Karnataka High Court
T Somla Naik vs State By Lokayukta Police Station on 18 December, 2024
Author: N S Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N S Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:52395
CRL.P No. 4078 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4078 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
T. SOMLA NAIK,
S/O TUKYA NAIK,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
PSI, BASAVANAGAR POLICE STATION.
NOW WORKING AS POLIC INSPECTOR,
RAILWAY POLICE STATION DAVANAGERE,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.
DAVANAGERE-577001.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. C.H.JADHAV., SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI.S.G.RAJENDRA REDDY., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally
signed by
KIRAN STATE BY LOKAYUKTA POLICE STATION
KUMAR R DAVANAGERE
Location:
HIGH REPRESENTED BY SPL. P.P
COURT OF KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA,
KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. VENKATESH.S.ARABATTI., ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CPC.,
PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET AND ENTIRE
PROCCEDINGS IN SPL.LOK.No.1/2019 PENDING ON THE FILE
OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
DAVANAGERE REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTION 13(1)(e) READ WITH 13(2) OF THE P.C. ACT.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:52395
CRL.P No. 4078 of 2019
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 20.11.2024, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
CAV ORDER
1. The facts, as could be ascertained from the pleadings
and also the synopsis filed by the respondent, are as
follows:
2. On 10.04.2014, a source report was prepared which
indicated that the petitioner was in possession of
assets disproportionate to his known source of
income by an extent of 154.18%. An authorization
was granted under Section 17 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, "the PC Act") to
investigate the offence and on the same day, a crime
was registered in Crime No.4/2014 for commission of
offences under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section
13(2) of the PC Act. The FIR stated that the
petitioner was in possession of disproportionate
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:52395
CRL.P No. 4078 of 2019
assets to the extent of 149.45% for the check period
01.06.1993 to 24.04.2014. The investigation was
also commenced on the same day and a search
warrant was also obtained.
3. After the investigation was completed, on
20/21.06.2016, the Additional Director General of
Police (ADGP), Karnataka Lokayukta submitted a
request to the Director General of Police (DGP),
seeking sanction to prosecute the petitioner. The said
letter reads as follows:
"PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ
¢£ÁAPÀ:20-06-2016
¸ÀASÉå:¯ÉÆÃPï/LJ£ï«(f)/¹nJ¯ï-12/ªÉÆ.¸ÀA.04/2014 zÁªÀtUÉgÉ
®UÀvÀÄÛ:-CAwªÀÄ vÀ¤SÁ ªÀgÀ¢ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À ¥ÀæwUÀ¼ÄÀ .
gÀªÀjUÉ,
ªÀiÁ£Àå ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï ªÀĺÁ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÄÀ ºÁUÀÆ ªÀĺÁ¤jÃPÀëPÀgÄÀ
¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï ¥ÀæzsÁ£À PÀbÉÃj,
£ÀÈ¥ÀvÀÄAUÀ gÀ¸ÉÛ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼Æ
À gÀÄ.
ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉÃ,
«µÀAiÀÄ:- ¸ÉÆêÀiÁè£ÁAiÀÄÌ, ¦J¸ïL, §¸ÀªÀ£ÀUÀgÀ ¥Éǰøï oÁuÉ,
zÁªÀtUÉgÉ, ºÁ°: ¦ L eÁUÀvÀ zÀ¼À, ¨É¸ÁÌA, zÁªÀtUÉgÉ
EªÀgÀ ªÉÄð£À zÁ½ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è C©üAiÉÆÃd£É ªÀÄAdÆgÁw
DzÉñÀ ºÉÆgÀr¸ÀĪÀ §UÉÎ.
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:52395
CRL.P No. 4078 of 2019
G¯ÉèÃR:- zÁªÀtUÉgÉ ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ ¥Éǰøï oÁuÉ UÀÄ£Éß £ÀA:04/2014
PÀ®A:13(1)(E) eÉÆvÉUÉ 13(2) ¦.¹.DPïÖ 1988.
D¥Á¢vÀgÁzÀ ²æà ¸ÉÆêÀÄä£ÁAiÀÄÌ vÀAzÉ vÀÄPÁå £ÁAiÀÄÌ, ¦J¸ïL
§¸ÀªÀ£ÀUÀgÀ ¥Éǰøï oÁuÉ, zÁªÀtUÉgÉ, ºÁ°: ¦ L eÁUÀvÀ zÀ¼À, ¨É¸ÁÌA,
zÁªÀtUÉgÉ ªÁ¸À:370/110, 2£Éà ªÀÄÄRå gÀ¸ÛÉ, 1 CqÀØ gÀ¸ÛÉ, DZÁAiÀÄð §qÁªÀuÉ
(eÉÆìĸÀgÀ PÉÃj), ºÀgÀ¥À£ÀºÀ½î, ¸ÀéAvÀ HgÀÄ: PÁ°é vÁAqÀ, ºÀÆ«£ÀºÀqÀUÀ°
vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, §¼Áîj f¯Éè EªÀgÄÀ vÀªÄÀ ä §®è ªÀÄÆ®UÀ¼À CzÁAiÀÄQÌAzÀ ºÉaÑ£À
¥ÀæªÀiÁtzÀ D¹ÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉAzÀÄ w½zÀÄ §AzÀ «±Áé¸ÁºÀð,
ªÀiÁ»wAiÀÄ£ÀéAiÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj DgÉÆævÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ zÁªÀtUÉgÉ ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ oÁuÉ
ªÉÆ. £ÀA. 04/2014 gÀ°è ¢£ÁAPÀ 24-04-2014 gÀAzÀÄ PÀ®A 13(1)(E)
eÉÆÃvÉUÉ 13(2) jÃvÁå ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀ£ÄÀ ß zÁR®Ä ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ vÀ¤SÉ
PÉÊUÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
£ÀAvÀgÀ WÀ£À «±ÉõÀ f¯Áè ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀvÀæ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ, zÁªÀtUÉgÉ gÀªÀjAzÀ
¢£ÁAPÀ:24-04-2014 gÀAzÀÄ ±ÉÆÃzsÀ£À DzÉñÀªÀ£ÄÀ ß (¸ÀZïð ªÁgÉAmï)
¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ, ¢£ÁAPÀ 25-04-2014 gÀAzÀÄ DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ
PÀÄlÄA§ ªÀUÀðzÀªÀgÄÀ ªÁ¸ÀªÁVgÀĪÀ 1) ªÀÄ£É gÀA.370/110, 2£Éà ªÀÄÄRå gÀ¸ÛÉ,
1£Éà CqÀØ gÀ¸ÉÛ, DZÁAiÀÄð §qÁªÀuÉ (eÉÆìĸÀgÀ PÉÃj), ºÀgÀ¥À£ÀºÀ½î, 2) D¸ÀC
gÀªÀgÀÄ ªÁ¸ÀªÁVgÀĪÀ ¨ÁrUÉ ªÀÄ£É £ÀA ¹4/J, GqÀVj, JgÀqÀ£Éà ªÀĺÀr, 9
£Éà PÁæ¸ï, ©.¨ÁèPï, zÉêÀgÁd CgÀ¸ï §qÁªÀuÉ, zÁªÀtUÉgÉ. 3) D¸ÀC gÀªÀgÄÀ
PÀvÀðªÀå ¤ªÀð»¸ÀĪÀ zÁªÀtUÉgÉ £ÀUÀgÀzÀ°ègÄÀ ªÀ §¸ÀªÀ£ÀUÀgÀ ¥Éǰøï oÁuÉ, 4)
D¸ÀC gÀªÀgÀ ¸ÀºÉÆÃzÀgÀ ²æà n. ¥ÀgÀªÄÉ Ã±À£ÁAiÀÄÌ, PÁ°é vÁAqÀ, ºÀÆ«£À ºÀqÀUÀ°
vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, §¼Áîj F ¸ÀܼÀUÀ¼À£ÄÀ ß ¥ÀAZÀ ¸ÁQëUÀ¼À ¸ÀªÀÄPÀëªÄÀ ±ÉÆÃzsÀ£É ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ,
±ÉÆÃzsÀ£Á PÁ®zÀ°è PÀAqÀÄ §AzÀ ZÀgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¹ÜgÁ¹Û CAzÀgÉ UÀȺÉÆÃ¥ÀAiÉÆÃV
G¥ÀPÀgÀtUÀ¼ÀÄ, a£Àß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¨É½î, ¨ÁåAPï r¥Á¹mï, £ÀUÀzÄÀ ºÀt, J¯ÉPÁÖæ¤Pï
ªÀ¸ÀÄÛUÀ¼ÀÄ, ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀUÀ¼ÄÀ ºÁUÀÆ d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼ÄÀ , EªÀÅUÀ½UÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀ
zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÉÃjzÀAvÉ «ªÀgÀªÁzÀ ¥ÀAZÀ£ÁªÉÄAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVzÉ.
