Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Kar) 19

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV, J.
C.S.Puttaraju S/o late Sannathamme Gowda - Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka - Respondent
Criminal Petition No.5305 of 2021
Decided on : 31-01-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Sri Udaya Holla, Senior Advocate for Sri R.Vybhav, Advocate
For the Respondent:Sri V.S.Vinayak, Sri Prasanna Kumar, Sri Nitin A.M., Advocate

Point of Law : Inherent power can be exercised to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 406, 409 and 420 r/w 34, 120B - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 13(2) r/w 13(1) (c) & (d), 19(1)(c) - Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 - Section 3(3)(d) and Section 4 - General Clauses Act, 1897 - Section 6(b) and (e) - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 197 - Criminal Conspiracy - Punishment for criminal breach of trust - Previous sanction necessary for prosecution - Petitioner has sought for quashing of complaint lodged by respondent No.3 and has also assailed the F.I.R. in Crime for offences punishable under Sections 406, 409 and 420 read with Section 34 of IPC petitioner has also challenged F.I.R. for offence punishable.
Finding of the Court:
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. provides that inherent power can be exercised to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice - It is clear that conclusion arrived at by Court is correct - Defect in reasoning in arriving at such conclusion is liable to be ignored and would require to be so done in order to secure ends of justice, which would be consistent with the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
Result: Petition is dismissed

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - Sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. is required where the accused is not removable from office and is accused of offences alleged to have been committed while acting or purporting to act in discharge of official duty (!) (!) . - The requirement of sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act does not arise if the accused is not holding the very office alleged to have been abused at the time of taking cognizance (!) (!) (!) . - The conclusion of the trial court is affirmed as it secures the ends of justice, and defects in reasoning can be ignored where the ultimate conclusion is correct under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. (!) (!) .

What is the requirement for obtaining sanction before taking cognizance of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act?

When is sanction not required for prosecuting a public servant under corruption laws?

How does the doctrine of securing the ends of justice apply in cases involving defects in reasoning?

ORDER :

The petitioner has been arrayed as Accused No.5 pursuant to the complaint filed by respondent No.3 registered in Crime No.370/2013 by Mandya West Police Station on 01.11.2013 and as per the first F.I.R. No.RC.21(A)/2014 registered on 23.12.2014 by C.B.I., ACB, Bengaluru. The charge sheet dated 31.12.2015 having been filed before the Special Judge for CBI Cases, the trial Court has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 409, 420 of IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (c) & (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ('P.C. Act' for short).

2. The petitioner has sought for quashing of the complaint dated 31.10.2013 lodged by the respondent No.3 (Annexure-A) and has also assailed the F.I.R. dated 01.11.2013 in Crime No.370/2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409 and 420 read with Section 34 of IPC before the Mandya West Police (Annexure-B). The petitioner has also challenged the F.I.R. dated 23.12.2014 in Crime No.RC.21(A)/2014 for the offence punishable under Section 120-B read with Sections 406, 409 and 420 of I.P.C. and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c) & (d) of P.C. Act registered by the CBI, ACB, Bengaluru and the Charge Sheet bearing No.30/CBI/ACB/BLR/2015 dated 31.12.2015 filed by CBI, ACB, Bengaluru, the respondent No.2 herein (Annexure-D) and the order dated 29.03.2021 passed in Spl.CC.No.577/2021 by the Court of XLVI Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge and Spl. Judge for CBI Cases at Bengaluru, taking cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 409 and 420 of IPC and Section 13(1)(c) & (d) read with Section 13(2) of P.C. Act and has also assailed the entire proceedings in Spl.C.C.No.577/2021 pending on the file of XLVI Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge and Spl. Judge for CBI Cases at Bengaluru, (Annexure-E) insofar as the petitioner is concerned.

3. The facts as made out constituting the offence are that the Mysore Urban Development Authority ('MUDA' for short) is stated to have allotted a site in favour of wife of the petitioner on 13.03.2008, which was followed by execution of lease-cum-sale deed on 17.06.2008. It is further made out that the Possession Certificate came to be issued on 02.07.2008 followed by issuance of Khatha.

4. The petitioner, who was the Member of Legislative Assembly, Melukote Constituency for the term of 2008-2013 was appointed as Member of MUDA in terms of Section 3(3)(d) and Section 4 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987.

5. It further comes out from the facts as narrated by C.B.I. in their statement of objections that the petitioner had applied to MUDA on 16.10.2009 seeking allotment of site declaring that neither he nor his family has been allotted any site by any Urban Development Authority.

6. It is the further case of the Prosecution that the application was also pre-dated. It is stated that the site came to be allotted, the Possession Certificate came to be issued on 05.01.2010, Sale Deed was executed on 07.05.2010 and the Khatha was issued on 16.11.2010 with respect to the said site.

7. It is also made out that the petitioner had executed a Sale Deed with respect to the allotted site to one Mr.Khalak Sharief on 15.10.2011.

8. The petitioner is stated to have made an application to MUDA seeking cancellation of allotment on 27.12.2011 and subsequently on 02.01.2012 had re-purchased the said property from said Mr.Khalak Sharief.

9. On 01.11.2013, Mandya West Police Station registered the F.I.R. for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409 and 420 read with Section 34 of IPC in Crime No.370/2013. On 09.01.2014, the State Government has issued an order transferring the above case to C.B.I. for investigation and the State Government has ordered for entrustment of investigation to the C.B.I. The C.B.I. re-registered the FIR in RC No.21(A)/2014 as against Mr.Upendra Naik and others for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409 and 420 read with Section 120-B of I.P.C. and Section 1

Click Here to Read the rest of this document