No sanction required to prosecute a retired public servant under Section 170 of the Karnataka Police Act, and misreading of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of Cr.P.C. Fabrication of documents to obtain financial benefits does not require a complaint under Section 340 of Cr.P.C.

The order of the Special Court in discharging accused Nos.2 to 5 from prosecution is under challenge in this revision petition.

2. For the purpose of convenience, parties will be referred to as per their ranking before the Trial court/Special Court.

3. The Superintendent of Police, ACB, Bangalore, CBI charge sheeted five accused persons in respect of the offences under Sections 120B read with Section 420 read with Sections 511, 193, 196, 201, 209 and 218 of IPC and Sections 13(2) r/w Sec.13(1)(d) r/w Sec.15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

4. The allegation is, the accused Nos.1 to 5 during 1993 entered into a criminal conspiracy to cheat M/s. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Shimoga, in the matter of availing third party compensation in respect of injury suffered by first accused in a motor vehicle accident. In furtherance of the same, first accused on 23.9.1993 preferred a claim petition before the MACT in MVC No.706/1993 seeking compensation of Rs.35 lakhs. He very well knew that the vehicle which met with the accident was his own car bearing registration No. CTQ 6545 (Ambassador shell white) but gave false details that the vehicle was KA-14/1486 (Taxi-Ambassador blue) owned by A-2 which was driven by A3 in the evening of 24.3.1993. The first accused had parked his car bearing registration No.CTQ-6545 without adequate precautionary measures which strolled backwards causing permanent disability. Further, A2 and A3 in pursuance of the conspiracy gave false evidence by providing the details of the car under the ownership of A- 2, which is a taxi purported to have been parked by A-3 at the compound of Sri Venkataramana temple, Nawale, Shimoga.

5. It is the further case of the prosecution that, A-4 being the son of A-3, knowing fully well the dishonest intention, after a gap of 11 days lodged a false complaint on 4.4.1993 before the Rural Police Station, Shimoga where accused No.5 was the SHO. This complaint of accused No.4 was to facilitate the case that A-1 suffered injuries out of accident involving the car No.KA-14/1486.

6. It is the further allegation that A-5 investigated Crime No.96/93 registered on the strength of false complaint in a bias manner and submitted final report that the accident was caused by A-3 in the manner reported in the complaint, thus, favoured A-1 to prefer fraudulent claim. Knowing fully well that the car involved in the accident was CTQ-6545 (Ambassador shell white), he substituted the car No.KA-4/1486 (Ambassador blue). Without examining any independent witnesses from the locality, he cited the family members and family friends of the accused as witnesses in the charge sheet filed against Ashwathanarayana in respect of the offence under section 338 IPC. The colour of the car was deliberately avoided while recording the statement under section 161 Cr.P.C.

7. It is the further allegation that, in furtherance of the same conspiracy at the time of trial initiated by A-5 in CC 3561/1993, A-3/driver appeared before the court on 2.7.1993, falsely pleaded guilty and the accusation was true to facilitate A-1 to get compensation by cheating the insurance company. Thus, all the accused nos.1 to 5 committed offences under Sections 120B read with Sections 193, 196, 201, 209, 218 and 420 of IPC r/w 511 of IPC and Section 13(2) r/w Sec.13(1)(d) r/w Sec.15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Accused No.1 committed offences under Sections 120-B, 193, 196, 201, 209 and 420 r/w 511 of IPC. Accused Nos.2 to 4 committed offences under Sections 120-B, 193, 196 and 201 of IPC and accused No.5 committed offences under Sections 120B, 193, 196, 201 and 218 IPC and Sections 13(2) r/w Sec.13(1)(d) r/w Sec.15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

8. It was mentioned in the charge sheet that A-5 since no longer was a public servant, no sanction was taken for the prosecution.

9. After submission of the charge sheet, A-1 Dattathreya Gupta expired and case against him stood abated. A-2 to A-5 filed application u