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:52395
CRL.P No. 4078 of 2019
vÀ¤SÉAiÀÄ GzÉÝñÀPÁÌV ZÉPï ¦jAiÀÄqï£ÀÄß (¥Àj²Ã®£Á CªÀ¢ü) ¢£ÁAPÀ:
01-06-1993 jAzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 24-04-2014 gÀªÀgÉUÉ ¤UÀ¢ü¥Àr¸À¯ÁVzÉ.
vÀ¤SÉAiÀÄÄ ¥ÀÇtðUÉÆAqÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ DgÉÆævÀgÀ ªÀ±ÀzÀ°èzÝÀ MlÄÖ D¹Û, RZÀÄð
ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DzÁAiÀÄUÀ¼À MlÄÖ ªÉÆvÀÛªÅÀ F PɼÀV£ÀAvÉ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
Calculation of D.A.(so far)
Sl. Particulars FIR Investigation Difference
No.
1 Assets prior to - - -
check period
2 Assets at the end 43,21,000=00 66,08,069=00 +22,87,069=00
of check period
3. Assets during 43,21,000=00 66,08,069=00 +22,87,069=00
check period (2-1)
4. Expenses incurred 14,08,286=00 24,03,492=00 +9,95,196=00
during check
period
5. Total of assets & 57,29,286=00 90,11,561=00 +32,82,265=00
Expenses {3+4}
6. Income earned 22,54,000=00 36,79,899=00 +14,25,899=00
7. Assets 34,75,286=00 53,31,642=00 18,56,366=00
disproportionate
{6-5}
8. Percentage of D.A 154.18% 144.88% -9.30%
{(7/6) X 100}
Assets disproportionate X 100 = 144.88%
Income earned
PÁgÀt DgÉÆævÀ C¢üPÁj ²æà n ¸ÉÆêÀiÁè£ÁAiÀÄÌ EªÀgÀÄ vÀªÄÀ ä ¸ÉêÁ
CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ°è CAzÀgÉ ZÉPï CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ°è vÀªÄÀ ä J¯Áè ªÀÄÆ®UÀ¼À DzÁAiÀÄQÌAvÀ®Æ
gÀÆ. 53,31,642=00 ªÀiË®åzÀ CAzÀgÉ ±ÉÃPÀqÀªÁgÀÄ 144.88 % C¸ÀªÄÀ vÉÆî£À
D¹ÛUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÀ£Àß ºÁUÀÆ vÀ£ßÀ PÀÄlÄA§zÀ ¸ÀzÀ¸åÀ gÀ ºÉ¸Àj£À°è CPÀæªÄÀ ªÁV UÀ½¹zÀÄÝ
PÀ®A 13(1)(E) gÉ/«13(2) ¦.¹.DPïÖ 1988 CrAiÀÄ°è C¥ÀgÁzsÀªÉ¸ÀVgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ
¸ÀàµÀÖªÁV UÉÆÃZÀgÀªÁVvÀÛzÉ.
DzÀ PÁgÀt DgÉÆævÀgÀ£ÄÀ ß ®AZÀ ¤gÉÆÃzsÀ PÁAiÉÄÝ 1988gÀ PÀ®A
13(1)(E) eÉÆvÉUÉ 13(2)gÀ CrAiÀÄ°è£À ²PÁëºÀð C¥ÀgÁzsÀPÁÌV
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:52395
CRL.P No. 4078 of 2019
C©üAiÉÆÃUÀUÉƽ¸À®Ä ¸ÁPÀµÄÀ Ö ¸ÁQë ¥ÀÅgÁªÉUÀ¼ÄÀ ®¨såÀ «gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. DzÀÝjAzÀ
C¥Á¢üvÀgÁzÀ ²æà n ¸ÉÆêÀiÁ£ÁAiÀÄÌ EªÀgÄÀ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ PÁAiÉÄÝAiÀÄrAiÀÄ°è
C©üAiÉÆÃUÀUÉƽ¸À®Ä CºÀðjzÀÄÝ, ¸ÀzÀj DgÉÆævÀgÀ£ÄÀ ß C©üAiÉÆÃd£ÉUÉ
M¼ÀªÀr¸ÀĪÀ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ C©üAiÉÆÃd£Á ªÀÄAdÆgÁw DzÉñÀ ºÉÆgÀr¸À®Ä
PÉÆÃgÀ¯ÁVzÉ.
vÀªÀÄä ¸À» ºÁUÀÆ ¥ÀzÀ£ÁªÀÄ «ªÀgÀUÀ¼À£Æ
É ß¼ÀUÆ
É AqÀ ªÀÄÆ®
C©üAiÉÆÃd£Á ªÀÄAdÆgÁw DzÉñÀªÀ£ÄÀ ß £ÀqÀªÀ½ ªÀiÁzÀjAiÀÄ°è ºÉÆgÀr¹ F
PÀbÉÃjUÉ ªÀÄÄA¢£À PÀæªÄÀ vÉUÉzÄÀ PÉƼÀÄîªÀ ¸À®ÄªÁV PÀ¼ÄÀ »¹PÉÆqÀĪÀAvÉ F
ªÀÄÆ®PÀ PÉÆÃgÀ¯ÁVzÉ.
vÀªÄÀ ä «±Áé¹,
¸À»/-
C¥ÀgÀ ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï ªÀĺÁ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÄÀ
PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ,
¨ÉAUÀ¼Æ À gÀÄ."
4. The final report that had been prepared was also
furnished to the DGP -- the Competent Authority as
contemplated under Section 19 of the PC Act.
5. The petitioner had submitted a representation dated
03.11.2016 to the DGP contending that the request
made for grant of a sanction to prosecute him should
be acceded to since the investigation officer had
committed an error in his investigation in as much as
he had stated that the petitioner had not furnished
his statement of sets and liabilities and that he had
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC:52395
CRL.P No. 4078 of 2019
neither secured the list of assets and liabilities from
the Government or the appropriate authority or from
him.
