##PAGE1##

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 04^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

CRIMINAL PETITION No.5096 OF 2024

BETWEEN:

MR. NARASIMHA MURTHY

S/O LATE DASAPPA

AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS

RETIRED RANGE FOREST OFFICER

TUMAKURU RANGE, TUMAKURU

R/O NO.83, 2^ND CROSS

SAHYADRI BALAGA

SIDESHWARA LAYOUT

SIDEDAHALLI

BENGALURU – 560 073.

... PETITIONER

(BY SRI PARAMESHWAR N. HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY

TUMAKURU LOKAYUKTHA POLICE

REPRESENTED THOROUGH ITS

SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

BENGALURU – 560 001.

2. STATE OF KARNATAKA

REPRESENTED BY

##PAGE2##

2

PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR

OF FOREST

(HEAD OF FOREST FORCE)

4^TH FLOOR, ARANYA BHAVAN

13^TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM

BENGALURU – 560 012.

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI LETHIF B., ADVOCATE FOR R-1;

SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R2)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF

CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN

SPL.C.NO.117/2022 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S

13(1)(e) R/W SEC.13(2) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT

AND PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT

AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT TUMAKURU.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND

RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS

DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

CAV ORDER

The petitioner, sole accused, is at the doors of this Court

calling in question proceedings in Special Case No.117 of 2022

registered for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(e) and

##PAGE3##

3

13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter

referred to as ‘the Act’ for short).

2. Heard Sri Parameshwar N. Hegde, learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner, Sri Lethif B, learned counsel appearing

for respondent No.1 and Sri B.N. Jagadeesha, learned Additional

State Pubic Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.2.

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

The petitioner, at the relevant point in time, was working as

Forest Officer in Tumkur Zone. A source report is drawn against the

petitioner alleging amassing wealth disproportionate to his known

sources of income on 28-11-2016. Pursuant to the said source

report, a crime comes to be registered against the petitioner in

Crime No.5 of 2016 for the offences punishable under Sections

13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Act. Pursuant to the registration of crime,

the investigation gets complete on 10-07-2018. Since investigation

was complete and final report had to be placed before the

concerned Court, the file was placed seeking sanction as obtaining

##PAGE4##

4

under Section 19 of the Act. On 17-01-2019 sanction to prosecute

the petitioner was accorded. A year thereafter, the sanction that

was accorded to prosecute the petitioner comes to be withdrawn.

The petitioner then retires from service on attaining the age of

superannuation on 31-08-2020. On the ground that amendment to

the Act would not require sanction to prosecute a retired employee,

charge sheet comes to be filed before the concerned Court by the

Lokayukta on 18-02-2022. The concerned Court takes cognizance,

registers Special Case No.117 of 2022 and proceedings progressed.

The petitioner then calls the said act in question before this Court

on the score that the respondent Police could not have filed a

charge sheet.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would

vehemently contend that investigation was conducted and

concluded prior to the amendment to the Act. Sanction to prosecute

the petitioner was accorded. After it being accorded, but before the

charge sheet could be filed, it was withdrawn. It is an admitted fact

that charge sheet was not filed before the concerned Court before

withdrawal of sanction. Therefore, there was no sanction in the eye

##PAGE5##

5

of law. The petitioner retires on attaining the age of superannuation

after the sanction for prosecution was withdrawn. The charge sheet

then comes to be filed before the concerned Court on the ground

that to a retired employee there need not be sanction. The learned

counsel submits that the act of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document