Karnataka High Court
Sri.S.S.Tuppad S/O Sri.Sangappa ... vs State Of Karnataka on 8 December, 2009
Author: Ajit J Gunjal
Bench: Ajit J Gunjal
IN 'THE HIGH mum' OF KAR;-eATAKA AT BADIG.{&g$;§:R§"
BATES THIS THE: am my 01:-* D13CEMB_E£'€ 2'{3f{}9 '4_ % T 1
BEFORE
mg HONBLE Mr.JUsr§;cE Mfr
WRFI' PETYTION No.232'?"1v.V..._C}.§'_2O(§9(C§IvIV4¥Kf;A}
BETWEEN: " M 1'
Sri S.S.T'uppaé, A
S/0 Sri Sangappa: "I'L1pp:§.d,» '
Aged about 55 ;§?'€e':1f1';S,V . 'V
Deputy--Di1%:(;tcsf «of "$é3;'i(3i1,i1"]jI*~f3, ' '
G«over1";ment'-:;fo<ioc§_:1 M=33*két; H " 3
Vijayapura;vD¢Vf:anéh:1i1i'*Ta1ui:; " V ' "
Bangaiozife R1;réi,§'.{)istriCt«.._V ; ...PE'I'I'I'IONER
(Sr: M.S.B§1agWat '{i3:LIE'é§Lvar1esh, Advs.)
AND: 5 V
' ' .\Stafi5 cf Eifliiiataka,
' "D¢par"i:::3;3t:At:.of Commerca and
.;ir:cut1$€:'1¢::sT'-(S€r1cuii:2.1re}
K Represétéfltatid by its Secretary,
'M.S:B7L¥fldH1g,
Ba,r1g:aiore~560 Gr} 1.
x V' V. 2: "E'.1:1& Addifional Qirecztor,
" -:'i"':.«:~,¥I:€ral of Poiica,
Kmflataka Lokayuktha,
T' Dnfimbcékar Vfifidhi,
Ba3:1ga1m*e-56O 001*
3. Enspecmr sf Ponce,
Police Division,
Lakayuktha Police Staticm,
Bijapur. . . ~ .b
(Sri Narandra Prasad, HCGP for R1; Sri S'1.1(1:i"1£§:If§aT "?}f£ti, '
Aeiv. For R2 a11ciR3) * ~:'
This writ petition is filed 1;n(?a:er'--.A.1"ticie&; 26
of the Constitutior: of Er1c§i=;;1 pmyhzg 'ts 'V«.._'q:3ash the'
impugned order éated I3.VV1"1.200'2',._ *pa'sse.3 by the
respondent Vidfi A1mexure--~C _€QV't§16='v_§%'I'it pr:ti,tion5
This writ petititzix x(':o13::%11g Q:i"'fQfi &pr€1iraina;3; iqearing in 'B' Group this day, £116-($013331 fm:-idév th€:_'.fo1i0wing:
'?€'1'1e §7e'{i£jv0;1£§r'1s4:§11:'estioniI1g the order passes? by the respondeflt acCc)r&d-ii1g"s,a.%"16€ion to prosecute the petitioner undrf:r--vS¢ctit<511.VA19'{§f'tihe 'Prevention of Corruption Aifit. ' " TA2v.._V4Th§:.1:éJatter arises in the faileswirzg Hlarmer:
".."""Afiét}t¢-Vfélevazzt point sf time, the petitioner was "%V<)};'}:{JfI1%g'=§3,'iZV the affice of the Assismnt }:}ii'€Ct(}£", Sezictfiture V' '~11' B'ij_ap1;1r. The (33,536 of the Karrxataka Lokayuktfxa P131106 iiés; that on 30.37.1996, the petitioner accepted a sum 05 Rs.5G(3/- fmm on Smtiiamalabai, W/0 §<Z.M.Basappa ts /.