6. The Competent Authority on consideration of the
final report submitted by the investigation officer
and also the representation dated 03.11.2016
submitted by the petitioner, proceeded to pass
an order on 20.12.2016 in the following terms:
"À¸ÀASÉå: 22/¹§âA¢-2/¥ÀǪÀ/2014-15 ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï ªÀĺÁ ¤jÃPÀëPÀgÀªÀgÀ PÀbÉÃj
CqÀPÀ :vÀ¤ßPÀªÀgÀ¢ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀzÀj ¦L ¥ÉƪÀð ªÀ®AiÀÄ, zÁªÀtUÉgÉ,
gÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£À« ¢£ÁAPÀ:20/12/2016
UÉ,
ºÉZÀÄѪÀj ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï ªÀĺÁ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÄÀ
PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ,
§ºÀĪÀĺÀrUÀ¼À PÀlÖqÀ,
¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ - 560 001.
ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉ,
«µÀAiÀÄ: ²æà n.¸ÉÆêÀiÁí£ÁAiÀÄÌ, ¦.J¸ï.L, §¸ÀªÀ£ÀUÀgÀ ¥Éǰøï oÁuÉ,
zÁªÀtUÉgÉ f¯Éè ºÁ° ¦L, ¨É¸ÁÌA eÁUÀÈvÀ zÀ¼À, zÁªÀtUÉgÉ
EªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ zÁªÀtUÉgÉ ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ oÁuÉAiÀÄ°è
zÁR¯ÁVgÀĪÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀt ¸ÀA:04/2014 gÀ°è C©üAiÉÆÃd£Á
ªÀÄAdÆgÁw PÀÄjvÀÄ.
G¯ÉèÃR: 1. ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ C¢üPÈÀ vÀ eÁÕ¥À£À ¸ÀA: ¹D¸ÀÄE/2/¸ÉÃE«/98,
¢£ÁAPÀ 16/07/1998.
2. C¥ÀgÀ ¥ÉÇ°Ã¸ï ªÀĺÁ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÄÀ , PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ
¨ÉAUÀ¼ÆÀ gÀÄgÀªÀgÀ ¥ÀvæÀ ¸ÀASÉå: ¯ÉÆÃPï/LJ£ï«(f)/
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC:52395
CRL.P No. 4078 of 2019
¹nJ¯ï-12/ªÉÆ.¸ÀA/4/2014, zÁªÀtUÉgÉ, ¢£ÁAPÀ:
20/06/2016
3. ²æà l.¸ÉÆêÀiÁè£ÁAiÀÄÌ, ¦.J¸ï.L ºÁ° ¦.L, ¨É¸ÁÌA eÁUÀÈvÀ
zÀ¼À, zÁªÀtUÉgÉ gÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£À« ¢£ÁAPÀ: 03-11-2016.
ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ, G¯ÉèÃR(2)gÀ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è ²æÃ
n.¸ÉÆêÀiÁå£ÁAiÀÄÌ, ¦.J¸ï.L. §¸ÀªÀ£ÀUÀgÀ ¥Éǰøï oÁuÉ, zÁªÀtUÉgÉ f¯Éè
ºÁ° ¦L, ¨É¸ÁÌA eÁUÀÈvÀ zÀ¼À, zÁªÀtUÉgÉ EªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ zÁªÀtUÉgÉ
¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ ¥Éǰøï oÁuÉAiÀÄ°è zÁR¯ÁVgÀĪÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀt £ÀA: 04/2014gÀ°è
vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjAiÀÄ CAwªÀÄ vÀ¤SÁ ªÀgÀ¢ DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ¸ÀzÀjAiÀĪÀgÀ ªÉÄð£À
DgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÉ ¸Á©üÃvÁVzÀÝjAzÀ, C©üAiÉÆÃd£É ªÀÄAdÆgÁw DzÉñÀ ¤ÃqÀ®Ä
CAwªÀÄ vÀ¤SÁ ªÀgÀ¢AiÉÆA¢UÉ F PÀbÉÃjUÉ w½¸À¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
²æà n.¸ÉÆêÀiÁè£ÁAiÀÄÌ, ¦.J¸ï.L, §¸ÀªÀ£ÀUÀgÀ ¥Éǰøï oÁuÉ, zÁªÀtUÉgÉ
f¯Éè ºÁ° ¦L, ¨É¸ÁÌA eÁUÀÈvÀ zÀ¼À, zÁªÀtUÉgÉ gÀªÀgÄÀ G¯ÉèÃR(3)gÀ°è
ªÀÄ£À«AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¹, vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjAiÀĪÀgÄÀ vÀªÄÀ ä vÀ¤SÁ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ°è vÁ£ÀÄ
¸ÀPÁðj ¸ÉêÉUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀzÀAzÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ D£ÀAvÀgÀ 2004-05 £ÉÃ
¸Á°£ÀªÀgÉUÉ vÁ£ÀÄ D¹Û ªÀÄvÀÄÛ zÁ¬ÄvÀé ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®èªÉAzÀÄ vÀ¥ÁàV
w½¹zÀÄÝ, vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjAiÀĪÀgÀÄ vÀ£ßÀ ¸ÉêÁªÀ¢üAiÀÄ°è ¸À°è¹zÀÝ J¯Áè D¹Û ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
zÁ¬ÄvÀé ¥ÀnÖUÀ¼À£ÄÀ ß ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀªÁUÀ° CxÀªÁ vÀ£ßÀ £ÉëĹzÀ
¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀzÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀªÁUÀ° ¥ÀqÉzÄÀ PÉƼÀîzÉà zÉÆõÀ¥ÇÀ jvÀ vÀ¤SÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß
PÉÊUÉÆArgÀĪÀÅzÁV, vÀ£ßÀ ¤®ÄªÀ£ÄÀ ß ¸ÀªÀÄxÀð£É ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀî®Ä vÀ£ÀUÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ
CªÀPÁ±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀzÉÃ, vÁ£ÀÄ ¥Àj²Ã®£Á ¥ÀǪÀðzÀ°è ºÉÆA¢zÀÝ D¹ÛUÀ¼À §UÉÎ
AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà vÀ¤SÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁqÀzÉà EzÀÄÝ, ¥Àj²Ã®£Á CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ°è, UÀ½¹gÀĪÀ
D¹ÛUÀ¼À ªÉÆvÀÛ gÀÆ.19,82,663.50 UÀ¼ÄÀ ºÁUÀÆ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ RZÀÄðUÀ¼À ªÀiË®å
gÀÆ.22,13,921-00 MlÄÖ 41,96,584.50 UÀ¼ÁVzÀÄÝ, vÁ£ÀÄ ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀĪÀ vÀ£Àß §®è
ªÀÄÆ®UÀ¼À DzÁAiÀÄ gÀÆ.49,74,651-00 UÀ¼ÁVzÀÄÝ, vÁ£ÀÄ ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀĪÀ
DzÁAiÀĪÀÅ vÁ£ÀÄ UÀ½¹gÀĪÀ D¹ÛUÀ¼À ªÀiË®å ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ RZÀÄðUÀ¼À
ªÀiË®åQÌAvÀ gÀÆ.7,78,066.50 ºÉZÁÑVgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ PÁ£ÀƤ£À ¸ÀªiÀ Á£ÀvÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
£ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ »vÀzÈÀ ¶Ö¬ÄAzÀ vÀ£ßÀ £ÀÄß WÀ£À £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è
-9-
NC: 2024:KHC:52395
CRL.P No. 4078 of 2019
C©üAiÉÆÃUÀUÉƽ¸À®Ä C©üAiÉÆÃd£Á ªÀÄAdÆgÁwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤gÁPÀj¸ÀĪÀAvÉ
¯ÉPÀÌ¥ÀvÀæUÀ¼À C£ÀħAzsÀzÆ
É A¢UÉ PÉÆÃjPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
F §UÉÎ ¸ÀzÀj ¦.L. gÀªÀgÄÀ G¯ÉèÃR(3) gÀ°è£À ªÀÄ£À«AiÀÄ°è£À
ªÁzÁA±ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÁUÀÆ vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjAiÀĪÀgÀ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÀÆ®APÀĵÀªÁV
¥Àj²Ã°¹zÀÄÝ, G¯ÉèÃR(1)gÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ C¢üPÈÀ vÀ eÁÕ¥À£ÀzÀ PÀæ.¸ÀA. 4 gÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ
C©üAiÉÆÃd£Á ªÀÄAdÆgÁw ¤ÃqÀĪÀ §UÉÎ £À£ÀUÉ ¸ÁPÀµÄÀ Ö DzsÁgÀUÀ½ªÉ JAzÀÄ
ªÀÄ£ÀzÀlÄÖ DVgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. DzÀÝjAzÀ ¸ÀzÀjAiÀĪÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ C©üAiÉÆÃd£Á
ªÀÄAdÆgÁw DzÉñÀ ¤ÃqÀĪÀ CªÀ±åÀ PÀvÉ EgÀĪÀÅ¢®èªÉAzÀÄ ¥ÀjUÀt¹,
C©üAiÉÆÃd£Á ªÀÄAdÆgÁw- ¤ÃrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. EzÀgÆ
É A¢UÉ G¯ÉèÃR(2)gÀ
¥ÀvÀæzÉÆA¢UÉ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¸À¯ÁzÀ vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjAiÀĪÀgÀ CAwªÀÄ vÀ¤SÁ ªÀgÀ¢ ºÁUÀÆ
G¯ÉèÃR(3)gÀ ¸ÀzÀj ¦.L gÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£À«AiÀÄ£ÀÄß EzÀgÆ
É A¢UÉ ®UÀwÛ¹
PÀ¼ÀÄ»¸À¯ÁVzÉ.
