( 1 ) TWO questions that arise for consideration in this writ petition can at the very outset be stated thus :- (1) Is the Bureau of Investigation Karnataka Lokayukta competent to register and investigate cases involving offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, without the directions of the Lokayukta asking it do so ? (2) If the answer to question No. 1 be in the negative should the registration of the case against the petitioner and investigation conducted by the Bureau of Investigation till now be quashed ? The questions arise in the following backdrop. The petitioner is a supertime Scale Officer in the Indian Administration Service. On the 6th of June 1984, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bureau of Investigation, Karnataka Lokayukta , Bangalore is said to have received credible information about the alleged acquisition of assets by the petitioner disproportionate to the known sources of his income constituting an offence punishable under Section 13 (1) (e) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Information received was recorded and a report submitted to the Superintendent of Police, Bureau of Investigation, Lokayukta on the same day. The Superintendent of Police, in turn passed an order directing Mr. M. Gangireddy, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bureau of Investigation Sub-Division, Karnataka Lokayukta, Bangalore to registered a case against the petitioner for an offence under the provisions mentioned above. In exercise of his powers under Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, he by the same order authorised two other Deputy Superintendents and five Inspectors of Police attached to the staff of the Lokayukta to assist the Senior Officer in the investigation of the case. Consequently, a case punishable under Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered against the petitioner in the Lokayukta Police Station at Bangalore and investigation taken up, in the course whereof the petitioner's house was also searched on the 7th of June 1994. Aggrieved the petitioner has come up with the present petition seeking a certiorari quashing the FIR as also the investigation and all consequential steps taken pursuant thereto on the ground that the registration of the case so also the investigation are wholly incompetent and ultra vires of the provisions of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act.

( 2 ) APPEARING for the petitioner, Mr. Gurumath argued that the Bureau of Investigation of the Lok Ayuktha was constituted to assist the Lokayuktha in the discharge of their functions and was not therefore empowered to entertain any complaint directly or conduct any investigation into any such complaint except in accordance with the directions, which the Lokayuktha or the Up-Lokayuktha may consider proper to issue. The Lokayuktha has, contended the learned Counsel issued no such orders directing an investigation into the allegation made against the petitioner, so that an investigating Agency like the Bureau of Investigation meant only to assist the Lokayuktha could not independently entertain the complaint or initiate any investigation into the same. It was contended that Police Officers, deputed to assist the Lokayuktha ceased to be the Police Officers in the wider sense of the said expression and could not arrogate to themselves the authority to register cases or initiate investigation into offences relating to a public servant. Their functions, powers and duties, it was argued, were limited to assisting Lokayuktha and the Up-Lokayuktha in the discharge of their duties under the Act. Relying upon Section 15 (4) of the Lokayuktha Act, Sri Gurumath argued that the very purpose of conferring disciplinary and administrative control over the Officers and Employees appointed to assist the Lokayuktha and the Up-Lokayuktha would stand defeated if these Officers or any one of them were to claim or exercise powers and jurisdiction independent of the powers functions and duties of the Lo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document