IMPORTANT POINT
Criminal prosecution of public servant – No camouflage proceedings can be permitted to get over rigour of Section 17A of P.C. Act – Sanction obtained post facto under Section 19 of P.C. Act cannot cure threshold illegality of not having prior approval under Section 17A of P.C. Act.

ORDER (CAV)

M. Nagaprasanna, J.—The petitioner/accused No.2 calls in question registration of a crime in Crime No.243 of 2023 registered for offences punishable under Sections 120B, 409, 420, 465, 468 and 471 of the IPC and pending before the LXXXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.

2. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:-

The petitioner is a seasoned politician and at the relevant point in time was working as Chairman of D. Devaraj Urs Truck Terminal Limited (‘the Terminal’ for short). It is also averred that he has served as a Member of the Legislative Council for over two terms. The 2nd respondent, one C.N. Shiva Prakash, Managing Director of the Terminal registers a complaint on 22-09-2023 before the Wilson Garden Police Station that the Terminal is a Government enterprise engaged in the development and management of truck Terminal. 194th Board meeting of the Directors was held on 25-10-2021. A total of 10 Directors and the then Chairman and the then Managing Director had participated in the said meeting and about 37 items and one additional agenda item were discussed and resolutions were passed in the meeting for each item in the agenda of the Terminal. In terms of the resolutions of the day, which also contained piece work contract for the purpose of repair and maintenance work of the Terminal, the process of tender was obviated, as tenders would need time to complete the process. The repairs and maintenance work to be carried out of all their Terminals was within the limit of Rs.5/- lakhs on each terminal. Therefore, approval of the Board was sought to submit the proposal seeking permission of the Government to carry out the works directly from the hands of qualified contractors.

3. After deliberations in the meeting, a parcel-wise contract for emergency work was awarded to a Company for Rs.10 crores. This comes to be approved. Long after the exit of the petitioner and accused No.1, the incoming Managing Director registers the complaint. The complaint contains that works close to Rs.47.10 crores that were undertaken during the period of the petitioner and accused No.1 were found to be suspicious, as the works were awarded to the contractors without taking recourse to the provisions of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999. The registration of the complaint becomes a crime in Crime No.243 of 2023. Registration of the crime is what has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

4. Heard Sri Angad Kamath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri Praveen Gowda, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri M.N. Munireddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

5. The learned counsel Sri Angad Kamath appearing for the petitioner vehemently contends that, the petitioner being a public servant at the relevant point in time, working as Chairman of a Government enterprise, prior approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (‘the PC Act’ for short) ought to have been taken for any investigation to commence. Though the offence under the IPC was registered, it was factually, in entirety, offences under the PC Act. Approval under Section 17A was sought and was granted against accused No.1, but refused against the petitioner. After grant of approval, charge sheet is filed against both accused Nos. 1 and 2. Sanction is granted under Section 19 of the PC Act to prosecute, as while filing the charge sheet, offences under the PC Act are lugged in. It is, therefore, the submission that deliberately Sections 409, 420, 465 and 468 are alleged, out of which Section 409 is similar to Section 13(1)(a) of the PC Act. To get away the rigour of Section 17A of the PC Act crime is registered against unknown persons. The charge sheet is filed under the PC Act. In effect, the submission of the learned counsel is that, the offences though ostensibly clothed in IPC provisions, are in essence under the PC Act. He would seek quas