Back
Karnataka High Court
Mohammed Saleem - Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka - Respondent
Decided On : 09-17-04
CRI.PETN. : 3396 of 2002
Held: The investigation conducted for the allegation under the Prevention of Corruption Act by the Lokayukta Police is wholly different from the investigation conducted under Section 9 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 and Section 14 of the Lokayukta Act is applied only to the investigation conduc-ted under Section 9 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act and it has no relevance and bearing on the investigation that is conducted under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act on the complaint to the Lokayukta Police. In the light of the observation made by this Hon’ble Court in a decision in Basappa Gadigeppa Patted and Another v State of Karnataka, ILR 2002 Kar. 830, the sanc-tion under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is must for prosecution of any person under the Prevention of Corruption Act. (Para 11)
In the instant case where the Lokayukta Police on the complaint filed by the complainant had registered the case for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(l)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and investigated into the matter and filed the report to the Government for according sanction. The Government in the instant case after going through the matter accordingly opined that the bribe amount was not found in the body of the accused person but it was found in the drawer of the table, although handwash of accused proved to be positive to phenolphthalein test therefore, the Government refused to accord sanction on a flimsy ground
and thereafter it was opined that the matter to be referred to Upalokayukta for enquiry. On going through the matter, the Upalokayukta passed an order holding that there is prima facie case against the petitioner for the alleged offences under Sections 7 and 13(l)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and accordingly proceeded to accord sanction. In my opinion, the order of the Upalokayukta exercising power under Section 14 of the Act in the instant case cannot be held to be valid. (Para 15)
In view of the fact that Lokayukta Police investigated into the matter, when the charge-sheet was ready to file, the Government has not properly exercised its discretion in according sanction, rather acted in a mechanical manner and refused to accord sanction and later referred the matter to the Upalokayukta to hold an enquiry and the Upalokayukta after examining the documents has held that there is prima facie case against the petitioner, proceeded against him for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(l)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. There is a matter to be considered by the Government to accord sanction as required under Section 19
of the Prevention of Corruption Act
and to act positively in that regard. Further, the sanction accorded by the Upalokayukta is not in respect of the complaint received as per Section 9 of the Lokayukta Act. Under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, no Court shall take cognisance of an offence punishable under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15, except with the previous sanction by the concerned Government. (Para 16)
Result : Petition allowed.
( 1 ) THE petitioner has sought forquashing of the order dated 13-8-2002passed by the XXIII Additional Sessions judge, Bangalore, in Spl. C. C. No. 443/ 2002 taking cognizance and issuing summons for the offences under Sections 7, 13{l) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
( 2 ) THE petitioner was working as a deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies and during 1996-97, he was on deputation (O. O. D.) as a Manager, Janatha Bazar, K. G. Road, Bangalore. One N. L. Gangadhar had complained to the Lokayukta Police stating that the petitioner was demanding bribe to do an official favour. A trap was laid and the case was registered by the lokayukta Police in Crime No. 3/1997 for the offences under Sections 7, 13{l) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption act. After the investigation, lokayukta placed the matter before the Government for obtaining the sanction to prosecute the petitioner. It appears that the Government refused to grant sanction to prosecute the petitioner and ordered an enquiry by the Upalokayukta by order dated 22-1-1998. The Government did not accord the sanction as required under Section 19 of the prevention of Corruption Act. Hence, 'b' report came to be filed against the same. Notice was issued to the complainant although complainant appeared and engaged the counsel when the matter was set up to file objections to 'b' report and although the matter was adjourned for several times, neither the complainant nor the counsel had appeared before the Special Court. As such for want of sanction, the Special Court closed the case and accepted the 'b' report. Further in the meanwhile, when the matter was referred to Upalokayuktha, the upalokayuktha after going through the investigation papers and materials has held that there is a prima facie case/material to proceed against the petitioner to prosecute under Sections 7, 13 (l) (d) r/w Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and proceeded to accord sanction to prosecute the petitioner acting under Section 14 of the Lokayuktha Act, 1984. Meanwhile, the Upalokayuktha had also ordered to hold d. E. against the petitioner. Again the Government by order dated 16-10-2000, ordered not to accept the report of the Lokayuktha to hold D. E. and to close the matter.
( 3 ) FURTHER the Lokayuktha Police based on the sanction accorded by the upalokayuktha have filed the Charge-sheet along with sanction before the Special judge, Bangalore on 25-2-2004 for the offence under Sections 7, 13{l) (d) r/w Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption act, 1988. The only extra material produced was that the order of the Hon'ble upalokayuktha dated 15-10-2001 under section 14 of the Karnataka Lokayuktha Act, 1984, according sanction to prosecute the petitioner for the abovesaid offences.
( 4 ) THE learned Sessions Judge after having perused the material in the charge-sheet placed along with the sanction order and took cognizance and issued summons. The same has been assailed in this petition on various grounds.
( 5 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned State Public Prosecutor, sri Chandra Mouly.
( 6 ) IT appears that after obtaining the order of the Upalokayukta under Section 14 of the Lokayukta Act, the investigating agency has proceeded to prosecute the petitioner as per the provisions of Section 14 of the Lokayukta Act.
( 7 ) THE point that arise for consideration is whether taking cognizance and Issue of process based on the sanction accorded by the Upalokayukta under Section 14 of the act is valid or not and whether the impugned proceedings pending before the Special court based on the sanction accorded by the Upalokayukta under Section 14 of the act is liable to be quashed.
( 8 ) SECTION 14 of the Lokayukta Act, 1984, reads thus :"initiation OF PROSECUTION: If after investigation into any complaint the lokayukta or an Upalokayukta is satisfied that the public servant has comm
SupremeToday
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
