SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2002 Supreme(Kar) 62

Karnataka High Court
N.Nagambikadevi - Appellant
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation, Bangalore - Respondent
Decided On : 01-22-02
CRI.PETN. : 2970 of 2001

Advocates:
Ashoka Haranahalli, C.V.NAGESH

The consent of the State Government under the DSPE Act is in respect of the offences and not the offenders. The absence of the petitioner's name in the consent order does not render the investigation illegal. Gazette publication is not mandatory for extending the area of operation under Sections 5 and 6 of the DSPE Act.

Headnote:

DSPE Act - Jurisdiction - Sections 2, 3, 5, 6 - The court held that the consent of the State Government under the DSPE Act is in respect of the offences and not the offenders. The absence of the petitioner's name in the consent order does not render the investigation illegal. The court also ruled that Gazette publication is not mandatory for extending the area of operation under Sections 5 and 6 of the DSPE Act.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, an IAS Officer, sought to quash criminal proceedings initiated by the CBI for misappropriation of funds. The petitioner contended that the proceedings were illegal and without jurisdiction due to absence of consent and Gazette notification under the DSPE Act.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that there was prima facie material to indicate the alleged role of the petitioner in the crime, and the investigation was still ongoing. It dismissed the petition, stating that it was not a fit case to exercise the inherent jurisdiction to quash the proceedings at an early stage.

Issues: The issues involved the legality and jurisdiction of the criminal proceedings initiated by the CBI against the petitioner, based on the absence of consent and Gazette notification under the DSPE Act, as well as the maintainability of two FIRs for the same incident.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the consent of the State Government under the DSPE Act is in respect of the offences and not the offenders. The absence of the petitioner's name in the consent order does not render the investigation illegal. The court also ruled that Gazette publication is not mandatory for extending the area of operation under Sections 5 and 6 of the DSPE Act. The court further found that there was prima facie material to indicate the alleged role of the petitioner in the crime, and the investigation was still ongoing.

Final Decision: The petition was dismissed as devoid of merits.

S. R. BANNURMATH, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner who is arraigned as Accused 4 in Cr. No. RC/22 (A)/2000 by the respondent/central Bureau of Investigation has come up in this petition to quash the proceedings.

( 2 ) THE brief facts leading to the present petition are as follows :the petitioner/accused, who is an IAS Officer, was working as the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayat, Karwar, during the relevant period. The other accused in the case are Smt. Shanthakumari, K. S. A. S. (Karnataka State Accounts Service), the then Accounts Officer, Zilla Panchayat, Karwar, her husband Sri. N. Ramachandra, Sri Rathnakar, Senior Manager, Karwar, and one Sri. Shastri, the then Branch Manager, Varada Grameena Bank, Karwar. According to the respondent/complainant CBI, during the year 1998, Accused 1 Rathnakar, while functioning as the Senior Manager, Corporation Bank, Karwar, entered into a criminal conspiracy with Accused 2 Smt. Shanthakumari, the then Chief Accounts officer,zilla Panchayat, Karwar, and several others unknown, to cheat and misappropriate the Government of India in respect of the funds allotted by the Union Government to the Zilla Panchayat for implementing various Government programs for upliftment of poor and needy as well as for providing self-employment to the eligible persons, etc. As such, on receiving credible information in this regard, investigation was taken up. It was noticed during the investigation that Accused 2 Smt. Shanthakumari, in her capacity as the Chief Accounts Officer, had opened 5 Savings Bank Accounts in the Bank and being the Cheque Signing Authority had been issuing cheques to various persons, some probably fictitious and not concerned with implementation of the Schemes for which the funds were allotted and thereby caused loss to the tune of more than Rupees fifty lakhs. As such, on a preliminary investigation after obtaining necessary consent as required under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act (for short the DSPE Act) a case in Cr. No. RC/22 (A)/2000 for the offences under Section 120-B read with Section 420, IPC and Sections 13 (2) and 13 (1) (c) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short the PC Act) initially came to be registered against two persons viz. , Accused 1 (Rathnakar) and Accused 2 (Smt. Shanthakumari ). On a further investigation it was also revealed, according to the respondent /cbi, that the said Smt. Shanthakumari with the help and assistance of her husband Sri. N. Ramachandra has diverted this Zilla Panchayat fund to the personal S. B. Accounts of the petitioner who was the Chief Executive Officer of the Zilla Panchayat, by issuing several cheques and transferring the funds directly to the personal account of the petitioner. This according to the Investigating Agency, was during the period of 1996-97 and the personal Bank Account number of the petitioner was SB A/c No. 725. As per the investigation records, the said Accused 3 Sri. Ramachandra, husband of Accused 2 Smt. Shanthakumari, also revealed the active participation of and receipt of several lakhs of rupees by the petitioner. At the initial stage on 10-8-2001 the Inspector of Police , CBI, issued a communication to the petitioner informing her that her statement is necessary in this regard and she should be present in the CBI office on 20-8-2001. According to the petitioner, she was shocked by such communication especially when she was an able and honest IAS Officer, she immediately communicated to the Investigating Officer asking him as to what capacity and under what provision she has been called to the Police Station in respect of the case registered in RC/22 (A)/2000. According to the petitioner, to this letter the Investigating Officer by another communication dated 22-3-2001 informed her that she has been arraigned as Accused 4 in the said case and as such her interrogation as well as the examination of the documents in her custody is necessary. At this stage, the petitioner has approached this Court





















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top