vÀªÄÀ ä «±Áé¹,
¸À»/-
(JA.£ÀAdÄAqÀ¸Áé«Ä)
¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï ªÀĺÁ ¤jÃPÀëPÀgÄÀ
¥ÀƪÀð ªÀ®AiÀÄ, zÁªÀtUÉgÉ."
(underlining by me)
7. Thus, the Competent Authority refused to sanction
the prosecution of the petitioner.
8. The Police Inspector of the Lokayukta, thereafter,
addressed a letter dated 08.02.2017 to the ADGP,
Lokayukta stating that the DGP, Police had refused
sanction to prosecute the petitioner, but it was
necessary to reconsider the order refusing sanction
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:52395
CRL.P No. 4078 of 2019
by taking not consideration the factors mentioned in
his letter. The request was explicitly made in the
following terms:
"DzÀgÉ CAwªÀÄ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ°è£À F PɼÀPÀAqÀ CA±ÀUÀ¼À£ÄÀ ß ¥ÀÄ£Àgï
¥Àj²Ã°¹ DgÉÆævÀgÀ£ÀÄß C©üAiÉÆÃd£ÉUÉ M¼À¥Àr¸À®Ä C©üAiÉÆÃd£Á
ªÀÄAdÆgÁw ¤ÃqÀĪÀAvÉ ¥ÀvÀæ ªÀåªÀºÀj¸À¨ÉÃPÁV PÉÆÃjzÉ.
PÁgÀt DgÉÆævÀ C¢üPÁj ²æà n ¸ÉÆêÀiÁè£ÁAiÀÄÌ EªÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä
¸ÉêÁ CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ°è CAzÀgÉ ZÉPï CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ°è vÀªÀÄä J¯Áè ªÀÄÆ®UÀ¼À
DzÁAiÀÄQÌAvÀ®Æ gÀÆ. 53,31,642=00 ªÀiË®åzÀ CAzÀgÉ ±ÉÃPÀqÀªÁgÀÄ
144.88 % C¸ÀªÀÄvÉÆî£À D¹ÛUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÀ£Àß ºÁUÀÆ vÀ£ßÀ PÀÄlÄA§zÀ
¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀ ºÉ¸Àj£À°è CPÀæªÀĪÁV UÀ½¹gÀħÄzÀÄ ¸ÀàµÀÖªÁV vÀ¤SɬÄAzÀ
zÀÈqsÀ¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. DgÉÆæ PÀ®A 13(1)(E) gÉ/« 13(2) ¦.¹.DPïÖ 1988 gÀ
«ªÀgÀuÉAiÀÄAvÉ vÁ£ÀÆ ºÉÆA¢gÀĪÀ ºÉaÑ£À D¹ÛUÀ½UÉ ¸ÀªÀÄxÀð¤ÃAiÀÄ
¯ÉPÀ̪À£ÀÄß PÉÆqÀ®Ä C¸ÀªÀÄxÀðgÁVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. DgÉÆævÀ C¢üPÁjAiÀÄ «gÀÄzÀÝ
PÀ®A 13(1)(E) gÉ/«13(2) ¦.¹.DPïÖ 1988gÀ CrAiÀÄ°è zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÁ
¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¸À®Ä C©üAiÉÆÃUÀzÀ ¥ÀgÀªÁV ¸ÁPÁëzÁs gÀUÀ¼ÀÄ EgÀÄvÀÛªÉ.
CzÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀPÀëªÀÄ ¥Áæ¢PÁjAiÀĪÀgÀÄ ¥ÀÄ£ÀB ¥Àj²°¸À®Ä PÉÆÃjzÉ.
DzÀÝjAzÀ DgÉÆævÀ C¢üPÁj ²æà ¸ÉÆêÀiÁè£ÁAiÀÄÌ ¦J¸ïL
§¸ÀªÀ£ÀUÀgÀ ¥Éưøï oÁuÉ, zÁªÀtUÉgÉ ºÁ°: ¦ L eÁUÀvÀ zÀ¼À, ¨É¸ÁÌA,
zÁªÀtUÉgÉ EªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀPÀëªÀÄ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è C©üAiÉÆÃd£É M¼À¥Àr¸À®Ä
CªÀgÀ ¸ÀPÀëªÀÄ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀªÁzÀ "¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï ªÀĺÁ¤jÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ, ¥ÀƪÀð ªÀ®AiÀÄ,
zÁªÀtUÉgÉ." EªÀjUÉ C©üAiÉÆÃd£Á ªÀÄAdÆgÁw DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß
MzÀV¹PÉÆqÀ®Ä ªÀÄ£ÀªÀjPÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ ªÀiÁ£ÀågÀ°è
«£ÀAw¸À¯ÁVzÉ."
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:52395
CRL.P No. 4078 of 2019
9. The ADGP, Lokayukta thereafter addressed a letter
dated 03.03.2017 and the Inspector General (East
Division), Davangere in response addressed a letter
dated 25.04.2017 in which it was stated as follows:
"¸ÀASÉå: 22/¹§âA¢-2/2014-15 ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï ªÀĺÁ ¤jÃPÀëPÀgÀªÀgÀ PÀbÉÃj
CqÀPÀUÀ¼ÀÄ : 2 ªÀÄ£À« 9+50 ¥ÉƪÀð ªÀ®AiÀÄ, zÁªÀtUÉgÉ,
¢£ÁAPÀ:25/04/2017
UÉ,
ºÉZÀÄѪÀj ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï ªÀĺÁ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÄÀ
PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ,
§ºÀÄ ªÀĺÀrUÀ¼À PÀlÖqÀ,
¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ - 560 001.
ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉ,
«µÀAiÀÄ: zÁªÀtUÉgÉ ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ oÁuÉ UÀÄ£Éß ¸ÀA: 4/14gÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ
DgÉÆævÀgÀ£ÄÀ ß C©üAiÉÆÃd£ÉUÆÉ ¼À¥Àr¸À®Ä ªÀÄAdÆgÁw
¤ÃqÀĪÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ.
