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

2016 Supreme(Kar) 560

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ANAND BYRAREDDY, J.
Dr. Y. Bhaskar Rao, Son of Late Raghunath Rao - Petitioner
Versus
State of Karnataka, Through Special Investigating Team, Represented by Special Public Prosecutor, Bangalore and Ors. – Respondents
WRIT PETITION No. 49558 OF 2016 (GM-RES)
Decided On : 22-11-2016

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Shri S.M. Chandrashekar, Shri Brijesh Patil
For the Respondents: Shri Madhusudhan R. Naik, Shri C.H. Jadhav, Shri S.V. Vadavadgi, Shri D. Nagaraja, Shri Shankarappa

Headnote:CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 – Section 482 – Prayer for quashing sanction order, order taking cognizance and additional charge sheet – Proceedings under Sections 8,9, 10 and Sections 36 & 106 of IPC against petitioner and 6 others – Petitoner was Karnataka State Lokayukta – Plea that cognizance against petitioner could not have been taken in pursuance of additional charge sheet – Held, in the present case on hand, it is evident from a prima facie examination of the allegations against the petitioner that the offences alleged against the petitioner are certainly not connected with the actions that could be relatable to the discharge of the official functions by the petitioner. Hence, there is no difficulty in concluding in the light of the law as laid down by the above lines of cases that no sanction would be required under Section 197 of the CrPC. The question as to what should be the procedure for grant of sanction to prosecute the Lokayuktha and the further question as to whether the sanction granted by the Hon.Governor of Karnataka is valid, are not relevant and need not be gone into. Under the provisons of the KL Act, the Lokayukta does not render any judgements, as he has no occasion to decide any lis. Secondly, the protection under Section 3 is available only in respect of such any act committed while acting in the discharge of his official or judicial duty or function. It is seen that notwithstanding the dismissal of an application under Section 319 CrPC, filed by a private party, seeking that the petitioner be named as an accused in the pending case, the trial court appears to be justified in taking cognizance of the offences alleged against the petitioner. The petition lacks merit and is dismissed.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner in this case is arraigned as accused no.7, along with six others, for offences punishable under Sections 8,9 & 10 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘PC Act’, for brevity) and Sections 119, 120(B), 201, 202,217,385,419 read with Section 36 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’, for brevity), in case number Spl.CC 429/2015 on the file of the court of the LXXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for cases under the PC Act, Bangalore.

2. The case was initially registered for offences punishable under Sections 384,419 & 420 read with Section 120B of the IPC against one Ashwin Rao, the son of the petitioner and others and a charge sheet was filed against them on 15-9-2015. It is thereafter that the petitioner had been implicated and an additional charge sheet was filed against him on 3-8-2016, alleging offences as aforesaid.

3. The petitioner was the Karnataka State Lokayuktha. He assumed office on 13-2-2013. In the wake of the investigation and proceedings that followed in the above case, he had tendered his resignation on 7-12-2015.

4. The facts, as seen from the material available, have unfolded in the following manner. On 4-5-2015, one Ashok Kumar, one of the accused is said to have called up the complainant, M.N. Krishnamurthy, an Executive Engineer, Zilla Panchayath, Bangalore Urban, and is said to have told him to come to the Office of the Lokayuktha. It transpires that on the same day, Krishnamurthy is said to have gone there and had met Ashok Kumar. And it is alleged that a demand was made on him to pay a bribe of Rs.1 crore, if he was to be saved from a raid proposed to be conducted against him by the Lokayuktha, to unearth ill-gotten wealth.

5. On 6-5-2015, it transpires that Krishnamurthy was again called upon to go over to meet Ashok Kumar, which he is said to have ignored.

6. On 7-5-2015, Krishnamurthy is said to have met Smt. Sonia Narang, Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lok Ayuktha, Bangalore City Division and had revealed the above incident. Smt. Narang is said to have suggested that he should make a complaint in writing. Krishnamurthy is said to have dithered and pleaded for time to think about it.

7. On 11-5-2015 Smt.Narang is said to have filed a report regarding Krishnamurthy's revelation to the Additional Director General of Police, Lokayuktha (ADGP). He, in turn, is said to have forwarded the report to the Registrar, Lokayuktha, one H.R. Deshpande, as on 12-5-2015.

8. It is only after the ADGP requested Deshpande by a letter dated 20-5-2015, that he is said to have placed the report of Narang before the Lokayuktha (Petitioner).

9. The Lokayuktha is said to have directed the Inspector General of Police, one P.Mohanty, to conduct an enquiry as regards the allegations by Krishnamurthy, as on 9-6-2015.

10. On 17-6-2015, a complaint is said to have been filed by one Janadhikara Sangharsha Parishad before the Upa Lokayuktha-II, Shri. Subash Adi, alleging that the Lokayuktha had not taken any prompt action on the report by Smt.Narang. On 23-6-2015, Shri Adi is said to have passed an order directing Smt.Narang to conduct an investigation in to the allegations by Krishnamurthy. This is said to have been brought to the attention of the Lokayuktha by Deshpande, the Registrar, on 26-6-2015. The Lokayuktha is said to have held a meeting with the Upa Lokayuktha - I, Shri S.B. Majage and is said to have decided to entrust the investigation, into the allegations by Krishnamurthy, to one Shri Chandrashekar, Joint Commissioner (Crime), Central Crime Branch, Bangalore. And is said to have directed Mohanty and Narang to hand over the investigation files to Chandrashekar. On 27-6-2015, Chandrashekar is said to have conveyed to the Lokayuktha, his inability to conduct the investigation on account of personal reasons.

11. On 28-6-2015, the Registrar, Deshpande, acting on the instructions of the Lokayuktha, is s

















































































































































































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