State Of Karnataka By Lokayukta Police vs S M Vishwanatha S/O Marigowda on 9 March, 2011

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

State Of Karnataka By Lokayukta Police vs S M Vishwanatha S/O Marigowda on 9 March, 2011

Bench: V.Jagannathan

La)

guntas ef land. The complainant met 

{accused} once again and finaﬁy the amomizt 

was reduced to Rs.5C¥®j»~ a::d__.:he_' ae_e.Li'S"e::3'.':v.1:e}ri .:he

Supervisor of the office that unti:'}.«the[a'h1(§u_::':is 

the complainant; the me' ._eh.QuidA"' be V  the* L'

Supervisor. On 15.9.95 theV.eeVf11.p1a_innafit"met: ADLR
and asked him   the ADLR
demanded   was not
wiliing to:_.   he lodged the
complaint   which was taken

up if; *Cr.Ne'.'15/9e5'"=,ér:d' on cempletion of the

énx*est§gat€Qn,., eE1s.afgeV..._"$heet was filed againet the

 reS;p§;>n<:iet1t fo1**th__e___«aforemeniioned offences under the

' E?fe:;Ve11t;i'en'.QefCerruetion Act, 3988,

 . 5 .
 _ _'.:*~'.::&§ewmg the resjee:n&en: pleadeg me": guzéty,

me peeeeeeuiien Eed the evidence and examined 5

«'-.f2séfr}esses andeapart from producing 37 deemnents,

 .. ,V__T'§%,(}s'3e EC: 12 were marked. Sn beheéf 9:5 {Erie accused?

:::b:3ee;2.ie:':': ie {The reeorﬁéeg <3? ?;7%2€: 3? 3 eiezéenzem, §:31ﬁf~E

S «..«..;«. /<.»«a*'/assx-1:: §§£Eiii §!$ﬁF§§i%E5¥!>~--<' E5 E§E}i!§§!i€_'i|I.'\



was examine:-d gmd one <:our': witness CW1} '~.K»'&S "«a}'SVQ

exammsd. Lsarned Triai Judge after appr_r:i;:ia:Ei:g'*

evidencs on record, came to the...(::zn<:2LiVéi€:'r?_':Eiiatélihs 'V

prosecution had proved the cas€:"ag?;a if1§;t t1r;.€A'1*::Sg3Cr{(i¢¢u%;t:

in respect of the offences pL;.f:i.sha'b'£s undlar 'S€C~{i.Oi'iS 7 =

and 13(1)(<::1} I"/W' $€§_:ti0n  0f_  tﬁé "'}.%.':'£f._eA\/*fj::::§":I;:'0r1 of
Corruption Act.  -Court had that
the Drasecution-h ad f;:;ii<:.<.:I:':v>V  there was a
p1"Op€I"    sanction order

pI'€)dLiC€d €;x:§eLs:..f§';>un£i' V:§:iva1V'j§dV, the Trial Court on

this s<iv§>r€:_2::i<§:i:ﬂ .aC«qui«tﬁéd_ the mspondenté

4. 2 L'Léarr1V€'v-j 36} Sri, M.B.Gundawad€

 app'e;a.r;'§i'g uo:1 bé:ha_ify3f Sri. Jagadish Pam argued that,

 'a}§'§"the »§::~1V€'..g'f*<>_L;n,d of acquittal rested an {he finding of

1

ti':fs"7§'ria§ ":;£7'@E'§'€ 'mat £126 sanction oydsr is énvaiidﬁ the

j subr'm':.s:sé«:>r: }"1'i3,(Zi€ is than the said finding is erronésus

"V.'L».,9;::C§--grhén the Cam': had found that the prasscution had

'§3i'Zf{>'y'4£*§ 3316  ag3:ir:$:¢ the E1CC'LE$€§5 ::':<:r*€E}: becausfs

:?E":e:'s% is  €E'1"'{}E" ii": 696 s;a:2C:'i{>:: iﬁfdéiﬂ £336 =:?i,{',€j:E}S€%{§



6

6. On the ether hand, one other SUb'i'T1:1'.S_S1:€3f1

put forward byxthe appeilanfs eeuhsel is 'E'hé3.{,"'ifi~..;.fj{"E."

