Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M. NAGAPRASANNA, J.
SRI ANIL KUMAR B.H., S/O SRI HANUMANTHA RAJU B.H. - Appellant
Vs.
THE LOKAYUKTA POLICE SHIVAMOGGA - Respondent
WRIT PETITION No.24574 OF 2013 (GM-RES)
Decided On : 25-11-2021
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 13(1)(d)(i)(ii)(iii) - Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 166, 120(b), 403, 406, 409, 417, 420, 427 and 477(a) - Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 156(3) - 2nd respondent, an employee of the Company, files a private complaint against the petitioners who were officers of the Company before the jurisdictional Magistrate invoking Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. Pursuant to the complaint, the criminal Court has referred the matter to the Deputy Superintendent, Lokayukta Police to conduct investigation and submit a report under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C.. It is at that juncture, the petitioners knocked the doors of this Court on the sole ground that the criminal Court could not have directed investigation to be conducted by the Lokayukta Police without prior sanction for such prosecution under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C., as the petitioners were public servants.
Finding of the court : Insofar as judgments relied on by learned counsel appearing for respondent in case - Judgments relied on would not be applicable of case at hand as in my considered view offences alleged against petitioners emanate from a decision being taken in their official capacity as Director General Manager or Managing Director as case would be - Decision that is alleged is not rendered outside scope of official work - Narration in complaint is also one of doing acts in abuse of official powers of a Committee constituted in Company - Offences under IPC alleged are to be read with offences Prevention of Corruption Act - Since they are intertwined it cannot be held that sanction is not required as allegations are for offences punishable which are not in course of official duty - Other judgments with regard to order of Magistrate referring matter for investigation will have to bear application of mind or otherwise same also stands covered by judgment in case - These would be with regard to public servants who are in office – offences under the IPC alleged are to be read with the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Since they are intertwined it cannot be held that sanction is not required as the allegations are for offences punishable which are not in the course of official duty. The other judgments with regard to the order of the Magistrate referring the matter for investigation will have to bear application of mind or otherwise, the same also stands covered by the judgment in the case of ANIL KUMAR. These would be with regard to public servants who are in office.
Result : Petition is allowed.
ORDER :
The petitioners are before this Court calling in question the order dated 06-05-2013, passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Shivamogga in Crime No.2 of 2013 (PCR No.1/2013), for offences punishable under Section 13(1)(d)(i)(ii)(iii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Sections 166, 120(b), 403, 406, 409, 417, 420, 427 and 477(a) of the IPC.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:-
3. In the year 2007 a report was placed before the 13th Legislative Meeting in relation to the steps to be taken by the Company for implementing a report dated 15-11-2007. The report was made suggesting certain remedial measures to improve efficiency of the Company. On 15-07-2009 the Company framed guidelines accepting the said report. On 15-10-2009 the Managing Director and Director (Finance) in terms of the guidelines took a decision to extend the benefit of credit to one M/s Victory Press Private Limited (‘VPPL’). On 18-12-2009 it appears that a decision was further taken by the Committee to procure coal from Singareni coal fields by appointing liaisoning official to overcome the shortage of coal and avoid stoppage of production in the Company.
4. On 04-06-2011, it appears that the Director (Operations) submits a preliminary investigation report with regard to the decision taken by the Company for sale of paper to VPPL being contrary to marketing policy approved by the Board of the Company. On 9-12-2011 the Committee of Public Undertaking submitted its report regarding performance of the Company along with certain suggestions and placed the same before the 13th Legislative Meeting. All the aforesaid actions had a little background. VPPL was granted credit facility in order to match the price of HPC Creamwove. The decision was taken by the Managing Director and the Director (Finance) in view of quantity of purchase to overcome competition. The said decision is claimed to have been taken in the interest of the Company. The Committee of Public Undertaking which submitted its report relating to sale of paper to VPPL referred the matter to the Director (Operations) to investigate and submit its report.
5. The Director (Operations) submitted its report on 4-06-2011 observing that due to fluctuation in the price of news print and fall in the price of the news print in International and domestic market, the Company has taken a decision to supply excess paper to VPPL by obtaining post-dated cheques as security. The report itself indicated that that was in tune with the guidelines of the marketing policy as approved by the Company. Things being thus, the 2nd respondent, an employee of the Company, files a private complaint against the petitioners who were officers of the Company before the jurisdictional Magistrate invoking Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. Pursuant to the complaint, the criminal Court has referred the matter to the Deputy Superintendent, Lokayukta Police to conduct investigation and submit a report under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C.. It is at that juncture, the petitioners knocked the doors of this Court on the sole ground that the criminal Court could not have directed investigation to be conducted by the Lokayukta Police without prior sanction for such prosecution under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C., as the petitioners were public servants. This Court by order dated 20.6.2013 stayed all further proceedings in Crime No.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
