Karnataka High Court
H P Rangaramanayaka vs State Of Karnataka on 1 August, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:26778
CRL.RP No. 643 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 643 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
H.P. RANGARAMANAYAKA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
S/O LATE PUTTANNANAYAKA,
CHIEF ENGINEER (NOW RETIRED)
RESIDING AT NO.242, 8TH CROSS,
11TH MAIN, J.C. ROAD,
K.C. LAYOUT,
MYSURU - 570 011
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI: P. NATARAJU, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed AND:
by PAVITHRA
N 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Location: High BY DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
Court Of KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA POLICE STATION,
Karnataka CHAMARAJANAGARA - 571 313.
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR AND DISCIPLINARY
AUTHORITY,
THE KARNATAKA RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT,
GRAMEENABHIVRUDDHI BHAVANA,
4TH AND 5TH FLOOR,
ANANDA RAO CIRCLE,
BENGALURU - 560 009.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI: B.B. PATIL, SPP FOR LOKAYUKTHA
R2 SERVED)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH
SECTION 401 CR.PC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
17.03.2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRL. DISTRICT AND
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:26778
CRL.RP No. 643 of 2023
SESSIONS JUDGE AT CHAMARAJANAGAR IN SPL.C.NO.247/2018 ON
THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER SEC.227, 239
OF CR.PC AND SEC.19 OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT
AND MAY BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE APPLICATION ON ITS FILE AS
PRAYED FOR, BY ALLOWING THIS RP.
THIS CRL.RP, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The accused in Spl.C.No.247/2018 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chamarajanagar (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court' for brevity), is impugning the order dated 17.03.2023, dismissing the application filed by him under Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act ('PC Act' for short) and under Sections 227 and 239 of Cr.PC seeking discharge.
2. It is the contention of the prosecution that the accused being the Executive Engineer in Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited, Bengaluru, has amassed wealth which are disproportionate to his known source of income and thereby, committed the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) r/w Section 13(2) of PC Act.
3. Initially, on the basis of the source report filed by the Investigating Officer, search and seizure of movables was held. After investigation, charge sheet was filed for the above -3- NC: 2023:KHC:26778 CRL.RP No. 643 of 2023 said offence. The accused has appeared before the trial Court and filed an application under Sections 227 and 239 of Cr.PC seeking discharge. The same was dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 17.03.2023, which is being impugned in the present revision petition.
4. Heard Sri P.Nataraju, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.B.Patil, learned SPP for respondent No.1- State. Perused the materials on record including the trial Court records.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is arrayed as accused and it is not in dispute that he was working as Superintendent of Engineer in Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited. But the accused disputes the validity of the order of sanction relied on by the prosecution to prosecute him. Unless there is a valid sanction to prosecute the petitioner, the prosecution cannot proceed to prosecute the accused. The trial Court has not taken into consideration the valid grounds urged by the petitioner, but proceeded to dismiss the application mechanically. Therefore, he prays for allowing -4- NC: 2023:KHC:26778 CRL.RP No. 643 of 2023 the review petition and to discharge the accused in the interest of justice.
6. Per contra, learned SPP for the respondent- State opposing the revision petition submitted that after due investigation, a detailed charge sheet came to be filed against the accused. He was working as Executive Engineer in Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited and the Appointing Authority being the Managing Director, accorded sanction to prosecute the accused after being satisfied with the materials placed before him. It is premature to contend that sanction is invalid and it suffers from irregularity. Learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ashok Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation1 in support of his contention.
7. Learned SPP further submits that the trial Court considered the contention taken by the accused, in light of the settled proposition of law and rightly rejected the application. There are no reasons to interfere with the impugned order and therefore, prays for dismissal of the revision petition. 1 (2014) 14 SCC 295 -5- NC: 2023:KHC:26778 CRL.RP No. 643 of 2023
8. In view of the rival contention urged by learned counsel for the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is "Whether the impugned order passed by the Trial Court suffers from perversity or illegality and calls for interference by this Court?"