there was an errer in the sane:ie:f1e.QIfder,_-'the"ree'::;:5'er:'€ie:;: 

ought to have raised the said p§.,ea;"a:..~'the._ea:93ief* 11$-tags'

and having not done so, the 'ﬁzjial C4:-mt. c(3b:,11<3E:.'n<:>3: have 2 L

held the sanction order is ir1\/f;;1:1Vi"dv._ ~

7 e The submiseioh'   eounse}
for the respg§.¢'k§§:¢;¢3L;:f,.t   ie that, the
sanction    PW'~4 who was the
Uhde: and the said officer

L.r.,£I
ii-CUJ

":6. pa  'e{?;~§=?:e'i<.._'::3_.--~appoih: 01 to £"'€i":1{)\'€;' the

I'€S}GOﬁd€n;iI<f€iCCUS€_¥d'~.v beeause the respondent was

ap§_3C§'§.h:e'd th'e'vQ.r::.x"erhmeht as Asst. Director and the ~GVe=Jemm«er'::V":al_ehe eould have removed the respondem 9': {he M'é:.i§i~e:e=:*V'concerned éie {he Department and not by the 4§;}rniier.E§eeretar};".

Furiher Submission made is Ehag {here is he .V _.é;€diea%:éeh in She Sanetiieh {mifer E:<,PI% 'aha? PW»? had ,9 W» & 7 been deiegated the power by the Governme'm: "<:¥f~, i:.s Minisiez" COI1C€}'=I"1€d ':0 issue the sanction €).'E."'C'i€1"-,_€':'{1""i{'i M the abssence sf any such indie.a__ﬁL.:;n__ fer?.hVe'd::2'_i:vng"'i:§xfih-e V sanction order, the iearned Tria}:.JL€dege \i1~9_Ls"~ j_ListVifiV'e--d"'i:j holding that the sanction is tetaiiyiT:p2Vva«1_:d-winﬂaw.= L The said defect goes to the I'Q_(§fvQf.'{h€ caeevvancji there is {ailure of justice and"'~:J.i1de«r the'é;:{i*c1A"circumstances; it cannot be saidsthat :h~e~v.C1efeVet_ is ':1*1'efé{.efror which can be ignored' é Tiﬁe Qbove:=.S'L:b1'm.s:.sion is sought to be

- '.1 i$£ - ' supperteei by i"é::§.'$~'~:»',:':gi, c:':?:A ﬁve uE:CiSiCri1:> .,,1... 1 I L.A 4..

VIIIEQII §IE:i\/C UCCU taken noie, Cf. bythee "'§71ji"aI Court itseif and a}s<:2 on the <:ie<:iii;*i«:>r%;* of this-.(:Vouré: in J8. Sathyanarayana Vs State decision reported in {2QO:'3}8 S.C,C E383 E3e.:ia'n<:Ve «ia~*as;;Va1se plaeeﬁ an the decésien as? the Apex <:m§':,':. ""%¢p'§::ed in 2088(1) KLJ 33 in {he State of " Ka.:<::atzika Vs Ameer Jan.

es ;?-»>~

10. Therefore, it is argued that order being issued by an incompetent auth.nV_tfit}f,'tt:he_re is no sanction order in the eye eff iavtie§;.nt§_ é:aAs"«sL:*eh.e,A the.' entire proceedings are vitiated 3;n_d"censeeuentl}/f the Trial Qottrt was gusttfted an -the e.ee'tgsed not withetanding the fact..4_tiéat--'_Vthe.effevnees alleged against the accused aresaid tQV_h:a2/ie heen EL b_Ot.h' Sidee and the enly point thatv reVC§.uir}:';:t't0"*b»e*~.e0nSidVe%ed being the validity of the sanetien i§"Uf3f}€C€SSaT}r7 for this court to go ante the ¢::tne:* 0 the matter anti as the jud'g'}*nent pf éQ::'quitt«a} is entirely based on the Trial '--~::du-'ta: -the Sanction etder as invahd in law, this eeurt theifafeéfeh would focus its attentien enly as regards j thishhazstieet of the matter, ' E2, Theesanetz'-an etﬁer is produeed at Elxﬁiét hantciﬂthough it is issued in the name of the Gexrerner ef u""Kat"nat3,ka '::>j~,x' the Under Secretary neat/there in the entéte :i~:zianet:is:>n erc:%e§ there ;E1E"2}*' énciieatmn <2? its ;>€~w~ / «/J 9 Under Secretary being given the power to issue the sanetien erdet or is there any indication ef cietegatianef power to the Under Secretary by the C}OK?€fT1:1'::=i3t3t:"'.:_:"'

