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

2011 Supreme(Kar) 584

High Court of Karnataka
N. KUMAR, ARAVIND KUMAR
Sirajin Basha
Versus
BS. Yediyurappa
W.A.Nos.16522-24 of 2011 (GM-RES) & W.A.No.16525 of 2011 (GM-RES)
Decided on : 04-10-2011

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant:M.L. Varma, Senior Counsel for G.R. Prakash & S. Thejaswini, Advocates. For the Respondent:R1, Jayakumar S. Patil, Senior Counsel for Sandeep Patil, Advocate.

Headnote:CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - Articles 226, 227 & 14: [N. Kumar & Aravind Kumar, JJ] Interim order - Held, Prayer in writ petition for staying order of issuing summons against accused under provision of Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be granted in view of Section 19(3) and also law declared by Supreme Court in Sathya Narayan Sharma vs State of Rajasthan, [AIR 2001 SC 2856:2001 AIR SCW 3818: 2001 Cri LJ 4640]. Once the authority competent to accord sanction accords sanction to prosecute the public servant then the law should take its course. The initial protection granted to the public servant under Section 19(1) evaporates and thereafter it is in public interest that a public servant who is accused of an offence punishable under the Act should be prosecuted expeditiously without any interruption. That is the public policy underlying sub-section (3) of Section 19. Moreover, the Parliament has used a non-obstante clause as a legislative device to override the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to the extent mentioned in sub-section (3) of Section 19 of the Act. In addition to that negative words are used in the opening part of clauses (b) and (c) of sub-section (3). Negative words are clearly prohibitory and are ordinarily used as a legislative device to make a Statute imperative. It is another mode of showing a clear intention that the provision enacted is mandatory, by clothing the command in a negative form. That apart the use of word ’shall’, in the opening words of the said clauses raised a presumption that the particular provision is imperative. Therefore, the intention of the Parliament in enacting the said provision is explicit and clear, and there is no scope for any interpretation at all. All that the Courts have to do is to give effect to the intention of the legislation, the underlying principle being public interest, inasmuch as fight against corruption. Therefore, the legislative intent behind this provision is very clear. No Court shall circumvent the said ban through any means. None of the provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 could be invoked for circumventing any of the bans enumerated in the sub-section. In clause (c) of sub-section (3), the prohibition is in unexpectable terms. No Court shall by-pass the legislative prohibition contained in sub-section. No stay can be granted by use of any power on any ground.

        Further, when the Parliament has passed the legislation to combat corruption in public life, which is eating into vital organs of this country, when it expressly imposes ban on power to be exercised by the Higher Courts to stay proceedings arising under the Act and when the said provisions have been up held by the Apex Court reiterating the principles underlying the said statutory provisions, the power under Article 226 cannot be exercised to scuttle the said statutory provision nor the law declared by the Apex Court. Therefore, it is clear that exercise of power by the Court either under Section 397 or 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution should be in aid of the said legislative policy and in public interest. It has to be exercised having due regard to the legislative intent evidenced by the statutory provisions and consistent with the provisions of the Act the said plenary power has to be exercised to effectuate the rule of law and not for abrogating it. Otherwise it would be a case of improper exercise of power, against the public interest, and would defeat the object of law and frustrate the legislative attempt of fight against corruption in public office.

Judgment :-

(This Writ Appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 praying to set aside the order passed in the writ petition No.37573/2011 dated 30/09/2011.)

These appeals are preferred challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge who has granted an interim order of stay of the operation of the order dated 08.08.2011 and 30.09.2011, issuing summons to the accused for their appearance in a proceedings initiated under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2. As common question of law is involved in all these appeals they are taken up for consideration together and disposed of by this common order. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the writ petitions.

3. The petitioner is Sri B.S. Yediyurappa, the former Chief Minister of Karnataka. The respondent who is common in all these writ petitions is one Sri Sirajin Basha, a practicing Advocate at Bangalore. The petitioner was functioning as Chief Minister from 30.05.2008 to 31.07.2011. He was a public servant during the said period. The respondent approached the Governor of Karnataka to accord sanction to prosecute the petitioner for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), as well as under the provisions of Indian Penal Code. The Governor of Karnataka accorded sanction by his order dated 20.01.2011. Thereafter the respondent filed five private complaints before the XXIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge (CCH 24), Special Court for Lokayukta cases, for short, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Special Court’. The said five complaints were registered as PCR 2 to 6/2011. The said complaints were under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code for offences under Section 405, 426, 420, 463, 465, 468, 471 of IPC and Section 13(1) (d), 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Act and Sections 3 and 4 of the Karnataka Land Restriction of Transfer Act, 1991 read with Section 120-B of IPC. The Special Court took cognizance of the said offence on 26.02.2011. Thereafter, in PCR No.3/2011 on 08.08.2011 ordered issue of summons to the accused. In PCR 4/11 on 23.08.2011, he ordered issue of summons to the accused. All accused including the petitioner appeared before the said Court. They have filed an application for grant of bail. Grant of bail is opposed by the respondent. After hearing both the parties, now the Special Court has reserved the case for pronouncing the orders on bail application and the case was listed to 03.10.2011.

4. The five accused filed Criminal Petition Nos.2083/11 c/w 2161-2164/11 for quashing of the order dated 26.02.2011 passed by the Special Court, taking cognizance of various offences alleged in the respective complaints and also sought for quashing of further consequential proceedings in the respective cases. After hearing all the parties, by an order dated 21.7.2011, the said criminal petitions were dismissed by this Court with a direction that investigation ordered by the Special Judge in PCR 2/2011 shall proceed and in PCR Nos.3 to 6/2011, the Special Judge shall proceed further.

5. The petitioner filed W.P.Nos.25915/11 and 26236-240/11 challenging the order passed by the Governor sanctioning his prosecution. The prayers made in these writ petitions are as follows:

(a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ or order quashing the impugned sanction dated 21.01.2011 vide No.GS 275 EST 2010 issued by His Excellency the Governor of Karnataka, according sanction to prosecute the petitioner under Section -19 of Prevention of Corruption Act and under Section – 197 of Cr.P.C. (Vide Annexure – A):

(b) Declare that the impugned sanction order dated 21.01.2011 vide No.GS 275 EST 2010 issued by His Excellency the Governor of Karnataka according sanction to prosecute the petitioner under Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Section 197 of Code of Criminal Procedure as illegal, invali
























































































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