tenure of Sri R Ashok as Chairman of the committee, 570 acres of government land in Sy No 46, Kaggalipura Village was sanctioned to Schedule Caste and Tribe in 1993 and irrespective of the rule that land should not be encumbered for 15 years, MLA, Sri M Srinivas had registered 25 aces in the name of his son. In his petition, the petitioner had mentioned that in 1993 these lands were sanctioned to sanctioned to Schedule Caste and Tribe; Sri R Ashok was chairman of said committee from 18.08.