13. Second aspect is, PVKL4 the prosecution in support ofthe santctien evﬁsiet has not deposed tn his evidence thattvtvhietthets the pewer by the appointing. thefsanetion orcter. On the othegj at PW»?

indicates the relevant material pégrfnission to preseeute the cage under the Prevention of Cerrutptﬁnt is there in the evidence of Pena that the 'stppeénztng autheréty had detegated the Zpevqer tot' Under Secretary te issue the sanction ut;;Ef(i"<.°:_§t"'.t Eight ef the aforesaid tnatenej piaeed and'"t.he=fEatvfhearing en the point; we with have te decide :=t_e Whether the View taken by the Trial Soutt is . pg-eetper or not.

Secretary to Government. Having regé{1"dv.to"e-ttt R that position the order wheyetxy" s:;:fi«:'téo';:. to prosecute has been acoorcibed jxgviltfj. quashed and the objection. Ca:r1vass'ec3:"vo'r: " «' behatf of the defence x&?'i--I_t?3.ave

15. The (Apex Court i_:_:_VVVth_e'V.ease.'of_State of Goa vs Babu Thomas ((2.oQs)s has held that, where the first sao.etion:f o're1'e_19 K_zrg,é1,." issued by an meompetent§--.auttioVrits3}4.etnd seoo:"'1'<i 's'é:tnet:on order was issued 1*etros'g3ezi3t.ix*e?§f'--.ett't.e:?the iieognizance was taken, that too by'. est'-i;m.:o1:r2 "e_te'ot authority', on such facts; the court heid 'that"Vth'et'e..*§i;tt'*a:s' ho sanction order under the law and this..is4'fuhde1mentaI error which imfaiidates "-..:;t;;e---1eogn.§za:;ce aswbteting without jurisdiction, The Apex

-..Cou1*t "tt:';.s'_i..case also eonsidered the Contentions raised t3_efofe7it Concerning the provisions of section 19 ¥._a.nd cteeiéoed; to accept the argument that the CGUFE V"-"_sh_oti'?.d not; in agopeai, reverse or aiter aeny finding, senteoee or Ot"d€'f pessect E3}? 3, Sgoeeiaé Judge oz": the greeted of the absence of :;'§"';"{Z=1", omission or }'7' irreguiaﬁty in the sanction required under_.._subw se<:ti<m(1} uniess the court finds that 9. fa.i"lU..f"€V7 VQf justice has in fact been occasioned *:hereby.--fr' The M court held that the defect in the ea'se=.g0e_'s fE:roi.V <)x'f--V« the case and subsection (1) «.c1'L%:eir§§". prohibits that the court shai'§--.,fi'0t ta1¥:ex.eOgn:%ze{f;ee"Vof an offence punishable uxfzder see'ti'<;e€_:ss 'EA T',"i'3 and 15 alleged to have been coxhxhitted }f;~x.Vp§1b1ic servant, except with t_Ii.1e'.pt*evi<§;us;S:é':ne.:iei1~.g3.Saetated in clauses (a},(b) and {iii} Vv E6. _ --T?';e:'.g"*a._;_3'Ve>< 'C{§"u2f_t*vQent on to further observe that the s'anc:EiQ%1~ 0'f:ierj.i::. not a mere érreguiarity, error or O"1".1_§:1§:"'§SeiO§1, bV'uAt_é:he first Sanction order was issued by a,n'«au:ho:7iz§: €hai was no': a competent autherity is have %S~§{1 e§i 'giéfvéer anéer the Rules and the second