G¯ÉèÃR: 1) ºÉZÄÀ ѪÀj ¥ÉÇ°Ã¸ï ªÀĺÁ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ, PÀ£ÁðlPÀ
¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼Æ
À gÀÄgÀªÀgÀ ¥ÀvæÀ
¸ÀA:¯ÉÆÃPï/LJ£ï«(f)/¹nJ¯ï-12/¹Dgï-4/2014,
¢£ÁAPÀ:03/03/2017
2) ¥ÉÇ°Ã¸ï ¤jÃPÀëPÀgÄÀ , PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ,
zÁªÀtUÉgÉgÀªÀgÀ ¥ÀvæÀ ¸ÀA:¯ÉÆÃPï-r«f/¦L/¹Dgï-
4/2014, ¢£ÁAPÀ:8/2/2017.
3) ²æà n.¸ÉÆêÀÄè£ÁAiÀÄÌ, ¦.L. gÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£À« ¢:
03/11/2016 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 18/03/2017.
*****
ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ, ºÉZÄÀ ѪÀj ¥ÉÇ°Ã¸ï ªÀĺÁ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ, PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼Æ À gÀÄgÀªÀgÄÀ G¯ÉèÃR(1)gÀ ¥Àvæz À À°è G¯ÉèÃR(2)gÀ vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjAiÀÄ ¥ÀævÄÀ åvÀÛgÀ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É DgÉÆævÀgÀ ªÉÄð£À
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:52395 CRL.P No. 4078 of 2019 DgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÉ zÀÈqsÀ¥ÀnÖgÄÀ ªÀÅzÀjAzÀ ¸ÀzÀj DgÉÆævÀgÀ£ÀÄß C©üAiÉÆÃd£ÉUÉƼÀ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ C©üAiÉÆÃd£Á ªÀÄAdÆgÁw DzÉñÀªÀ£ÄÀ ß ¤ÃqÀ®Ä PÉÆÃjgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
DzÀgÉ FUÁUÀ¯Éà F PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ ¥ÀvæÀ ¸ÀªÄÀ ¸ÀASÉå ¢£ÁAPÀ: 20/12/2016 gÀ°è C©üAiÉÆÃd£Á ªÀÄAdÆgÁw ¤ÃqÀ®Ä ¸ÁPÀµÄÀ Ö DzsÁgÀUÀ¼ÄÀ EªÉ JAzÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÀzÀmÁÖVgÀĪÀÅ¢®èªÉA§ PÁgÀtUÀ¼À ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ C©üAiÉÆÃd£Á ªÀÄAdÆgÁw ¤ÃrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è.
DzÀÝjAzÀ G¯ÉèÃR(1)gÀ ¥Àvæz À À°è PÉÆÃjgÀĪÀAvÉ ¥ÀÅ£ÀB C©üAiÉÆÃd£Á ªÀÄAdÆgÁw ¤ÃqÀĪÀ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ DgÉÆævÀgÀ G¯ÉèÃR(3)gÀ ªÀÄ£À«UÀ¼À §UÉÎ vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjUÀ½AzÀ ºÉƸÀ ¸ÁPÀëå ¥ÀÅgÁªÉUÀ¼Æ É A¢UÉ ºÉƸÀzÁV vÀ¤SÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £Àqɹ, vÀ¤SÁ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß C©üAiÉÆÃd£Á ªÀÄAdÆgÁw ¤ÃqÀĪÀ §UÉÎ F PÀbÉÃjUÉ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹PÉÆqÀ®Ä PÉÆÃjzÉ. EzÀgÉÆA¢UÉ G¯ÉèÃR(3)gÀ ªÀÄ£À«UÀ¼À£ÄÀ ß ®UÀwÛ¹ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹zÉ.
vÀªÄÀ ä «±Áé¹, ¸À»/-25/4/2017 (qÁ||JA.J.¸À°ÃA) ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï ªÀĺÁ ¤jÃPÀëPÀgÄÀ , ¥ÀƪÀð ªÀ®AiÀÄ, zÁªÀtUÉgÉ."
(underlining by me)
10. As could be seen from the above, even though the request for grant of sanction to prosecute was rejected, the IGP called upon the ADGP, Lokayukta to secure fresh evidence in light of the request of the investigation officer dated 03.03.2017 and also the
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:52395 CRL.P No. 4078 of 2019 response of the petitioner dated 03.11.2016 and 18.03.2017.
11. Thus, after the sanction to prosecute was refused, the IGP, Eastern Range -- who admittedly was not the competent authority to accord sanction to prosecute -- called upon the ADGP, Lokayukta to secure fresh evidence in respect of the complaint against the petitioner. In other words, after the sanction to prosecute was refused, a fresh investigation to unearth fresh evidence was called for by the IGP, Eastern Range, Davangere.
12. The ADGP, Lokayukta, in turn, addressed a letter to the Investigating Officer with reference to the aforementioned letter dated 25.04.2017 calling upon him to secure fresh evidence by conducting a fresh investigation and submit an investigation report along with the request for sanction to prosecute. The contents of this letter dated 15.05.2017 read as follows:
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:52395 CRL.P No. 4078 of 2019 "PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ £ÀA. ¯ÉÆÃPï/LJ£ï«(©)/¹nJ¯ï-12/¹Dgï-4/2014 zÁªÀtUÉgÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ:15-05-2017.
eÁÕ¥À£À «µÀAiÀÄ:- D¥Á¢vÀgÁzÀ ¸ÉÆêÀiÁè£ÁAiÀÄÌ, ¦.J¸ï.L., §¸ÀªÀ£ÀUÀgÀ ¥Éǰøï oÁuÉ, EªÀgÀ ªÉÄð£À zÁ½ ¥ÀæPÀgÀt-PÀÄjvÀÄ.
G¯ÉèÃR:- ¥ÉÇ°Ã¸ï ªÀĺÁ ¤jÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ, ¥ÀǪÀð ªÀ®AiÀÄ, zÁªÀtUÉgÉ EªÀgÀ ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀASÉå:22/¹§âA¢- 2/2014-15, ¢£ÁAPÀ 25-04-2017.
ªÉÄð£À «µÀAiÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ G¯ÉèÃRPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ DgÉÆæ ¸ÉÆêÀiÁè£ÁAiÀÄÌ, ¦.J¸ï.L., §¸ÀªÀ£ÀUÀgÀ ¥Éǰøï oÁuÉ ºÁ° ¥ÉÇ°Ã¸ï ¤jÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ EªÀgÀ ªÉÄð£À ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ zÁ½ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è ¸ÀzÀj DgÉÆævÀgÀ£ÀÄß C©üAiÉÆÃd£ÉUÉ M¼À¥Àr¸ÀĪÀ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ ¸ÀzÀj DgÉÆævÀgÀ ¸ÀPÀëªÀÄ ¥Áæ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ G¯ÉèÃRzÀ°è£À ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è DgÉÆævÀgÀ ªÀÄ£À«AiÀÄ ¥Àæw ®UÀwÛ¹ ºÉƸÀ ¸ÁPÀëå ¥ÀÅgÁªÉUÀ¼ÉÆA¢UÉ ºÉƸÀzÁV vÀ¤SÉ £Àqɹ vÀ¤SÁ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß C©üAiÉÆÃd£Á ªÀÄAdÆgÁw CzÉñÀ ¤ÃqÀĪÀ §UÉÎ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹PÉÆqÀ®Ä PÉÆÃjgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
¸ÀzÀj ¥ÀvÀæ ®UÀvÀÛUÀ¼À£ÀÄß EzÀgÉÆA¢UÉ ®UÀwÛ¹zÀÄÝ, ¤ªÀÄä DPÉëÃ¥ÀuÉAiÉÆA¢UÉ DzÀµÀÄÖ dgÀÆgÀÄ ¥Á®£Á ªÀgÀ¢ ¸À°è¸À®Ä ¸ÀÆa¸À¯ÁVzÉ.
