IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the authority to grant sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act must be correctly identified, and failure to do so can lead to erroneous discharge of accused.

ORDER :

1. These two petitions are filed challenging the order dated 23.08.2017 passed by the Trial Court in allowing the discharge application filed by the accused No. 1/petitioner and giving liberty to proceed further in accordance with law and to file charge sheet afresh after obtaining necessary sanction from the Competent Authority.

2. The factual matrix of the case of the Karnataka Lokayuktha police in Crl. R.P. No. 422/2018 is that the complainant was working as a Supervisor in M/s Prashanth Crushers Limited and the company operates many vehicles including tippers. Accused No. 1 was working as a Senior Inspector of Motor Vehicles at RTO Office, KR Puram, Bengaluru. Accused No. 1 used to threaten the drivers of tipper vehicles sating that he would seize the vehicles if they do not pay him periodical bribe. In this background, CW1-Manjunath met CW17-Sanjeevarayappa, T-Police Inspector, Lokayuktha whereupon he gave him a voice recorder to record the conversation whereby accused No. 1 was said to have made a demand for bribe amount of Rs.24,000/- and after bargaining, he reduced it to Rs.18,000/-. Since the complainant was not inclined to pay the bribe amount, he gave written information to the Lokayuktha Inspector, who arranged for the trap. He secured two independent witnesses who were the Government servants and in their presence, conducted pre-trap proceedings. During the course of pre-trap proceedings, an amount of Rs.15,000/- was entrusted to the complainant to be handed over to accused No. 1 upon demand. Thereafter, CW17 along with his staff, two independent witnesses and the complainant left to the RTO office, KR Puram, Bengaluru, where accused No. 1 was working. Accused No. 1 was trapped while demanding and accepting illegal gratification of Rs.15,000/- from the complainant through accused No. 2-HB Mastigowda - a private person who is alleged to have received the amount at the instance of accused No. 1. The Lokayuktha police, after completion of investigation, obtained Sanction Order from the Commissioner of Transport, for prosecution against accused No. 1 and filed charge sheet against the accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 8, 13(1)(d) r/w 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

3. In pursuance of suit summons, accused Nos. 1 and 2 appeared before the Court. Accused No. 1 has filed an application under Section 227 read with Section 239 of Cr.P.C. seeking for discharge. The learned Spl. P.P. has filed statement of objections and seriously opposed the said application.

4. The Trial Court taking into note of the grounds urged in the application and the contention raised in statement of objections, formulated the point as follows:

Whether there are sufficient grounds to frame charge and proceed with trial of the case as against the accused persons?

5. The Trial Court taking into note of the grounds urged in the application and also taking into note of the issue involved with regard to validity of the Sanction Order, taken up for consideration as preliminary issue. The Trial Court comes to the conclusion that accused No. 1 is a Group-B Officer and charge sheet would discloses that competent authority to accord sanction is the Government and the Sanction granted in this case is by the Commissioner of Transport, which is invalid and no sanction in the eye of law and comes to the conclusion that the Sanction is invalid and non-est and it is just and proper to return the entire charge sheet papers to the Investigating Agency with liberty to the State to proceed further in accordance with law and to file a charge sheet afresh after obtaining necessary sanction from the Competent Authority as far as accused No. 1 is concerned who is a public servant along with accused No. 2.

6. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Lokayuktha Police have filed the criminal revision in Crl. R.P. No. 422/2018 on the ground that as per the Notification No. DPAR in No. SI.A.SV.I.46 SE.E.VI.2008 dated 11.02.2010