-- $ane€;'0:*i'Aeé*<'i'er was issued by an auiherity which was 'ﬁ3e('}:vee»r:e1';r1j':>e'::e:%:*: '£0 issue the same under fhe reiea-fan:

apes": {mm the fee: Elna? it xwgzsg issued re€;r<:>s;§3ee%:iveE;,* fw}e2%{:11 is ales: baa? The:"ef<>r::~, {he Apex Court ruied that, when the cognizance was taken, {here was no sanction order under the Eaw and thfés:V§.s"'-Va ﬁmdamentai error which invah'd:a1:es the eo.;:.§hizai":£ﬁ'e"se{'s-T ' without jurisciiezicm. ._ 1?'. In another decision oftE1e;ApexeV.CA-Igeazft infthe ease of Siate Inspector of Sorlkaram Karri (20063)? SCC 'she Apex Court that, where theA.._SVe1j.§o.':;._Vdi§yi\:'§s'i.oovs:I--'iﬁxanager was not eompetefif: ' prosecution and he also under the rules he was to remove accused from seﬁriee note of the fact that the purgoortcd de}eg;;:a_ﬁion power had never seen the Eight ;::'«:::"e .:é;§%.i11g ail these into account the Apex Cour:

Judge dié no': appiy his mino to 33} . ihesei' aspeeés of the matter, werst on to say fmaﬂy that, 5':

" 3' sanction is granted by 3, per§on no: aothoriseci ~ 1'.--é:éf--VfE22§%§s*, 836% same 'oeing '%./2'3,:*;:"1,z';2%3\,£f;,}LiF§SC§§C'{§{)E3, :a"<>u§:i be a " 2"; oiféétjg. g';,/V' 18; Appiying the aforesaid principles down ijy the Apex Court and also by this ' instant case, the sanction o:"der»AAa:_'EX.'P1¥%' mention of any deiegation Secretary by the appointing é:~:g}:hofiv:};j not' = indication in the evioeneevAV_oL{A"v}e?\'v':_sf¥ is the appointing authorit}7vzéL':seif:e1'E to revoke the respondentjétC__CUSed"Bone? CCA Rules, the appointing' .:V..eve1v£jvvin<Vifeepeet of persons holding ..iov{er.f1})o»VS§:eVVeeweﬁondent and appointing aotho1:i.:}r in the inotant Case, the Under cannot be either the appoginvtréng ao1L:tbVofit},*. or the authority competent to ;'€:i'.§1<3'\.'€Ai'i'1C?' Afeéspondent Assn Director from the services {jveE'o.gaV:§fon of power by the sanction aezfnoriijg is ind.§'ea':e.%:1 inkhe sanction orcieii The new Eaken by {he 1e:a.::*nee§'"Tria1 Judge therefore is in aeeordanee with é:e::'1;£eAe§ pe:}$é:§:3n in E?\/'E2en {he en;'é:';n<>3'§':}; 2/ﬂag; nae M':'S:'~SLZ_€{i {he $a_ne::on o:"(ie:" is neither an 21p;><3ém:§n§>,,; ;:~:»«~ ;

_.

'J'u aL:tho:"i{y nor the aL:th0r'it}i empowered to Y€I'I1OTV7C~~.>'Eh€ respondent frem the services? the sane§§e_§*;. 'e.fder therefore becomes a nullity and as such 1:he~.f"§'re£$:;§~.CeLe:';:T ' was justified in taking the saic?';vie9w i1ri:respee.: .e%f'3:he. sanction order:

