SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Kar) 1463

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
M. Nagaprasanna, J.
B.A. Padmanayan S/o. B. Ashwathnarayan Shetty – Appellant
Versus
Central Bureau Of Investigation – Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 1144 of 2020 C/W Criminal Petition No. 1545 of 2020 In Criminal Petition No. 1144 of 2020
Decided On : 24-08-2022

Advocates appeared:
C.H. Jadhav, Advocate, Chetan Jadhav, Advocate, B.C. Venkatesh, Advocate, P. Prasanna Kumar, Advocate, B.N. Suresh Babu, Advocate

Headnote:(A) Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 120B, 167, 182, 193, 195, 211, 218 - Cognizance of offences against public servants - Petitioners sought to quash the order of taking cognizance due to absence of requisite sanction under Section 197 of the CrPC - The allegations involved activities purportedly conducted during official duty, necessitating sanction for prosecution. (Paras 1-18)

(B) Principle of sanction - Sanction for prosecution of public servants under Section 197 must be obtained if the actions are connected to their official duties, irrespective of whether the acts were performed in good faith or not - The matter of sanction is crucial and determines the maintainability of cognizance in cases involving public servants. (Paras 10-11, 17)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners, police officials, were accused of fabricating evidence and conducting improper investigations during a raid related to an illegal lottery operation allegedly involving one Pari Rajan. The Magistrate had taken cognizance of offences against them without the requisite sanction post-investigation by the CBI.

Findings of Court:
The taking of cognizance was invalid due to the absence of sanction; the court emphasized that all actions linked to official duties require legislative protection to prevent harassment of public servants.

Issues: 1) Whether a case exists for the prosecution of public servants without proper sanction; 2) The scope of actions undertaken in discharge of official duties under criminal law.

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that any act performed by a public servant in the course of their duties leading to prosecution must have clear sanction from authoritative bodies, focusing on the necessity of safeguarding public servants from frivolous accusations linked to their official functions.

Result: The order taking cognizance was quashed, allowing the prosecution to seek appropriate sanction.

Table of Content
1. introduction of factual context and allegations (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. court's analysis of the prosecution's arguments (Para 4 , 6 , 9 , 10)
3. arguments over the necessity of sanction for prosecution (Para 7 , 8)
4. understanding the requirement for sanction under law (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
5. final judgment regarding the order of cognizance (Para 18)

JUDGMENT/ORDER

M.NAGAPRASANNA,J. - The petitioners in Crl.P.No.1144 of 2020 are accused Nos.1 to 6, 8 to 10 and petitioner in Crl.P.No.1545 of 2020 is accused No.7 in C.C.No.1139 of 2020 and have knocked the doors of this Court calling in question order of the XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore taking cognizance by his order dtd. 14/1/2020 for offences punishable under Ss. 120B, 167, 182, 193, 195, 211 and 218 of the IPC.

2. Brief facts that lead to the filing of the present petitions, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:-

The 1st petitioner was, at the relevant point in time, working as Inspector General of Police, Excise enforcement and Lottery Prohibition Wing ('the Wing' for short) and claims to have served the Police Department for more than 3 decades. Similarly all the other petitioners in these petitions are Police Officers who had worked in different capacities in the Wing. On 6/3/2015 Suvarna News TV Channel broadcast a sting operation conducted by journalists attached to the said channel on certain persons dealing in lottery business in the State of Karnataka which by then was declared to be illegal. The news published was that the kingpin of the lottery business was one Pari Rajan @ Rajan who was carrying out the business in lottery though it came to be prohibited by promulgation of Lottery Prohibition Act in the State of Karnataka.

The news also mentioned that the said kingpin had nexus with Police Officers at higher levels who had assured that they would take care of all the hurdles that would come about in the business.

The telecast generated huge criticism to the Wing and the Superintendent of Police and other Police Officers attached to the Wing were all transferred. One Prakash, CW-25 was posted as Sub- Inspector of Police to the Wing at Bangarpet where accused Pari Rajan was carrying on his business.

3. It is the case of the prosecution that on 30/4/2015 at about 1 p.m. Mr. Prakash receives credible information that Pari Rajan was carrying on lottery business illegally and had to be searched. On receipt of the said information Mr.Prakash informs the same to petitioner No.1 who directs conduct of a raid with panchas and staff and accordingly, search was conducted in the house of accused No.1 Pari Rajan in the said case and seized several incriminating materials like computer, printed lottery tickets, cheque books, cash of Rs.38,985.00, and mobile phone etc. Mr. Pari Rajan came to be arrested and thereafter, crime in Crime No.64 of 2015 came to be registered under Ss. 5 and 7 of the Lottery Prohibition Act and Ss. 120B, 188, 420 r/w 34 of the IPC. In the course of investigation the police recorded statements of several persons. At that stage Government directed investigation to be taken over by the CID Police. Accordingly, the entire investigation was handed over to CW-44 of the CID Police and the CID Police after conducting investigation filed a charge sheet on 29- 06-2015 against accused No.1/Mr. Pari Rajan for offences punishable under Ss. 5 and 7(3) of the Lottery Prohibition Act and Ss. 463, 467, 468, 471, 474, 420 r/w 34 of the IPC. On the final report filed by the CID, the learned Magistrate by an order dtd. 29/6/2015 took cognizance of the offence and issued process against accused No.1 Pari Rajan which is pending trial in C.C.No.758 of 2015.

4. When things stood thus, based upon a report submitted by the Director General and Inspector General dtd. 6/5/2015 which had recommended that investigation is to be handed over to the CBI as the issue had wide ramification in the State and outside th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top