3 grant; certain benefits while he was wmfiking in the said afiice. The case of the petitioner is that the Additional Director Gsneral of Paiice, Kaxnataka addressed a letter to the respondent on seeking sanction. from the respafidefl: '£0 » f petitioner under Section 19(1)(£j}.__ A. L Corruption Act, 1988. If éf th'é.V petitioner fhai: the case of pmsecutian declined £6 for prosecutien pursuém: fi駣$d 11.11.1999, copy of the order is 1:0 be fozzaixfi Thareafter, pursuant to an o;'d§:1_§ datezi §'4..V;O 'fv3;.2CA):i30, the respondent reinstaied {he peti,t:'u31er..a;fid, regulmized the period of suspension and :é.1*aé¥:f.é._ as an duty, Suffme it '£0 say that
-- aI1Gt4:E}€«Z""'V C(.3)ii{11I}iJI1i(:£1€iOI} "$523.3 issued fram thé affice (If u an 22.11.2{}G(} £6 I'€Vi€'W $316 ordar passad by G{}V€I'I1i'I1€I1t rega1'°d:%_r1g sanctjan far prosécuticn. " fiiideaé, pumuani: 1:0 the said cemmunicatiorz; certain new K, ,/5/' material was Scmght ':9 be piaced befsre the Gavermnentfl 4 for sanciion. The respondent, having regard to the aeiditional mateziai pieced before it, was ef the viéexe it is a fit ease where the orfier passed by deciining {(3 grant sanction is required _-'f<5 "' . Thus, reviewed the order »1.g%) Lokayukta to prosecute teas L' questioiled by the fieetifie;1.ef.{' Veigiaxnataka Adzininistrative mama; 1445 1 /02. The Txibunai passed V-tfzéxeieeafier, dismissed the appiicatiém-.gs'¥.;:g;t "131_ainiaiI1abie, inasmuch as, the Trib1Lz1a_1"'1::a"t?le% to entertain the application filed ;b3;_tI*1e.V petitioner. In these Circumstances, the ieeefere this Court: questioning the order at' S3nC'£iet1; F *1V' _ ' V .
A }\.~ie_,L' :;B§1agw'at, Ieameci eeuzzsei appearing fer the 'geaetiiieziefveheziiently submits {fiat me new matexéal was befere the second respondent by the investigating ggeficfy' 1:0 persuade the Govemmeilt to take a dfierentfl '/ View than the one takan earlier. He submits the materials were the same and once the resp0n<1s::H:; to grant sanciicn tmder Sectien 39 of the for them to review" the same material is foithccmhzg. V3534 ruhng of the Apex Court %:é§s.é, OF' mamas AND A£fO*1fEmR._V_3i§iGHAhfl'V3§)iEi} IQBAL BKATTI reported in 80 and an unrfiperted 'of ' I.}f1~~*'CI'iH}iI}3I Revision Petitiofi No. W February 2008.
4, iaajned counsel appeariflg fer v .i;_I'1e Aiéupgzvsrts the sanction Grcier. He subnxits '-.§Z§'13f'1i)L1Z"Sfi£3i",it §iL'}.thfi second cennnunicatien I}{3'W material was V'§£f§1AagC€:'CIV'Vi"}§?f;0§E 131$ sanctiéming authority" He further _ submits mme of the matfiriai which was thaw alraady vféizfjord was deiibfirateiy ignored and the earlier eréer ____" 'Wa§3 passed deciining to grant szsmcticsn for pmsecuiiion. ' .H6 §3I'€$ses irate sezvise two mjings af me Apex Court ./ :-