19. As far as __fhe suVb.rﬁA"ivssi'©_n of :heAAa;§§peI1ant's eexmsel that the objeue'tien.e-- been taken at the earlier stage.__in viVeii*'e¥f fi1';ee»._p1*evi.s'§en contained in Section :, 19{4) in partieuiar is eonce1ﬁ"r.1e.d_§xwh'e'Ié:;::the--.ea:xCt":o--n_Qrder is nulhty in the eye of E"'*v?..an*<i' as Eifgg-.§5esb me: of the preseeutien ease itself, the"ee:i;ti:'eV'preeee«eI_§»ngs therefore would get viiiated ane:'&},1nt1er such .<;ire¢umetanees, as rightly Submizted by ~ }e.:;r'nVed:V"'eQunse1 for the respendent, ii is erﬁy aféer :«he~.,'evi{ﬁejn_ee;;'giver: 3}}; the Un_d_e:* See:'etar}* Ehai the 1*esﬁ::}r:"é:§«e1.éiE eeuid have raised zhe ebjeetieas eeneernirzg ii/ie._.sanetien r;r€%e31 The €OT}E€I"{{i{)Y1 put fe:'w.aré by {he ';1pp'eE§a:§%:'s eezmeei :32 ibis reirard aéee *:he:*e§3:'e <:am1e:

' be a_{:eep:ed. ezéw,/-

IO

20. For the above reasons, the judgmeilfz of acquittal passed by the Tried Court on the the sanctien order is totally mvahd in law th"«e_fefee:eL'c'a§E.é§ V for no interference.

21. As far as theV'[Vs.=e}bmi's-s§e:1V the} appellanfs counsel regard_i'_1%ig, éiutherity a cencerneci one more 0"p§§erta4n2§1};' 7t'e ':v?ec*:f;fy the error and tea pmceed wi1:.'a thefcase' a'gainsf_ tA}"1e"' respenden: is concerned,£i--1e >:.1j;«bfr:jss§..@rij*alsecannct be accepted for the _fQ}1Oi=%.{if":g«1.:jeasehsf' '-- «incident dates back to 5.9.95 aneiAV.E.VS'9.'~:3VJ4.._:V1'5,..'-}reé;,re"'..haVe eiapsed. since then' The ne':i<€a3--épeet« is{t}§e"reepondent is Said to have retired from'e.e1¢1fi'ce"e~.Eeﬁg back Le. in the year 200% and he is new ag;ed_€;8 years accercimg is {he éeegmed ceunsei fer the regfﬁondent as per particuiars given in the 313 Urgcier {he Said cicc1,imeiancee, 'ii car: be 1?

of mehtai agony right from the date of ease being registered against him in 1995 till the judgmet}.tVVt<:\f:":he Tria} Court in 2803 and the ametmt i'f}\~'{3i\-'€d.-t:t;i.'€}§%:f"*f;§§'ti'3§%?_V.' is 3130 said to he Rs.SQQj~. Ahhithese f;;te't'ore_'vthetefe;te does not permit thie Ceurt té---, a';.1"e'vx5 the"~eerfi}5'e.tet1¥#tt authority to issue fresh saf1_e'ti.eh <:ir=*:ier.afu.:1 't:g:v«-pIfeVeeed*. L afresh against the respQndenVt;.__t'hat tei>',..Ve't_this late stage, after nearly 16 ":\',/'éE'tf°S;._ f'}7hefeft(:»re,'». the said prayer is also rejeetecih' H eotmse': }1at>eTvLI:aEse:'hovbe«ar'i3f1g en the ease queetieh as the faetsgand eireu:e:"z;s'§'t~21bLf'1'ees in the cases eited by the app-e'Har;t's Ce..t_1hé§.eiV'are entirely different and in the ,' e:§e.ei:3ie'nh referred te by the appehahfs eeuhset reperted " éh"...2{}G'82"_~vCt§.e:t;;;LE.33E2, it was fetmei eh facts that the saficttieh efﬁer aiee eiteaﬂy reveate that the €}O\»'€3f?:Ef1'3é3¥1*{ Latter eeheidering the entire materiaE pieced befere it and X3:x:5.h1ih§t3§; the 5i{}CU.f1"TLE:1ﬁ'€S§ aee0§de::t sanction and ' ttherethrej the View takee in the Said deeéeéeh baseti W wk,»-* aw'?

i. :3 on the: set of farms which are tlotalﬁy presem: case. Hence, the two ruhngs ézzjé .:3;§Vs€§ not: V' appiicabks to the case on hand.

For all the: above: reasons, ";his_"a§)=pea1 is dismisssd' DW Eféjiégg

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court