Point of Law : Competent authority is required to look into everything placed before it and other material, if available, at the time of considering the request for grant of sanction, as it is trite that it is not an acrimonious exercise but a solemn or sacrosanct act, which affords protection to the Government servant or releases him to face prosecution.

ORDER :

The petitioner/Karnataka Lokayukta Police represented by its Police Inspector/Investigating Officer is before this Court calling in question orders dated 28-01-2017 and 31-05-2017, passed by the 1st respondent/Government declining to accord sanction to prosecute the 3rd respondent.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, facts in brief necessary for consideration of the lis, are as follows:

The 3rd respondent was a Government Servant and at the relevant point in time was working as Police Inspector, State Intelligence in the Home Department. The petitioner registers a case in Crime No.8 of 2012 on 28-11-2012, against the respondent on receiving an information of commission of cognizable offence under Section 13(1)(e) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act'), for possessing assets disproportionate to his known source of income. The check period, according to the said registration of crime was from 29.08.1977, till the date of registration of the FIR i.e., 28.11.2012. After completion of investigation, the petitioner claims to have prepared a final report alleging that third respondent had amassed wealth disproportionate of his known source of income to the tune of 100%.

3. After completion of investigation and preparation of final report, on 16-12-2015, a request was sent to the competent authority to accord sanction to prosecute the 3rd respondent. This was returned on 17-10-2016, by the Government directing the petitioner to submit all documents in support of the claim for according sanction. Once again, on 29.12.2016, the petitioner addressed a letter to the 1st respondent enclosing all the documents with a request to accord sanction to prosecute the 3rd respondent. On a thorough scrutiny of all the documents, the State passed a detailed order on 28-01-2017, refusing to accord sanction for prosecution.

4. Yet again, the petitioner addresses a communication to the 1st respondent on 01-04-2017, modifying the report submitted earlier and sought for according sanction to prosecute the 3rd respondent. The Government again after scrutinizing entire documents in greater detail passed another order on 31-05-2017, rejecting the permission to prosecute the respondent. It is these orders of the State Government refusing to accord sanction to prosecute the 3rd respondent that are called in question in this writ petition by the petitioner/Police wing of the Karnataka Lokayukta.

5. Heard the learned counsel, Sri B.S. Prasad, appearing for the petitioner, the learned High Court Government Pleader, Sri R.D. Renukaradhya, appearing for the 1st and 2nd and respondents -State and the learned counsel, Sri T.P.Vivekananda, appearing for the 3rd respondent.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently argue and contend that the petitioner has locus to challenge the orders of the State refusing to accord sanction to prosecute as the investigation is conducted by the petitioner and the respondent cannot escape the clutches of penal law on declining sanction to be accorded. He would further submit that the competent authority while declining to accord sanction has looked into the entire material of investigation, which is impermissible in law.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents in unison refute the aforesaid submissions and contend that it is the discretion of the competent authority either to accord sanction or refuse it and the petitioner cannot be construed to be an aggrieved person in the refusal to accord sanction to prosecute the 3rd respondent.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent in particular, would take this Court to the communications and refusal of sanction not once, twice but thrice to contend that the competent authority in exercise of its discretion found no material to accord sanction and would submit that the writ petition be dismissed.

9. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel