Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
M. Nagaprasanna, J.
B. Shivashankar – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 43262 of 2017 (GM-RES)
Decided On : 17-02-2022
Sanction - Criminal Misconduct - Prevention of Corruption Act - Sec. 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2), 13(1)(e) - The court quashed the proceedings in Special C.C. No. 28/2012 as the sanction was not accorded by the Competent Authority and the material collected for the offence under Sec. 13(1)(d) was used for the offence under Sec. 13(1)(e) of the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Chief Engineer, was charged with offences under Sec. 7, 13(1)(d), and 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The petitioner challenged the rejection of his discharge application in Special C.C. No. 28/2012, contending that the sanction was not accorded by the Competent Authority and the material collected for the offence under Sec. 13(1)(d) was used for the offence under Sec. 13(1)(e) of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the sanction was not accorded by the Competent Authority and the material collected for the offence under Sec. 13(1)(d) was used for the offence under Sec. 13(1)(e) of the Act, rendering the proceedings in Special C.C. No. 28/2012 unsustainable.
Issues: 1. Whether sanction accorded by the incompetent Authority would vitiate the entire proceedings? 2. Whether material collected for the offence under Sec. 13(1)(d) could have been used for the offence under Sec. 13(1)(e) of the Act?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the sanction not accorded by the Competent Authority and the use of material collected for the offence under Sec. 13(1)(d) for the offence under Sec. 13(1)(e) rendered the proceedings unsustainable.
Final Decision: The court quashed the proceedings in Special C.C. No. 28/2012.
JUDGMENT :
Maheshan Nagaprasanna, J.
1. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the proceedings in Special C.C. No. 28 of 2012 pending before the XXIII Additional City Civil and Special Judge for Prevention of Corruption Act at Bangalore.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:-
The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Executive Engineer in the Department of Public Works, Government of Karnataka, by way of direct recruitment in the year 1991 and at the relevant point of time, was working as Chief Engineer and was posted to work as Engineer Member and Chief Engineer of the Bangalore Development Authority, Bangalore in the year 2008. On 6/11/2008 at 10.15 a.m. the Lokayukta Police, received an information that the petitioner was to receive huge bribe in the official guest house at R.M.V. Extension, Bangalore and accordingly, conducted a search at 3.35 p.m. which resulted in an allegation that Rs.20.00 lakhs was recovered in the said Guest House. Based upon the said incident, police registered a FIR at about 7.40 p.m. for offences punishable under Ss. 7, 13(1)(d) read with Sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ('the Act' for short). Simultaneously, search was conducted at the residential house of the petitioner in accordance with the procedure. Search was further conducted in all the properties belonging to the petitioner and his wife.
3. The Police based upon the aforesaid search conducted, drew up three seizure mahazars. The Investigating Officer was the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta. It was declared that the petitioner was in possession of income disproportionate to his known sources to the tune of 216%. The police in the aforesaid case filed a charge sheet in Special C.C. No. 197 of 2010 against the petitioner for offences punishable under Ss. 7, 13(1)(d) of the Act. A second charge sheet was also filed by the police alleging that the petitioner now possesses disproportionate assets to the tune of 305.33%. The offence alleged there was punishable under Sec. 13(1)(e) read with Sec. 13(2) of the Act. The charge sheet results in Special C.C. No. 28 of 2012. Therefore, the case at hand revolves around two charge sheets one filed in Special C.C. No. 197 of 2010 alleging offences punishable under Ss. 7, 13(1)(d) of the Act and the other charge sheet in Special C.C. No. 28 of 2012 for offences punishable under Sec. 13(1)(e) read with Sec. 13(2) of the Act.
4. On filing of the charge sheet, the petitioner approached this Court in Criminal Petition No. 2111 of 2013. This Court by its order dtd. 2/12/2013 directed the petitioner to file a discharge application under Sec. 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, the petitioner withdrew the criminal petition with liberty to file discharge application in Special C.C. No. 28 of 2012. Exercising the liberty granted by this Court, the petitioner files discharge application in Special C.C. No. 28 of 2012. The Court hearing discharge application rejects the said application by order dtd. 31/7/2017 this has driven the petitioner to this Court.
5. The impugned order of rejection of discharge application concerns the proceedings in Special C.C. No. 28 of 2012. Insofar as Special C.C. No. 197 of 2010, the petitioner had approached this Court in Criminal Petition No. 2112 of 2013 seeking to quash the proceedings in Special C.C. No. 197 of 2010. This Court by an order dtd. 13/8/2013 allowed the criminal petition and quashed the proceedings in Special C.C. No. 197 of 2010 following the earlier judgment of this Court in the case of L. Shankara Murthy And Others. v. State By Lokayukta Police reported in 2012 (5) KAR. L.J. 545. As stated hereinabove, Special C.C. No. 197 of 2010 concerns offence punishable under Sec. 13(1)(d) of the Act. That is quashed by this Court by the aforesaid order. The discharge application was filed by the petitioner on the ground that the off
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the sanction must be accorded by the Competent Authority as per Sec. 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the material collected for on....
The competent authority to grant sanction for prosecution of an IAS officer is the Central Government under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The judgment established that the absence of sanction can be raised at the inception and at the threshold as it goes to the root of the matter. It also emphasized that the validity or illegality of t....
Point of law : Section 19(3) of the PC Act indicates that it deals with three situations: (i) Sub-Clause (a) deals a situation where a final judgment and sentence has been delivered by the Special Ju....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for prior approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the need for the sanctioning authority to consider all....
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 ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the sanction for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act must be granted by the competent authority, and subsequent government orde....
(1) Question with regard to validity of such sanction should be raised at the earliest stage of proceedings.(2) Interlocutory application seeking discharge in midst of trial would not be maintainable....
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