Ir 'E' which is fiaught to be pressed into service by Mr.Bh2-agwat himself. Apparéntly, the Apex Court in the Case 0f__STATE OF PUNJAB mm ANOTHER vs. MOHAMMEB. £ Q°B'4AL BHATTI reporiezd in 2009(5) SUPREME 80""3:1aé'§:'}§i§'$é%:?9v"€;éci».' '€111.33: '. ' u "Although the State in the i;2at%er%T%srTTgq~gan%£ as refusal 1:0" grant sa1}Ct'i§)11__exér'ai$c:s jurisdiction, the same, "L'11.{_§x;i*e_fs.7ez'," 'wgijxuid fgot 11133:} that p0saz=&é1*..._g};1c;{:'"éX<:¥ijci§e{1 cs.n:'i0¥;" be exercised once 'a'g:e1if1.L._ f3'Ff;:>:r 'é%3XI3 fCiSiI1g its jv::r'iSdi<:itiior1'& ei'~s§ubs€~{q1i*e'i1t stage, (express Pfiwei" sf ':§'ét?_iV'eja&%"t_11é Staff? 1118}? 11013 53 necessary a"s; ..«5:'£':%:zi such a power is . ~admiI:iSirati:Is: E1 Character. "
U§'.i'§i91 jjifiilcipifi in mind, one will have ta assess:
"'w_1'1%:_é;i4i&"1" of sanctian far f3I'0S€CE."E£iQIi at 3 V VV _ $z11§'$$q:;:}€5:1€"""_Stag& is jE.IStifi€d, it is is be I'"10'{ZiC€d that in . 'f:3's'3-{:3 instaxice, the reasan far fiacfig ta grant _ f;=€:*3:I}§ssion was essentiaiiy on four gsunds; that, as an "'1':I::€ date when tha maney was csfilereé. :0 the petiiimzer on 19.67. 1996, ii was stated that the pe'a"€i0ner was an 3. 1:02.23." M 'I , Q J Vi¥*&sVL'd6<iiij1§6;; ._ ._ anfi i'€1Z11I"1"l€d to Bijapur in the évening, tfu§::~:.,»_?'~._t.h€ cmmplainam; advancing the 131036? ts éa Ce:%tair14'":ié§:' nest arise. In the statement I'€(:(}_]T€i»€.(_1_40I1_'(}6;"1:::i::V..£998, 1:3f;é complainant had stated that an <51' paid on 19.0?.1996 at abo1}Vié._Ea$';-3_O pL'I11,__ on which sanction was §.lecli;;1€:§:A.i;f*9;S~»..t.}1aht:' éven 1:116 csmplairmnt was not the amount it is only at the of éfiiount was paié.
The i7<_:;::::~€i%"1;' Vfji:e::« _f:;f,ei%;1ent made by the ciemon§5;{%1§ t§)f:vj'3§1;_g;~ in the office of the p€:7ti°{'i01"1é1',_ 1183': have fiver; a stamment agaizjsf, his s§u:;3_eVI'i(}rs. Hence, an thesé gouiids SaI1C'i;iOi1 : V"g%;,p;;$!ai:%z2ti3;F, afier the saici refusai, the
-V inv§?Sii.géé.§if1g V agency at iakayukta haé 561:: some more ..f:ti3te§iai"which is in the nature 0f Eab reparf. 9:" fsrsnsir:
' 'Indead, AI'};1"1€X'L§I'(:i-C vmuld clearly disciose 1:113: " sarzcfitmirxg authority has appiied itfi mind and has referred tea the reasons given by the authority 9;;-3;;-4§:ai'Zier accasion to decline sanction and has met a}I'A«t§10.3e..i'%::$:e;c>j1s"
by stzbsequent material which ?§;?és"'p}ac=ed.;4':$§:i'Oz'e 'In 7 fact, the few' reasozrzs for r¢fusa1"hé1;<.r;e bee':1'_ 1fi'et. I';ii€'i':r.':té'c-':,L insofar as first ground for ref o11V.2ai":3_V§~:21.1":§§ieV1;"1v;:>'V{'5;c:§Vz2¢';s3z1{;I1 has been stated that éatgd 3611996, the tour progamme is étatefi that the petitioner We;3t':;§§I"1 and returned to the headq:§ar'1?§§1*,%fV. complainant met the (flared him E31500/«. This has beefi ti'ia1"fi '1eV€1 Sanctionixig auth(::rity has found t§'1at._{ 1;i1e. said " carmct be doubted. Indeed the ::Ii;r2(;}.'1§;{f;g«.%1':1:z§;'ai::ria} which Weighed with the sanctieriing sanciion is the report of the chemima}.
'V exa3:tii;1é3j sééherem the hands 6;? the pefificnér '%3f€£'€ Washéé " --- had tmmeé pinkish and the hands were further y ' in phenoiphthaiein and it was found that he had " Eoitzched the currency notes which were aisa sprayed with pha:2ol.ph%:}131€ir:. On this Ciinclzjng maiiariai the Ii) szmctianiiig authtyrity was of the View that the 't:::*t{.a;ez' requires review. Hausa, has g;'s;1I1t6d.V__§'>e,1f11:£i§;:",~si4on' 'fie ' prosecute the petifioner.
