Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka, By Karnataka ... vs T.R. Krishnamurthy, Psi on 30 June, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2003CRILJ3977, ILR2003KAR2980, 2003 CRI. L. J. 3977, 2003 AIR - KANT. H. C. R. 2134, 2004 (3) KCCR 2268, (2003) 3 KCCR 2268, (2003) ILR (KANT) (4) 2980, (2003) 4 RECCRIR 530, (2003) 6 KANT LJ 556, (2004) 1 ALLCRILR 664
Author: K. Bhakthavatsala
Bench: K. Bhakthavatsala
ORDER Bhakthavatsala, J.
1. This is a Criminal Revision Petition filed by the State under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, directed against order dated 24.2.1996 passed in Spl.Case no. 17/ 95 on the file of Special Judge, Bangalore, discharging the Respondent/Accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, on the ground of invalid sanction for prosecution of the respondent/Accused.
2. The Respondent/Accused is represented by the learnedAdvocate, Sri A. V. Srinivas.
3. For the purpose of convenience, the Respondent is referredto as ' the Accused' as arraigned in the Trial Court.
4. The brief facts of the case leading to the Revision Petitionmay be stated as under:
The Respondent / Accused being a Public Servant, while officiating as a Sub-Inspector of Police, Bidadi Police Station on 3.8.1993, demanded a bribe of Rs. 1,500/- from the Complainant/Sri S.V. Ravi for showing an offical favour ie., for not registering a case against him and in furtherance of the demand, the Accused received a part payment of Rs. 500/- from the Complainant on the very same day morning and again on 3.8.1993 at 3.30 p.m. the Accused demanded and accepted the balance bribe amount of Rs. 1,000/- from the Complainant. On the basis of the Complaint, Lok Ayuktha Police arranged trap proceedings and the Accused was trapped. The Investigating Officer, after obtaining sanction from the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Range, laid charge sheet against the Accused for the above -said offences. Thus, the Case came to be registered in Special Case No. 17/95 on the file of Special Judge, Bangalore. After the Accused entered appearance in the above-said case, his Counsel argued before the Special Judge contending that there was no valid sanction to prosecute the Accused. The learned Special Judge, for the reasons recorded by him, held that there was no valid sanction to prosecute the Accused and therefore discharged the Accused for the offences alleged against the Accused. This is challenged in this Revision Petition.
5. As a matter of fact, the present Revision Petition came to bedisposed of by order dated 25.11.1997 by Mr. Justice S.R. Bannurmath. The learned Judge, for the reasons recorded by him, dismissed the Revision Petition, with an observation that it was open for the prosecution to initiate proper proceedings in accordance with law, if so desired. The State, feeling aggrieved, preferred Criminal Appeal No. 315/2000 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The Apex Court, by order dated 31.3.2000, disposed of the abovesaid Criminal Appeal, with an observation that the documents on which the State wants to rely upon in support of its contention have not been placed before the High Court and the High Court had no opportunity to examine the correctness of the submission of the State. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 25.11.1997 was set aside and the matter was remitted back to this Court for re-consideration and dispose of the case in accordance with law. Therefore, the case is restored on File for further proceedings.
6. The State has produced the following six documents for perusalof this Court:-
Document No. (1) : DG and IGP memo bearing No. E4C/16/81-82 dated 11.7.1985 with regard to Recruitment of Police Sub-Inspectors (Civil) 1981.
Document No. (2): DIG of Police, Training, memo bearing No. TRG-I-33/85-86 dated 13.8.1985 with regard to Recruitment of Probationary PSIs (Civil) cum appointment orders along with list of 49 candidates.
Document No. (3): Copy of Home Secretariat notification dated 6.10.1967 relating to Mysore State Police Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1967 (Pages 1619-1641).
Document No. (4): Copy of notification bearing No. DPAR 13 SRD 94 dated 15.9.1994 regarding Karnataka State Police Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1967.
Document No.(5): Copy of Home Secretariat Order No. HD 349 PEG 89 dated 26.10.1989 specifying the Officers, to whom Appeals shall lie against the orders passed by the prescribed Officers, annexed with copy of Schedule.
Document No. (6): Copy of proceedings of the Government of Karnataka, Order No. DPAR 144 SPS 82 dated 30.4.1982 regarding creation of the posts of Commissioner and Addl. Commissioner of Police, Bangalore City.
As per Document No.(1), DG and IG of Police communicated to the DIG of police to issue appointment letters to be selected candidate on or before 1st August 1985.
As per document No (2), the DIG of Police, Training-I has issued appointment orders to the candidates, as Probationary P S Is (Civil), for joining at the Police Training College, Mysore, the name of the present Accused finds a place as against No 3320 at Page No 1 of the Annexure.
Documents No (3) is nothing but copy of Mysore Police Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1967 with regard to Sub-Inspector of Police, the Appointing Authority is Deputy Inspector General/Commissioner (vide page No 1633). The method of direct recruitment of Sub-Inspector of police to the extent 62 2/3% is by a Committee consisting of certain Officers viz, the Secretary to Government, Home Department as Chairman of the Selection Committee, Inspector General as Member etc. The Accused was selected directly as against Police Sub-Inspector (Civil) Recruitment notification of 1981 as per the Mysore State Police Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1967, which was in force during the year 1981 and subsequently in the year (1985) of appointment, and the Appointing Authority was Deputy Inspector General.
Document No 4/notification dated 15.9.1994 reveals that the Karnataka State Public Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1967, the Karnataka State Police Services (Ministerial Recruitment) Rules, 1965 and the Karnataka State Police Services (Shorthand Bureau) (Recruitment) Rules, 1974, in so far as they relate to the recruitment to the category of posts viz, DG and IGP, DGP, ADGP, IGP, DIGP and Superintendent of Police, are repealed.
Document No. 5 contains the Offices to whom Appeals shall lie against orders passed by the prescribed Officers. As per the Schedule, at Sl. No. 4, for the Officers of the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police, the Officers of the rank of Deputy Inspector General of Police is the prescribed Appointing Authority. The prescribed Disciplinary Authority is (i) the concerned Officers of the rank of Superintendent of Police, to whom the Police Officer is subordinate at the time of taking action under the Rules (ii) the concerned Officer of the rank of Dy. Inspector General of Police, to whom the Police Officer in subordinate and at the time of taking action under the Rules.
Documents No. 6 shows that the Government created posts of Commissioner and Addl. Commissioner of Police in Bangalore City, for the purpose of strengthening the Police set up in the City to achieve certain objects. According to the said order of the Government, the post of the Commissioner and Addl. Commissioner of police, Bangalore City, is equivalent in status and responsibilities to the post of IGP and DIG of Police, respectively.
7. Heard the learned State Public Prosecutor, Sri H.S. Chandramouli, for the Petitioner/ State and Sri A. V. Srinivas, learned Advocate for the Respondent/Accused.
8. Though the case of the Accused is that DG and IGP appointedthe Accused as Sub-Inspector, he has not produced any document to establish that DG and IGP is the Appointing Authority.
9. The learned Trial Special Judge in Para-7 of the impugned order has made reference to the provisions of the Karnataka State Police Services (Recruitment) Rules and said that the Sub-Inspectors are selected 60% by direct recruitment and 30% by promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-merit from the cadres of A S I of Police/ Head Constables and the remaining 10% by selection of inservice candidates from the cadres of ASI/HC/PC, but no such Rules copy is available in the Case file. The learned Trial Judge has not mentioned the year of Rules, which he referred to. Even the learned Counsel appearing for the Accused has not produced any such Rules to establish that such a Rule was in force, when the Accused was appointed by DIG of Police.
10. Under such cicumstances and in view of undisputeddocuments produced by the State, I am of the considered opinion that DIG of Police is the Appointing Authority with reference to the case of the Accused
11. In Para-8 of the impugned order, the learned Trial Judge has referred to Article 311(1) of the Constitution of India, which is relating to dismissal/removal or reduction in rank of persons employed in civil capacities under the Union or a State. The Case on hand is not relating to dismissal, removal or reduction in rank. Therefore, I am of the opinion that there was no need to refer to Article 311(1) of the Constitution of India by the learned Trial Judge.
12. Now, I refer to Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, (for short, the Act) relating to necessity of previous sanction for prosecution Section 19 of the Act provides for previous sanction for prosecution in the case of a person employed in connection with the affairs of the Union, State Government or other authority. Further, under Section 19(3) of the Act, on the ground of irregularity of sanction, no finding of the Court can be reversed also no Court can stay the proceedings in the cases because of irregularity in sanction or on any other ground. It is not necessary that the Authority competent to give sanction for prosecution or the Authority competent to remove the public servant should be vertically superior in the hierarchy, in which the officer of the public servant exists. The power to give sanction for prosecution can be conferred on any Authority. Such Authority may be of the Department, in which the public servant is working or an outside Authority. All that is required is that the Authority must be in a position to appreciate the material collected against the public servant to judge whether the prosecution contemplated is frivolous or speculative. In the instant case, admittedly, the DIG of Police, Central Range, has accorded sanction to prosecute the Accused. As per Document No (3) viz, Mysore State Police Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1967, with regard to Sub-Inspector of Police, the appointing Authority is the Deputy Inspector General. Therefore, the sanction accorded by the DIG, Central Range, who is the appointing Authority, is valid. The learned Special Judge has discharged the Accused of the offences alleged him on the score that sanction accorded was not by the appointing authority of the Accused, without referring to Mysore Police Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1967.
13. Hence, for the reasons said supra, I pass the following order:-
The Petition is allowed. The order dated 24.2.1996 passed in Spl Case No 17/1995 on the file of the Special Judge, Bangalore City, is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Trial Court for disposal in accordance with law.