1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 08^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

WRIT PETITION No.16291/2017 (GM- RES)

BETWEEN:

V.SATYANARAYANA

S/O LATE VENKATARAMAIAH,

AGE 49 YEARS,

OCC: AGRICULTURE

ADD: SUGGATTA ROAD

HUNASEMARANAHALLI

JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUKA

BENGALURU RURAL.

... PETITIONER

(BY SRI VENKATESH P.DALWAI, ADVOCATE (PHYSICAL

HEARING))

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA

BY POLICE INSPECTOR,

KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA

BENGALURU CITY DIVISION,

BENGALURU - 1.

... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI B.S.PRASAD, ADVOCATE (PHYSICAL HEARING))

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226

AND 227 OF INDIAN CONSTITUTION R/W 482 OF CODE OF

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER

2

DTD.21.3.2017 PASSED BY THE LEARNED LXXVII ADDL.

CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SPECIAL JUDGE,

BANGALORE CITY IN SPECIAL CASE NO.70/2011 VIDE

ANNEX-D CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION

DTD.5.10.2016 VIDE ANNEX-B.

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND

RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 03.08.2021, COMING ON

FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE

FOLLOWING :-

ORDER

The petitioner in this writ petition calls in question

the proceedings in Special.C.C.No.70/2011 pending

before LXXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge

and Special Judge, Bengaluru.

2. Facts in brief are as follows:

The

petitioner

who

was

a

member

of

Hunasemarahalli village Gram Panchayath was accused

of demanding bribe of Rs.25,000/- from one Suhail

Khan for approving the plan and licence relating to

construction of a building. A trap was laid in the office

of the Gram Panchayath while accepting illegal

gratification, pursuant to an FIR being registered in

Crime No.36/2010. The trap was laid on 31.08.2010 by

3

the Lokayuktha police and was found receiving the

bribe amount of Rs.3,500/- from the complainant. On

completion of the investigation, the Lokayuktha police

filed a chargesheet alleging that the accused/petitioner

has committed offences punishable under Sections 7, 9,

13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 8Act9

for short).

3. During the pendency of the proceedings, taking

strength from the evidence of P.W.1/C.W.16, petitioner

filed an application seeking discharge in terms of

Section 19 of the Act on the ground that there is no

valid sanction in the eye of law to prosecute the

petitioner. It is the rejection of this application by the

Special Court that has driven the petitioner to knock

the doors of this Court in the subject petition.

4

4. Heard Sri.Venkatesh.P.Dalwai, learned counsel

appearing for petitioner and Sri.B.S.Prasad, learned

counsel appearing for respondent.

5.

The learned counsel appearing for petitioner

would submit that sanction was initially accorded by

the Competent Authority who is the Minister for Rural

Development and Panchayathraj which was found fault

with by the Additional Director General of Police

(hereinafter referred to as the 8ADGP9 for short),

Lokayuktha and the file was sent back to the Competent

Authority for reconsideration. The Secretary, Rural

Development

and

Panchayathraj

withdraws

the

sanction and grants a fresh sanction in accordance with

what the Additional Director General of Police had

sought. The fresh sanction that was accorded to was

not placed before the Competent Authority, therefore, it

has vitiated the entire proceedings is his emphatic

submission.

5

6.

On

the

other

hand,

learned

counsel

representing

the

respondent-Lokayuktha

would

vehemently refute these submissions and contend that

a mistake that had crept in was directed to be rectified

which does not take away the sanction accorded in

terms of Section 19 of the Act by the Competent

Authority and it was only certain typographical error

that was sought to be rectified.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the

submi