My answer to the above point is in the 'Negative' for the following;
REASONS
9. The accused before the trial Court is impugning the order passed by the trial Court dismissing the application filed by him seeking discharge. The only ground urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is that there are irregularities in the order of sanction passed by the Sanctioning Authority. According to him, the Sanctioning Authority has not recorded his satisfaction on perusal of the materials that are placed before him by the Investigating Officer, to satisfy himself with the commission of offence by the accused for the purpose of according sanction. The copy of the order of sanction dated 05.10.2018 passed by the Managing Director and the -6- NC: 2023:KHC:26778 CRL.RP No. 643 of 2023 Disciplinary Authority, Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited, Bengaluru, is produced before the Court. As per the sanction order, the final report prepared by the Investigating Officer is placed before the Sanctioning Authority seeking sanction. The Sanctioning Authority considered the materials placed before him and satisfied himself that the accused has amassed vast wealth which is disproportionate to his known source of income to the extent of 61.73%. Prima-facie the Sanctioning Authority considered the materials on record and accorded sanction. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that there is non-application of mind by the Sanctioning Authority or that he has not considered the charge sheet materials cannot be accepted at this stage. Even if, there are any irregularities in according sanction, that could be made out only after full fledged trial.
10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Ashok Kumar (supra) referring to its earlier decision in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Dr. Krishna Chandra Saksena2 extracted para No.8 of the said judgment which reads as under;.
2 1996 11 SCC 439 -7- NC: 2023:KHC:26778 CRL.RP No. 643 of 2023 "8.........the sanctioning authority was satisfied after complete and conscious scrutiny of the records produced in respect of the allegation against the accused. Now the question whether all the relevant evidence which would have tilted the balance in favour of the accused if it was considered by the sanctioning authority before granting sanction and which was actually left out of consideration could be examined only at the stage of trial when the sanctioning authority comes forward as a prosecution witness to support the sanction order if challenged during the trial. As that stage was not reached the prosecution could not have been quashed at the very inception on the supposition that all relevant documents were not considered by the sanctioning authority while granting the impugned sanction."
11. The Hon'ble Apex Court after referring to its earlier decision, summarized the legal position in para No.16 as under;
"16. In view of the above, the legal propositions can be summarised as under:
16.1 The prosecution must send the entire relevant record to the sanctioning authority including the FIR, disclosure statements, statements of witnesses, recovery memos, draft charge sheet and all other relevant material. The record so sent should also contain the material/document, if any, which may tilt the balance in favour of the accused and on the basis of which, the competent authority may refuse sanction.-8-
NC: 2023:KHC:26778 CRL.RP No. 643 of 2023 16.2 The authority itself has to do complete and conscious scrutiny of the whole record so produced by the prosecution independently applying its mind and taking into consideration all the relevant facts before grant of sanction while discharging its duty to give or withhold the sanction.
16.3 The power to grant sanction is to be exercised strictly keeping in mind the public interest and the protection available to the accused against whom the sanction is sought.
16.4 The order of sanction should make it evident that the authority had been aware of all relevant facts/materials and had applied its mind to all the relevant material. 16.5 In every individual case, the prosecution has to establish and satisfy the court by leading evidence that the entire relevant facts had been placed before the sanctioning authority and the authority had applied its mind on the same and that the sanction had been granted in accordance with law."
12. On going through the order of sanction placed before the Court, the Sanctioning Authority was aware of all the relevant facts and materials and prima-facie, he has applied his mind to such relevant materials. Therefore, it is too premature to come to the conclusion that the sanction order passed is without application of mind. The accused will be at liberty to -9- NC: 2023:KHC:26778 CRL.RP No. 643 of 2023 take such defence during the trial to substantiate the same. Therefore at this stage, I do not find any reason to entertain the petition and to discharge the accused.
13. I have gone through the impugned order passed by the trial Court. The trial Court on proper appreciation of materials on record, came to the right conclusion. I do not find any reason to interfere with the same and the same is liable to be dismissed. Hence, I answer the above point in the 'Negative' and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE PN