IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
K. SOMASHEKAR, UMESH M. ADIGA, JJ.
BASANAGOUDA R. PATIL (YATNAL) S/O RAMANAGOUDA B. PATIL – Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 27220 of 2023, Writ Petition No. 670 of 2024
Decided On : 29-08-2024
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. nature of the investigation and procedural flaws in consent. (Para 2 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 16) |
| 2. discussion on procedural adherence and legal jurisdictions. (Para 3 , 18 , 32 , 70 , 88) |
| 3. arguments regarding locus standi and withdrawal of consent. (Para 4 , 10 , 12 , 20 , 25) |
ORDER :
1. As common questions of law and facts arise for consideration in both these petitions, they are heard together and are disposed of by this common order.
2. The petition in W.P. No. 27220/2023 is filed by one Sri Basanagouda R. Patil (Yatnal), praying to declare the impugned order dated 28.11.2023 vide GO No. HD4COD 2023 passed by State Government produced at Annexure “D” as void and non-est and consequently to quash the same; further, for issue of a writ of mandamus to direct Central Bureau of Investigation to investigate and submit a final report; to quash the order dated 22.12.2023 issued by State Government in HD 4 COD 2023 at Annexure-”F” and such other reliefs.
3. The petition in W.P. No. 670/2024 has been preferred by the Central Bureau of Investigation against the respondents, arraigning one Shri D.K. Shivakumar as Respondent No. 6, praying to issue an order in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned Government Order dated 28.11.2023 vide G.O. No. HD4COD 2023, Bengaluru, passed by the 4th respondent/Deputy Secretary (produced as Annexure-”M” to the writ petition) and also for issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned Government Order dated 28.11.2023 vide GO No. HD4COD 2023, Bengaluru and its Corrigendum dated 26.12.2023 vide GO No. HD4COD 2023, Bengaluru, passed by the 3rd respondent/Under Secretary (produced as Annexures “P” and “Q” to the said writ petition).
4. We have heard the learned Senior Counsel Shri Kapil Sibal and the learned Advocate General Shri K. Shashi Kiran Shetty appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 1/State in W.P. No. 27220/2023 and for Respondent Nos.1 to 4/State in the connected petition in W.P. No. 670/2024. Further, we have heard the learned Senior Counsel Dr. Abhishek Singhvi appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 3 in W.P. No. 27220/2023 and for Respondent No. 6 in W.P. No. 670/2024, namely, Sri. D.K. Shivakumar. Further, we have heard the arguments of Learned counsel Shri Venkatesh P. Dalwai for the petitioner in W.P. No. 27220/2023, namely, Shri Basanagouda R. Patil (Yatnal), learned counsel Shri Venkatesh S. Arabatti for Karnataka-Lokayukta/Respondent No. 4 in W.P. No. 27220/2023 and for Respondent No. 5 in W.P. No. 670/2024 as well as the learned Spl. PP. Shri P. Prasanna Kumar for the CBI in both the petitions and perused the entire material on record.
5. In a nutshell, these petitions have been filed challenging the withdrawal of consent for an investigation against Shri D.K. Shivakumar/respective respondent in both the petitions. The investigation pertains to a case registered under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, following an income tax search conducted on 02.08.2017 that revealed a significant amount of unaccounted cash.
6. It transpires from the facts of the cases that the respective respondent in both the petitions namely Shri D.K. Shivakumar, the Deputy Chief Minister and President of the Karnataka Pradesh Congress Party, was subjected to an Income Tax Department search on August 2, 2017. During the search, Income Tax officials are said to have recovered Rs.8,59,69,100/-, including Rs. 41.00 lakhs from various premises. Consequently, a case was filed against the said respondent under the INCOME TAX ACT , 1961, before the Special Court for Economic Offences. The Directorate of Enforcement (ED) also registered a case (ECIR/HQ/4/2018). On September 9, 2019, the ED sent a letter to the Karnataka State Government under Section 6 6(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, seeking consent for investigation. The State Government consented on September 25, 2019, leading to the registration of an FIR against the said respondent. Against the FIR, the said respondent
A.R. Antulay Vs. Ramdas Srinivas
Abdul Wahab Vs. State of Kerala
Chief Conservator of Forests, Govt. of A.P. v. Collector
Common Cause v. Union of India
K. Chandrasekhar v. State of Kerela
Kotrappa Haldal v. State of Karnataka
Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan
M. Balakrishna Reddy v. Director, CBI
M.P. Special Police Establishment v. State of M.P. (2004) 8 SCC 788
Mansukhil Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat
Manzoor Ali Khan Vs. Union of India
PSR Sadhanatham Vs. Arunachalam
State of Bihar vs. Union of India
State of Karnataka v. Union of India
State of W.B. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights
Withdrawal of state consent under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act affects CBI's authority; ongoing investigations are subject to jurisdictional approval.
The court affirmed that the CBI cannot operate in a State without prior consent post-withdrawal, emphasizing the constitutional principle of federalism and the legal rights of States under Article 13....
CBI investigation – Govt. orders according general consent to exercise powers and jurisdiction under DSPE Act against private persons for alleged offences whether acting separately or in conjunction ....
State consent under DSPE Act prior to FIR registration validates CBI investigation despite earlier preliminary verification; no quashing of proceedings post charge-sheet and cognizance absent miscarr....
Lack of sanction for prosecution is not always fatal to case of prosecution.
Point of law : There is no more res integra that exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC to quash a criminal proceeding is only when an allegation made in the FIR or the charge-sheet constitutes the....
It is no more res integra that exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a criminal proceeding is only when an allegation made in the FIR or the charge-sheet constitutes the ingredients of....
The court clarified that the CBI had jurisdiction to investigate the case without specific consent under Section 6 of the DSPE Act and that the lack of specific consent did not result in a miscarriag....
Point of Law : Provisions of section 6 of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 - Officers of Delhi Special Police Establishment, a premier investigating agency, are and must be fully alive to....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.