Back
2013 Supreme(Kar) 769
High Court of Karnataka
D.H. WAGHELA & B.V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.
B.S. Yeddyurappa
Versus
Sirajin Basha
W.A. No. 4052 of 2013 C/w W.A. No. 4053 of 2013 (GM-RES)
Decided On : 29-11-2013
For the Appellant:S.M. Chandrashekar, Sr. Counsel for Prabhuling K. Navadagi, R. Poornima, Advocates.
For the Respondent:R. Nitin, B. Siddeshwara, Advocates.
Headnote:KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 - Section 4: [D.H. Waghela, C.J. & Mrs. B.V. Nagarathna, JJ] Writ appeal - Quashing of private complaints was the quintessence of challenge in writ petitions - Writ Appeal is maintainable against order passed by single Judge under Article 226.
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA ACT, 1984 - Section 24 & Prevention of Corruption Act (49 of 1988), Section 13: [D.H. Waghela, C.J. & Mrs. B.V. Nagarathna, JJ] Corruption charges - Plural remedies - Availability of plural remedies under distinct enactments such as Prevention of Corruption Act and Karnataka Lokayukta Act would not mean that complainant would have to choose his remedy under one of the enactments . Complainant may avail remedies under both Acts but he must bring it to notice of authorities before whom action is initiated, so that authority before whom second action is initiated on same subject-matter could at outset decide as to whether it should proceed with said complaint or not.
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA ACT, 1984 - Section 24(2) & Criminal P. C. (2 of 1974), Sections 4 & 5 & Prevention of Corruption Act (49 of 1988), Section 13: [D.H. Waghela, C.J. & Mrs. B.V. Nagarathna, JJ] Relative scope - Held, Cr.P.C. is a procedural code and is a general enactment made under List III of VII Schedule of the Constitution. The Prevention of Corruption Act combines in itself both procedural as well as substantive law. It is an adjectival statute and a special statute when read in juxtaposition with the Cr.P.C., Both are Central enactments and by virtue of Article 246 of the Constitution, operate throughout the territory of India. The Karnataka Lokayukta Act is a State enactment and is a general enactment whose operation cannot be curtailed by another general enactment such as the Prevention of Corruption Act which is a Central Law, particularly having regard to Section 24(2) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act. There is no repugnancy between the provisions of the Cr.P.C. as well as the provisions of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act as both are general enactments and operate in distinct fields. In view of sub-section (2) of Section 24, the remedies available to a complainant under the provisions of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act are in addition to the remedies available to a complainant under any other law, State or Central. Thus, the provisions of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act do not impliedly repeal the provisions of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, the launch of prosecution by the complainant invoking the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act r/w Cr.P.C. is not curtailed by the enforcement of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act.
Nagarathna, J.
1. These appeals assail the orders of the learned Single Judge dated 21/5/2013, in W.P.No.27810/2012 and W.P.No.27811/2012.
Factual Background:
2. The relevant facts are that, the appellant, who is a former Chief Minister of the State of Karnataka, had filed writ petitions invoking Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as “Cr.P.C.”, for brevity) seeking quashing of private complaints bearing PCR.No.5/2011, now Special C.C.No.19/2012 and C.C.No.6/2011, now Special C.C.No.48/2012, filed by the respondent before the XXIII Addl. City Civil & Session Judge, Bangalore City, vide Annexure-A. The respondent along with another person had sought sanction for prosecution of the appellant on the basis of a representation made to His Excellency, the Governor of Karnataka on 28/12/2010, under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter, referred to as “the P.C. Act”, for brevity) as well as under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. for offences alleged under Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, referred to as “IPC”, for short) as well as under P.C. Act. Sanction for prosecution was accorded by His Excellency, the Governor by an order dated 21/01/2011 with regard to offences alleged under IPC and Sections 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act. On the basis of the order of sanction, the respondent had filed five private complaints before XXIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City who is designated as the special Judge under the provisions of the P.C. Act, as PCR. Nos.2/2011, 3/2011, 4/2011, 5/2011 and 6/2011. These appeals are confined to PCR.Nos.5/2011 and 6/2011.
3. In PCR.No.5/2011, three instances are given pertaining to the misconduct committed by the appellant and others. The first is with regard to alleged pecuniary advantage received by M/s. Davalagiri Property Developers Pvt. Ltd., promoted by the close relatives of the appellant. The second is criminal breach of trust said to have been committed by the appellant by illegal denotification of land in Sy.No.15/1, 15/2 etc., of Sreerampura village, for the benefit of M/s. Besto Infrastructure Bangalore Pvt. Ltd. The third is the alleged illegal allotment of Site No.1 to Sri B.Y. Raghavendra, son of the appellant and Site No.2 to Smt. Bharati Shetty, MLC, in RMV - II Stage, Bangalore.
4. In PCR.No.6/2011, three instances have been mentioned. The first is alleged illegal allotment of Site No.33A, HSR Layout to Sri R.P. Shankar, maternal uncle of Sri Sohan Kumar, son-in-law of the appellant and the subsequent illegal transfer of that site by Sri. R.P. Shankar to Sri Sohan Kumar. The second instance pertains to alleged illegal gratification obtained by the appellant, M/s. Davalagiri Properties and Developers, M/s. Bhagath Homes Pvt. Ltd., and Ms. Shobha Karandlaje from M/s. Adarsh Developers-Group of Companies. The third is with regard to alleged criminal breach of trust committed by the appellant herein by illegal denotification of lands to an extent of 5 Acres 13 Guntas in Sy.No.78 of Nagarabhavi village, acquired for the formation of Nagarabhavi 1st Stage Layout in willful disobedience of the orders of Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court.
5. The special Judge, took cognizance of the complaints on 26/02/2011 under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. and Process was issued to the appellant on 23/02/2012 for the offences punishable under Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act and under Sections 405, 406, 420, 463, 465, 468 and 471 of the IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Karnataka Land (Restriction and Transfer) Act, 1991 read with Section 120B of IPC, in both the complaints. It is these complaints, which were under challenge in the writ petitions.
6. The main issue raised by the appellant before the learned Single Judge was, whether a private complaint could be filed under Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. against a public servant for the offences alleged
