Back
2013 Supreme(Kar) 1176
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Anand Byrareddy, J.
M.K. Aiyappa —Appellant
Vs.
State of Karnataka, Sri. Anil Kumar, Sri. Harish and Sri. Muniveerappa —Respondent
Writ Petition Nos. 13779-780 of 2013
Decided on : 21-05-2013
Advocate Appeared:
Ashok Haranahalli, M.T. Nanaiah, Shankarappa, for the Appellant
B.A. Belliappa, for the Respondent
Headnote:CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 - Sections 156 (3) & 200: [Anand Byrareddy, J] Allegations were made against public servants - Special Court referred the compliant lodged alleging offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to police under Section 156 (3) of the code - Correctness - Held, It is the settled law that a Court while exercising power under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. has to apply its mind and the act of referring the matter for investigation under the said provision is not an empty formality. The Court is expected to have applied its mind as to whether the allegations under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. Secondly, though the power to order investigation under Section 156 (3)of Cr.P.C. is exercised by a Court at a pre-cognizance stage, yet the requirement of sanction is a prerequisite even for a presenting a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., in respect of a public servant who is alleged to have committed an offence in discharge of a public duty. Therefore the law is settled that the requirement of a sanction order cannot be dispensed with even in respect of a private complaint filed by a person against a public servant, alleging offences punishable under the PC Act, said to have been committed while discharging duties as a public servant. As the private complaint was not accompanied by a sanction order by the Competent Authority, the order of the Special Judge, is without jurisdiction. The writ petition is allowed. The order passed by the Special Judge as well as the complaint were quashed.
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 - Sections 8, 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d), 13(1)(e), 13 (2) & 12: [Anand Byrareddy, J] Private complaint against public servant - Held, Sanction is necessary.
Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the learned Senior Advocate, Shri. Ashok Harnahalli, appearing for the counsel for the petitioner and Shri B.A. Belliappa, appearing for respondent no. 1. The facts and circumstances in which the present writ petition is filed are as hereunder:
It transpires that a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr. P.C., for brevity) was said to have been filed by Shriyuths Anil Kumar, Harish and Muniyappa, before the Court of XXIII Additional City Civil and Special Judge for Prevention of Corruption Act, at Bangalore, as on 9.10.2012. The complaint named 15 persons as the accused-the petitioner was named as accused no. 1, therein.
The complainants claimed to be permanent residents of Maddappanahalli, Hessaraghatta Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. It was alleged that land bearing Survey no. 62 of Maddappanahalli, measuring about 32 acres and 4 guntas, including 17 guntas of Kharab-was government land and was being utilized as gomal land by the residents of Maddappanahalli. It was not under cultivation by any individual, nor could any individual claim exclusive possession of. the said land. According to the complainants the land was classified as "banjar" in the revenue records. The fact of the matter was that having regard to the proximity of the land to Bangalore city, the market value of the land was over Rs. 1 crore per acre.
It was alleged that one Narasimaiah, son of Dayabylappa, accused no. 3, claimed a right over the property on the basis that it had been granted to his father, but was shown as "Phada" in the revenue records and sought restoration of the land in his favour, in accordance with law.
The petitioner, acting on the basis of a report submitted by the Special Tahshildar, accused no. 2, as to the status of the land, dated 16.6.2012, to the effect that Narasimaiah was in possession of the land and on the basis of documents, which according to the complainants were forged, had passed an order dated 30.6.2012 directing restoration of the land in favour of Narasimaiah, accused no. 3.
It was further alleged that several individuals, named as accused no. 4 to 7 in the complaint, had made representations to the Tahshildar, Bangalore North Additional taluk, claiming as grantees in possession of the very land referred to hereinabove. This having been brought to the attention of the petitioner, the order dated 30.6.2012 was kept in abeyance, by an order dated 19.7.2012. The petitioner is said to have issued notice of hearing to all concerned claimants and after examination of records, called for from the office of the Tahshildar and the Assistant Commissioner, is said to have passed a detailed order dated 22.9.2012, affirming the order dated 30.6.2012.
It was alleged that even before the order dated 22.9.2012 was passed, accused no. 3 had executed sale deeds in respect of the entire extent of land aforesaid, in favour of third parties, namely, accused no. 8 to 12, as on 11.9.2012.
Pursuant to the said order dated 22.9.2012, a representation is said to have been made by several villagers questioning the claim of Narasimaiah and the veracity of the records on the basis of which he had approached the petitioner. The petitioner has thereafter reconsidered the records and has recorded, in his further order dated 6.10.2012, that the claim of Narasimaiah could not be sustained in the light of other documents that were made available and which would negate his claim and hence has recalled and cancelled the order dated 30.6.2012.
It is in the above background that the private complaint was brought, alleging offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 426, 463, 465, 468, 471, 474 read with Section 120B and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1890 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC, for brevity) and under Sections 8, 13(1)c, 13(1)d, 13(1)e, 13(2) read with Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'PC Act',
