In the absence of an authority competent to grant sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for elected legislators, the Speaker's permission must be sought by the complainant/prosecution prior to filing a charge sheet to satisfy legal requirements for proceeding with a criminal complaint.

WRIT PETITION NO.1705 OF 2023 (GM-RES)

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV

CAV ORDER

The present petition has been filed by the complainant in PCR 77/2020 seeking for issuance of writ of certiorari to set aside the communication dated 25.04.2022 addressed to the complainant. In terms of the said communication the Deputy Secretary of the Karnataka Legislative Secretariat has taken the stand that the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly is not the authority to appoint the Elected Representatives and accordingly the question of granting sanction for the purpose of carrying out investigation or initiation of prosecution or registering a complaint does not arise. Such communication has been made to the complainant upon instructions of the Speaker.

2. Aggrieved by such communication, the present writ petition has been filed seeking for setting aside of such communication and for a direction to the Respondent No.1, the Speaker of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly, to take a decision on the request for sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (“P.C.Act”, for short).

3. The lis is essentially one between the petitioner, who is the complainant and has been directed to obtain sanction, and the Hon’ble Speaker who has declined to pass an order stating he is not the appropriate authority. Accordingly, the contesting parties to the lis have been heard. Notice to other respondents has been waived as per order dated 06.11.2025.

4. The facts relevant to put the legal controversy in context are that, the petitioner had filed a complaint vide PCR No.77/2020 arraying as, the accused Members of the Legislative Assembly seeking that the court may take cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 7, 8, 12, 13 (1)(b), 13 (2) and 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120A and 120B, 171B, 201, 202 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code.

5. It is averred in the complaint that the accused no.1 is stated to have asserted in public that accused no.3 to 5 had lured him to cross over from the JD (S) Party to the BJP Party by offering Rs.30 Crores and in that regard an advance of Rs.5 Crores was paid and received by accused no.1.

6. It is further made out from reading of the complaint that the amount offered as bribe for switching over to a political party and received by accused no.1 was later returned to accused nos.3 to 5 at the instance of accused no.2.

7. Proceedings in the private complaint filed had progressed. During the pendency of the proceedings, the accused had approached this court in W.P.No.14322/2021 c/w Crl.P 5003/2021, W.P.No.14354/2021, W.P.No.16264/2021 challenging the validity of the order dated 29.12.2020 whereby the Trial Court had taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 7, 8, 12, 13 (1) (b), 13 (2) and 15 of the P.C.Act and Section 120-B , 171-B, 201, 202 and 511 of IPC as against accused nos.1 to 5.

8. The Trial Court by order dated 29.03.2021 had also directed registration of a criminal case as against accused nos.1 to 5 for offences punishable under Section 7, 8, 12, 13 (1) (b) r/w 13 (2) of the P.C.Act and 202 of IPC. The trial court had then directed issuance of process to accused nos.1 to 5 summoning them to appear before the court for facing trial.

9. Such direction of the Trial Court came to be set aside with certain directions in the writ petitions referred to above. Para 4 to 6 of the order passed in W.P.No.14322/2021 and connected matters dated 04.01.2022 is extracted as below:

“4. The memos filed by the petitioners an