Public servants are not entitled to protection under the P.C. Act if their alleged actions extend beyond their lawful duties.

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner in W.P.No.11128 of 2022 being accused No.1 and the petitioner in W.P.No.12635 of 2022 being accused No.2 in Special Case No.113 of 2021 pending on the file of the learned XXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for Prevention of Corruption Act , Bengaluru (CCH-24), registered for the offence punishable under Section 409 read with Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code (for short, ' IPC ') and under Section 13 (2) read with (1)(d) of (for short, 'the P.C. Act'), are seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them.

2. Heard Sri Lakamapurmath Chidanandayya and Smt. Latha S. Shetty, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.Nos.12365/2022 and 11128/2022 respectively and Sri B. S. Prasad, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent - Lokayuktha. Perused the materials on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that one Mr. B.R. Amar Singh has applied for grant of licence for carrying on mining in the schedule mineral i.e. Manganese and Iron ore during 1985. The application was forwarded to the Central Government. The Central Government granted approval for carrying on the mining activity. A Lease Deed was executed in the year 1985 along with the sketch. It is alleged that said Amar Singh has carried on mining activity beyond the licenced area shown in the sketch attached to the licence.

4. On 07.08.1999, Amar Singh sought for rectification of the plan attached to the Lease Deed. He had filed W.P.No.3571/2000 before this Court, seeking direction to the department concerned to consider his request for rectification of the area in which he was required to carry on the mining activities. The said petition was allowed vide order dated 11.02.2000 produced as per Annexure-C, directing respondent therein including the Director, Department of Mines and Geology, to consider the representation made by Amar Singh. It is thereafter, the petitioner as Deputy Secretary to the Government, put up an Office Note to be placed before the Minster concerned, who is the competent authority to accord permission. On the basis of the offence note, the Competent authority has permitted rectification of the plan. Accordingly, Amar Singh carried on the mining activity. Now it is the contention of the respondent - Lokayuktha that, various illegalities have been committed in giving such permission and a Report in that regard has been submitted.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners being accused Nos.1 and 2 have acted as per the directions issued by this Court and accused No.2 has put up the Note, which was forwarded to the Minister concerned. But without getting the sanction as required under Section 19 of the P.C. Act, the final report came to be filed against these petitioners.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance on the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court inState of Karnataka by Lokayukta Police V/s Dr. V. Chandrashekhar , Crl.RP.No.790/2015 DD 09.02.2022, to contend that the Co-ordinate Bench has considered as to whether it is necessary to obtain sanction for prosecution of the respondent for offence punishable under Section 13 (1)(e) read with (2) of PC Act, in view of his retirement from service. Learned counsel submits that the Court has formed an opinion that Section 19 of the PC Act is brought by way of amendment by Act No.16 of 2018 and held that it is to be understood as if it came into effect from the date the PC Act was first given into effect i.e. from 09.09.1988. Therefore, the Court has formed an opinion that the respondent herein cannot be prosecuted without sanction an