The accused in Spl.C.No.266/2016 on the file of LXXVII Addl. City Civil Judge and the Special Court constituted under Prevention of Corruption Act has preferred this revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. In the said proceeding, he made an application under Section 227 read with Section 239 Cr.P.C. seeking his discharge. The Special Court, by order dated 04.06.2018 dismissed the said application. Hence this revision.

2. I have heard the petitioner’s counsel and the Special Public Prosecutor for Lokayukta.

3. The Special Court has held that materials collected by the investigation officer show existence of prima facie case for framing charges against the accused. As regards sanction, it is held that the accused is a Class I officer of the Government of Karnataka and competent authority to accord sanction is the Government. Since the order shows application of mind, there are no infirmities in the sanction order.

4. Assailing the findings of the Special Court, the learned counsel for petitioner argues that the accused is a Group ‘A’ Officer of the Government of Karnataka. The disciplinary authority is the Government. His argument is that the Minister concerned was not competent to accord sanction. He referred to Rule 20 of Karnataka Government (Transaction of Business) Rules, 1977 (referred to as ‘Business Rules’ for short) and argued that the matter should have been placed before the Cabinet of the Government, as the matter relating to the accused falls under item no.23 of the First Schedule of the Business Rules. Item no.23 deals with dismissal or removal of; and compulsorily retiring a Government servant. The competent authority to exercise this power is the Cabinet, and in this case since the matter was not brought before the Cabinet, the sanction order suffers from lack of competency. Therefore the Special Court should have discharged the accused. In support of his argument, he places reliance on a judgment of this court in the case of R. Chandrashekar Reddy Vs. State of Karnataka (Criminal Appeal No. 2573/2013).

5. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for Lokayukta while supporting the impugned order, submits that there is no illegality in the sanction order. He refers to Section 19(1)(b) and (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and argues that Section 19(1) (b) refers to the authority competent to accord sanction in respect of State Government servants. Clause (c) pertains to other than Government servants. Since the accused is a State Government servant belonging to Group ‘A’, the competent authority is the State Government. Following the procedure as provided in the Business Rules, the Energy Minister before whom the file was placed decided to accord sanction on being convinced with existence of prima facie materials to prosecute the accused. Though the sanction order was signed by the Under Secretary of the Department of Energy, he signed the said order following the Business Rules and hence there is no infirmity in it. On this point, he places reliance on the decision of this court in the case of Dr. H.C. Sathyam Vs. the State of Karnataka (Criminal Petition No.899/2017). It is his next point of argument that the order of the Special Court cannot be interfered with in revision unless the accused shows as to how failure of justice has occasioned. Relying upon judgment of the Supreme Court in State by Police Inspector Vs. T. Venkatesh Murthy (AIR 2004 SC 5117), the learned Special Public Prosecutor submits that the accused has not pleaded about failure of justice, and for all these reasons, the petition should be dismissed.

6. After hearing both sides, the first point to be noticed here is that the petitioner/accused does not say that the sanction order suffers from non-application of mind. What is questioned is competency. According to the accused, the Cabinet of the Government of Karnataka can only accord sanction. In this case, the entire file was placed before the Departmental Minister w