8. it is also brought "{}T1:é1;t'v:'%'.$ '!.%l':§.?S€{§{l;("3i1t L' the di.-émissai of the agpiicafi.§fi' :9,diI;;b;1istrative Tribunai, the med anti it is numbered as 'dig. Sp}. Court at Bijapur. to appear on 1:. 12.2.rge9%. "'§%h3£'ge--sheet was filed on 25.08.fi.g}0'3._ 9; _i12s4v:§fatf 3% decision in the case Gf SATYA % it Vs. sum or I-IAJASTHAN' l sc 2356, it is to be noticed that it V V _ is a"'€aS€:VWh;'£{.:h éeais with whether an iniarim order could V3;*an'£;é«Ei staying 81$ prasecuiienfi The Apex Court was 'tiff Vtixé View that such a stay of trial cannot be ganted VT " 'w'f1ere the trial of the public servant for sorruption charges ' A. are pending. insofar as the gower of the respondent to £2 11 saficfien for the second time is concerned, the Apex Court has observed that the validity of the sanction ca11_e_:"11y be considered at the time when it is filed before tEje--» Judge. i am of the View that there could be the sancfioning autlfxerity revisi:1g"'it--:s;. 'oven epiréienv-befvexfe f A' the sanction. order is placed befofe_ti2eA' *In. on hand, it is to be no§'eedV %f;.'1::'.fi**;.e1::e:f<3"re. the order' was placed before the :'('¢eur{;'t}1eVe_: is Indeed, the Apex Court aiso in $t.t'1e' :--'Sj'..' AI'E or PUNJAB AND fi£?2;:gV"«vV.:'_§iOIf$"VI§.3v&MED IQBAL BHATTI 80 has observed thus:
5"1'lj1e eafietiehhig etuthofity mus: apply its even s§;1ei'1""nV1ate1*ia1 facts and evidences ' " during the investigation. Even such of mind does not appear frem the A o1i§ie':%,LAc5fA sanctien, extxinsie evidences may be piggeed before the Com': in that behaif. Whiie x 'T '»g*ant1'z1g SaIi{3T;iOI}, the authority cannot take i1'}t0 censideratien an irrelevam: fact 130:" can it pass an order on extrarxeous eozisideratien not germane. fez' passing 8. etatxitoxjy order. It fl 12 is 23130 wail settled that the superior Ccsrtnfts-._ "[._ Carma: din-,ct the sanctionmg authe1i¢i5z:'_' ~ "
either 1:0 want sancticm or 110:: to do sc>;'?' " . ' "' ' The apex Cou1't'whil(~: dealing p§w'<2i*s ' to raview its own order regarding"--seirsctiozg?ha$ bbé:«efi:e£:i" , thus:
"It was, t¥:1c:refo:§(:¥;'- ._ 110.35 a iwilera fresh materials were placed bfifbfe a:"1th0I'ity.4 . h¥__o cg1éé th§;r;€f0::*§_ was made out far the guthoytity V failed to ta£§ié" c<§if£S§(i€:!f}sztion._""éi' V relevam fact or tdok'i1}to an irrelevant fact. "
In t11¢_(;aseLéi1_hand, ii: ié"'%0 be noticed that while declirfing V' «tin saiégztiong sanctiomilig auizhority has igmared chemicai exaxniner. That has been taken noiiczpuf $33? sazzctianirlg authority While reviewing the '=.-zirjderk Héfice, I am of the View that '£116 procsedirzxgs zmmlld fall within the ratio of decisiens 'i3}'}T1_iCh are to above. Indeed, I have dsalt only with the fl / 13 in1pugned order of sanction fer proaacutiorn tauii I:§_o€.',j (311 merits.
Consequemly, I am of the _ sanction for prosecution can§i:)f"'b¢ Cii$'$ti1§'b€3(}1. _Peti1:i<)n stands Mr.Narend-1:~a Pras;a'~d",:' is perlnitteci to file memo 0f€a;;f;s;i:{'..ai--;¢e§2V§fi1i.1: weeks. % Sd ..