Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 9193
Reserved on : 20.02.2025 Pronounced on : 29.04.2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION No. 31828 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI D.S.VEERAIAH S/O SHRI SIDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS R/AT NO.73, BANASHANKARI
3 RD STAGE, BDA LAYOUT
18 TH MAIN ROAD, GIRINAGAR BENGALURU - 560 085.
X-MLC.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI ANGAD KAMATH, ADVOCATE AND SRI HARISHKUMAR C., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA BY WILSONGARDEN P.S, REPRESENTED BY HGCP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560 001.
2 . SRI C.N.SHIVA PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS S/O GOWDA NARASAPPA MANAGING DIRECTOR D.DEVARAJ URS TRUCK LTD., TTMC BUILDING SHANTHI NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 027.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI PRAVEEN GOWDA, SPL. PP FOR R1;
SRI M.N.MUNIREDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 528 OF BNSS., PRAYING TO DECLARE THE FIR DTD. 23.09.2023 AND THE RESULTANT FINAL REPORT / CHARGESHEET NO. CID/CIU/02/2024 (ANNX-A) FILED BY THE R-1 CID FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SEC 120B, 409, 420, 465, 471, 468 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 NOW PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE CITY CIVIL JUDGE , BENGALURU CCH-82 AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER HEREIN IN AS ILLEGAL AND NON EST IN LAW.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 20.02.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
Prior approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act is mandatory for investigating public servants, and failure to obtain it renders the proceedings invalid.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 120B, 409, 420, 465, 468, 471 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 17A - Writ petition challenging registration of FIR and charge sheet against public servant for offences under IPC without prior approval under Section 17A of the PC Act - Court held that prior approval is mandatory for public servants under Section 17A before any investigation can commence. (Paras 5, 12, 14)
(B) Criminal Procedure - Prosecution must adhere to legal requirements for investigating public servants - Failure to obtain necessary approvals leads to quashing of proceedings. (Paras 14)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a former Chairman of a government enterprise, challenged the registration of a crime alleging misappropriation of funds without necessary approvals under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The complaint was filed post his tenure, questioning the legality of the investigation initiated against him.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the prosecution's failure to obtain prior approval under Section 17A of the PC Act invalidated the registration of the FIR and subsequent proceedings.
Issues: Whether prior approval under Section 17A of the PC Act was necessary for investigating the petitioner as a public servant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that Section 17A mandates prior approval for investigations against public servants, and the absence of such approval invalidates the proceedings.
Result: Writ Petition allowed; registration of crime quashed against the petitioner.
CAV ORDER
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 ₹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 ₹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 ₹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 both the accused – against accused No.1, the offences are both under the P.C.Act and the IPC but against accused No.2, it is only IPC offences. 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 Page No.5 is retyped and replaced vide chamber order dated 12.05.2025 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