¸À»/-
C¥ÀgÀ ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï ªÀĺÁ¤zÉðñÀPÀgÀ ¥ÀgÀªÁV PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ UÉ, ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï ¤jÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ,
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:52395 CRL.P No. 4078 of 2019 PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ zÁªÀtUÉgÉ.
¥ÀæwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁ»wUÁV, ¥ÉÆðøï C¢üÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ, PÀ¯ÉÆÃD, zÁªÀtUÉgÉgÀªÀjUÉ."
13. Thus, as could be seen from the above, despite the rejection of sanction to prosecute, basically, the Investigating Officer was directed to conduct a fresh investigation and secure fresh evidence and consequently, submit a fresh report along with a request for grant of sanction to prosecute.
14. Thereafter, the ADGP proceeded to address a letter to the IGP, Eastern Range, Davangere which reads as follows:
"PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ ¢£ÁAPÀ:28-07-2017 ¸ÀASÉå:¯ÉÆÃPï/LJ£ï«(f)/¹nJ¯ï-12/ªÉÆ.£ÀA.4/2014 zÁªÀtUÉgÉ ®UÀvÀÄÛ: vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼À ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ ¥Àæw.
gÀªÀjUÉ, ¥ÉÇ°Ã¸ï ªÀĺÁ ¤jÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ, ¥ÀǪÀð ªÀ®AiÀÄ, zÁªÀtUÉgÉ.
ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉÃ, «µÀAiÀÄ:- C©üAiÉÆÃd£Á ªÀÄAdÆgÁw DzÉñÀ ºÉÆgÀr¸ÀĪÀ §UÉÎ.
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:52395 CRL.P No. 4078 of 2019 G¯ÉèÃR:- vÀªÀÄä PÀbÉÃj ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀASÉå. 22/¹§âA¢-2/2014-15, ¢£ÁAPÀ 26-04-2016.
ªÉÄð£À «µÀAiÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ G¯ÉèÃRPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ, zÁªÀtUÉgÉ ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ oÁuÉ ªÉÆ. £ÀA. 4/2014 gÀ CgÉÆæ n. ¸ÉÆêÀiÁè£ÁAiÀÄÌ, ¦.J¸ï.L., §¸ÀªÀ£ÀUÀgÀ ¥Éǰøï oÁuÉ, zÁªÀtUÉgÉ EªÀgÀ ªÉÄð£À zÁ½ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è ¸ÀzÀj DgÉÆævÀgÀ£ÀÄß C©üAiÉÆÃd£ÉUÉ M¼À¥Àr¸À®Ä vÁªÀÅ G¯ÉèÃTvÀ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è C©üAiÉÆÃd£Á ªÀÄAdÆgÁw DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß ºÉÆgÀr¸À®Ä vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjUÀ½AzÀ ºÉƸÀ ¸ÁPÀëå ¥ÀÅgÁªÉUÀ¼ÉÆA¢UÉ ºÉƸÀzÁV vÀ¤SÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £Àqɹ, vÀ¤SÁ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹PÉÆqÀ®Ä G¯ÉèÃRzÀ°è£À ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è PÉÆÃjgÀÄwÛÃj.
CzÀgÀAvÉ vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸À°è¹gÀĪÀ vÀ¤SÁ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß EzÀgÉÆA¢UÉ ®UÀwÛ¹zÀÄÝ, ¸À¢gÀ vÀ¤SÁ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¹ ¸ÀzÀj DgÉÆævÀgÀ£ÀÄß C©üAiÉÆÃd£ÉUÉ M¼À¥Àr¸ÀĪÀ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ C©üAiÉÆÃd£Á ªÀÄAdÆgÁw DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß ºÉÆgÀr¸À®Ä ªÀÄvÉÆÛªÉÄä PÉÆÃgÀ¯ÁVzÉ.
vÀªÀÄä «±Áé¹, ¸À»/- 28/07 C¥ÀgÀ ¥ÉÇ°Ã¸ï ªÀĺÁ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄPÀÛ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ"
15. As could be seen from said letter, the ADGP, Lokayukta informed the IGP that as suggested by him earlier to conduct a fresh investigation and secure fresh investigation, he was enclosing an enquiry report that was prepared on the basis of said
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC:52395 CRL.P No. 4078 of 2019 request and requested him to once again consider the report and accord sanction to prosecute.
16. This request was followed by another request dated 04.08.2017 to the IGP and another letter was addressed on 09.08.2017 stating that file relating to sanction had been put up before the DGP, since the DGP was the Competent Authority.
17. About three months thereafter, on 08.11.2017, another letter was addressed by the IGP, Eastern Range, Davangere to the ADGP, Lokayukta informing him that it was permissible for the investigation officer to furnish fresh evidence even after the request for sanction to prosecute had been rejected and if such fresh evidence was secured, fresh request for sanction to prosecute was permissible. The contents of the said letter read as follows:
"¸ÀASÉå:22/¹§âA¢-2/2014-15 ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï ªÀĺÁ ¤jÃPÀëPÀgÀªÀgÀ PÀbÉÃj, ¥ÉƪÀð ªÀ®AiÀÄ, zÁªÀtUÉgÉ, ¢£ÁAPÀ:08/11/2017.
UÉ,
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC:52395 CRL.P No. 4078 of 2019 ºÉZÀÄѪÀj ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï ªÀĺÁ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ, PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ, §ºÀĪÀĺÀrUÀ¼À PÀlÖqÀ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ-560 001.
ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉ, «µÀAiÀÄ: zÁªÀtUÉgÉ ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ oÁuÉ UÀÄ£Éß ¸ÀA: 4/14gÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ DgÉÆævÀgÀ£ÀÄß C©üAiÉÆÃd£ÉUÉƼÀ¥Àr¸À®Ä ªÀÄAdÆgÁw ¤ÃqÀĪÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ.
G¯ÉèÃR: 1) ºÉZÀÄѪÀj ¥ÉÇ°Ã¸ï ªÀĺÁ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ, PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄgÀªÀgÀ ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀA:¯ÉÆÃPï/LJ£ï«(f)/¹nJ¯ï-12/¹Dgï- 4/2014, ¢£ÁAPÀ:03/07/2017 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 28/07/2017.
2) ¥ÉÇ°Ã¸ï ¤jÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ, PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ, zÁªÀtUÉgÉgÀªÀgÀ ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀA:¯ÉÆÃPï-
n«f/¦L/¹Dgï-4/2014, ¢£ÁAPÀ:08/02/2017 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 29/06/2017.
3) F PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀªÀĸÀASÉå ¢£ÁAPÀ:
25/04/2017.
ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ, ºÉZÀÄѪÀj ¥ÉÇ°Ã¸ï ªÀĺÁ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ, PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄgÀªÀgÀÄ G¯ÉèÃR(1)gÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 28-07-2017gÀ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è G¯ÉèÃR(2)gÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 29-06-2017gÀ vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjAiÀÄ ¥ÀjµÀÌøvÀ CAwªÀÄ vÀ¤SÁ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É zÁªÀtUÉgÉ ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ oÁuÉ UÀÄ.¸ÀA.04/14gÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ DgÉÆævÀgÁzÀ ²æà n.¸ÉÆêÀiÁè£ÁAiÀÄÌ, ¦.J¸ï.L. §¸ÀªÀ£ÀUÀgÀ ¥Éǰøï oÁuÉ, ºÁ° ¦.J, ¨É¸ÁÌA eÁUÀÈvÀ zÀ¼À EªÀgÀ ªÉÄð£À DgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÉ zÀÈqsÀ¥ÀnÖgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ ¸ÀzÀj DgÉÆævÀgÀ£ÀÄß
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC:52395 CRL.P No. 4078 of 2019 C©üAiÉÆÃd£ÉUÉƼÀ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ C©üAiÉÆÃd£Á ªÀÄAdÆgÁw DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀ®Ä PÉÆÃjgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
DzÀgÉ FUÁUÀ¯Éà F PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀªÀĸÀASÉå ¢£ÁAPÀ:20/12/2016 gÀAzÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è C©üAiÉÆÃd£Á ªÀÄAdÆgÁw ¤ÃqÀĪÀ §UÉÎ ¸ÁPÀµÀÄÖ DzsÁgÀUÀ½ªÉ JAzÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÀzÀlÄÖ DVgÀĪÀÅ¢®èªÉAzÀÄ PÁgÀt ¤Ãr C©üAiÉÆÃd£Á ªÀÄAdÆgÁw ¤gÁPÀj¸À¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. C®èzÉà EwÛÃa£À ¨sÁgÀvÀzÀ WÀ£À ¸ÀªÉÇÃðZÀÒ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ Qæ«Ä£À¯ï C¦Ã®Ä ¸ÀA: 2353/2010 gÀ°è ºÉÆgÀr¹zÀ CAwªÀÄ DzÉñÀ ºÁUÀÆ ªÀÄzsÀå¥ÀæzÉñÀzÀ ªÀiÁ£Àå GZÀÒ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀĪÀÅ Cfð ¸ÀA: 7649/2014 gÀ°è' ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁzÀ wæð£À°è 01 ¸Áj C©üAiÉÆÃd£Á ªÀÄAdÆgÁwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀPÀëªÀÄ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀ ¤gÁPÀj¹zÀ°è ªÀÄvÉÆÛªÉÄä ¸ÀzÀj ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÉƸÀ ¸ÁPÀëå ¥ÀÅgÁªÉUÀ¼ÉÆA¢UÉ C©üAiÉÆÃd£Á ªÀÄAdÆgÁw ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀPÉÌ ¥ÀÅ£À:
¸À°è¹ PÉÆÃjzÀ°è ¥ÀjUÀt¸À§ºÀÄzÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉAzÀÄ wÃ¥ÀÅð ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ (¥Àæw ®UÀwÛ¹zÉ).
DzÀÝjAzÀ F ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÉƸÀzÁV ºÉaÑ£À ¸ÁPÀëåzsÁgÀ/¥ÀÅgÁªÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀAUÀ滹 C©üAiÉÆÃd£Á ªÀÄAdÆgÁw PÉÆÃj ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¹zÀ°è F PÀbÉÃj¬ÄAzÀ C©üAiÉÆÃd£Á ªÀÄAdÆgÁw ¤ÃqÀĪÀ §UÉÎ ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯ÁUÀĪÀÅzÉAzÀÄ F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ PÉÆÃjzÉ.
vÀªÀÄä «±Áé¹, ¸À»/- 8/11/17 (qÁ||JA.J.¸À°ÃA) ¥ÉÇ°Ã¸ï ªÀĺÁ ¤jÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ,
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC:52395 CRL.P No. 4078 of 2019 ¥ÀǪÀð ªÀ®AiÀÄ, zÁªÀtUÉgÉ."
18. Thereafter, another reminder was sent from the office of the ADGP to the Investigating Officer on 29.11.2017 and pursuant to said reminder, an order was passed on 10.11.2018 according sanction to prosecute. The order which accords sanction reads as follows:
"¥ÉÇ°Ã¸ï ªÀĺÁ ¤jÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ, ¥ÀǪÀð ªÀ®AiÀÄ, zÁªÀtUÉgÉ EªÀgÀ £ÀqÀªÀ½UÀ¼ÀÄ «µÀAiÀÄ: ²æà ¸ÉÆêÀiÁè£ÁAiÀÄÌ, ¦.J¸ï.L. §¸ÀªÀ£ÀUÀgÀ ¥Éǰøï oÁuÉ, zÁªÀtUÉgÉ f¯Éè ºÁ° ¦L gÉʯÉéøï zÁªÀtUÉgÉ f¯Éè EªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ zÁR¯ÁzÀ ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ zÁ½ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è C©üAiÉÆÃd£Á ªÀÄAdÆgÁw ¤ÃqÀĪÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ.
G¯ÉèÃR: 1) C¥ÀgÀ ¥ÉÇ°Ã¸ï ªÀĺÁ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ, PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄgÀªÀgÀ ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀASÉå:
¯ÉÆÃPï/LJ£ï«(f)/¹nJ¯ï-12/ ¹.Dgï-04/2014, ¢£ÁAPÀ:20-06-2016.
2) zÁªÀtUÉgÉ ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ ¥Éǰøï oÁuÉ UÀÄ£Éß ¸ÀA: 4/2014. PÀ®A, 13(1)(E)eÉÆvÉAiÀÄ°è NzÀ¯ÁzÀ 13(2) ®AZÀ ¤gÉÆÃzÀPÀ PÁAiÉÄÝ 1988gÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjAiÀÄ CAwªÀÄ vÀ¤SÁ ªÀgÀ¢ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 18/12/2015.
3) F PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀA:22/¹§âA¢- 2/¥ÀǪÀ/2014-15, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 20/12/2016.
4) C¥ÀgÀ ¥ÉÇ°Ã¸ï ªÀĺÁ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ, PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ gÀªÀgÀ ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀASÉå:
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC:52395 CRL.P No. 4078 of 2019 ¯ÉÆÃPï/LJ£ï«(f)/¹nJ¯ï-12/¹.Dgï- 04/2014 zÁªÀtUÉgÉ, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 04/08/2018.
5) zÁªÀtUÉgÉ ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ ¥Éǰøï oÁuÉ UÀÄ£Éß ¸ÀA:4/2014, PÀ®A, 13(1)(E)eÉÆvÉAiÀÄ°è NzÀ¯ÁzÀ 13(2) ®AZÀ ¤gÉÆÃzÀPÀ PÁAiÉÄÝ 1988gÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjAiÀĪÀgÀÄ ºÉƸÀ ¸ÁPÀëå ¥ÀÅgÁªÉUÀ¼ÉÆA¢UÉ ¸À°è¹gÀĪÀ CAwªÀÄ vÀ¤SÁ ªÀgÀ¢.
** ** ** ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£É:-
²æà ¸ÉÆêÀiÁè£ÁAiÀÄÌ ¦.J¸ï.L. §¸ÀªÀ£ÀUÀgÀ ¥Éǰøï oÁuÉ. zÁªÀtUÉgÉ f¯Éè ºÁ° ¦.L. gÉʯÉéøï, zÁªÀtUÉgÉ f¯Éè EªÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä J¯Áè ªÀÄÆ® DzÁAiÀÄQÌAvÀ ºÉaÑ£À ¥ÀæªÀiÁtzÀ D¹ÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢gÀĪÀªÀgÉAzÀÄ w½zÀÄ §AzÀ «±Áé¸ÁºÀð ªÀiÁ»w C£ÀéAiÀÄ ¸ÀzÀjAiÀĪÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ zÁªÀtUÉgÉ ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ ¥Éǰøï oÁuÉAiÀÄ°è UÀÄ£Éß.¸ÀA: 04/2014, PÀ®A. 13(1)(E) eÉÆvÉAiÀÄ°è NzÀ¯ÁzÀ 13(2) ®AZÀ ¤gÉÆÃzÀPÀ PÁAiÉÄÝ 1988 gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ ¥ÀæPÀgÀt ¢.24/04/2014 gÀAzÀÄ zÁR¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. F ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è, vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjAiÀiÁzÀ ¥ÉÇ°Ã¸ï ¤jÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ, PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ, zÁªÀtUÉgÉ EªÀgÀ G¯ÉèÃR(2)gÀ CAwªÀÄ vÀ¤SÁ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ D¥Á¢vÀgÀ£ÀÄß WÀ£À £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è C©üAiÉÆÃd£ÉUÉ M¼À¥Àr¸À®Ä ®AZÀ ¤gÉÆÃzsÀPÀ PÁAiÉÄÝ 1988gÀ 19(1)(¹)gÀ CrAiÀÄ°è ªÀÄAdÆgÁwUÁV F ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß G¯ÉèÃR(1)gÀ°è PÉÆÃjgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjAiÀĪÀgÀ G¯ÉèÃR(2)gÀ CAwªÀÄ vÀ¤SÁ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¹, C©üAiÉÆÃd£Á ªÀÄAdÆgÁw ¤ÃqÀĪÀ §UÉÎ ¸ÁPÀµÀÄÖ DzsÁgÀUÀ¼ÀÄ EªÉ JAzÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÀzÀmÁV®èzÉà EgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ C©üAiÉÆÃd£Á ªÀÄAdÆgÁwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß G¯ÉèÃR(3)gÀ°è ¤gÁPÀj¸À¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC:52395 CRL.P No. 4078 of 2019 ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgÉzÀÄ G¯ÉèÃR-4gÀ ¥ÀvÀæzÉÆA¢V£À G¯ÉèÃR-5gÀ vÀ¤SÁ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ®UÀwÛ¹ DgÉÆævÀgÀ£ÀÄß C©üAiÉÆÃd£ÉUÉ M¼À¥Àr¸À®Ä C©üAiÉÆÃd£Á ªÀÄAdÆgÁw DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀĪÀAvÉ C¥ÀgÀ ¥ÉÇ°Ã¸ï ªÀĺÁ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ, PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼Æ À gÀÄ gÀªÀgÀÄ PÉÆÃjgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
CzÀgÀAvÉ ºÉƸÀ ¸ÁQë ¥ÀÅgÁªÉUÀ¼ÉÆA¢UÉ ¸À°è¹zÀ vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjAiÀĪÀgÀ CAwªÀÄ vÀ¤SÁ ªÀgÀ¢ ºÁUÀÆ CzÀgÉÆA¢V£À PɼÀPÀAqÀ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÁQëUÀ¼À ºÉýPÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ ¥Àj²Ã°¹gÀÄvÉÛãÉ.
1) ¥Àæ ¥À ªÀgÀ¢ ¢£ÁAPÀ:24-04-2014.
2) ¢:25-04-2014 gÀAzÀÄ ±ÉÆÃzsÀ£Á ¥ÀAZÀ£ÁªÉÄ dgÀÄV¹zÀ ¸ÀܼÀUÀ¼À «ªÀgÀ-
1) DgÉÆævÀgÀ ªÁ¸ÀzÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀiÁzÀ ºÀgÀ¥À£ÀºÀ½î, CZÁgï ¯Éà Omï £À 2£Éà ªÀÄÄRå gÀ¸ÉÛ, 1£Éà CqÀØ gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ°ègÀĪÀ #370/110 gÀ ªÀÄ£É.
2) DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ ¨ÁrUÉ EgÀĪÀ zÁªÀtUÉgÉ £ÀUÀgÀzÀ zÉêÀgÁeï CgÀ¸ï §qÁªÀuÉ, '©' ¨ÁèPï, 9£Éà PÁæ¸ï £À°ègÀĪÀ ªÀÄ£É £ÀA:¹4/J, GqÀÄVj ¤®AiÀÄ.
3) DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ PÀvÀðªÀå ¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛzÀÝ zÁªÀtUÉgÉAiÀÄ §¸ÀªÀ£ÀUÀgÀ ¥Éǰøï oÁuÉ.
4) DgÉÆævÀgÀ ¸ÀºÉÆÃzÀgÀ£ÁzÀ ²æà ¥ÀgÀªÉÄñÀégÀ £ÁAiÀÄÌ EªÀgÀÄ ªÁ¸ÀªÁVgÀĪÀ ºÀqÀUÀ° vÁ®ÆèPï, PÁ°é vÁAqÀ, ªÀÄ£É £ÀA:111.
3) vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁj gÀªÀgÀ ¥ÀjµÀÌøvÀ CAwªÀÄ ªÀgÀ¢ ºÁUÀÆ CzÀgÉÆA¢V£À PÀqÀvÀ ¸ÀASÉå: 01 jAzÀ 05 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ºÉaÑ£À ¸ÁPÁëzsÁgÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀAUÀ滹zÀ PÁ®PÉÌ ¥ÀqÉzÀ zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼ÀÄ,
4) ¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÀ ºÉýPÉUÀ¼ÀÄ:-
1) ²æà PÀȵÁÚ£ÁAiÀÄÌ ©£ï mÁæPÁå£ÁAiÀÄÌ
2) ²æà ªÀĺÀzÉêÀ £ÁAiÀÄÌ ©£ï gÉÃSÁå£ÁAiÀÄÌ,
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC:52395 CRL.P No. 4078 of 2019
3) ²æà PÉÆmÉæÃ±ï £ÁAiÀÄÌ ©£ï UÀAUÁ£ÁAiÀÄÌ.
4) ²æà ªÁªÀÄzÉêÀ @ NªÀiÁ ©£ï AiÀĪÀÄÄ£À¥Àà,
5) ²æà gÁªÀĪÀé PÉÆÃA vÀÄPÁå£ÁAiÀÄÌ,
6) ²æà n. ¥ÀgÀªÉÄñÀégï ©£ï vÀÄPÁå£ÁAiÀÄÌ
7) ²æà ¥Á¯ÁPÀë L ©£ï ²ªÀ£ÁUÀ¥Àà EAUÀ¼ÀV.
8) ²æà r.Dgï. ±ÁAvÀgÁeï ©£ï gÁªÀÄZÀAzÀæ¥Àà
9) ²æà gÁdÄ Z˺Áuï @ gÁdÄ ®A¨Át vÀAzÉ ²ªÀÅ.
10) ²æà gÀ« @ ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAvÉÃ±ï ©£ï dUÀ¢Ã±À£ÁAiÀÄÌ
11) ²æà ªÀÄAeÁ£ÁAiÀÄÌ @ gÁªÀiÁ£ÁAiÀÄÌ
12) ²æà J¯ï JA. ²ªÀtÚ£ÁAiÀÄÌ ©£ï FgÀ£ÁAiÀÄÌ
13) ²æà ©.gÀAUÀ¥Àà vÀAzÉ ¯ÉÃmï ©üêÀÄ¥Àà, 46ªÀµÀð J¸ï.n. d£ÁAUÀ ¸ÀºÀ ²PÀëPÀgÀÄ, ¸ÀPÁðj ¨Á®PÀgÀ ¨Á®ªÀÄA¢gÀ, ªÀÄ»¼Á ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄPÀ̼À C©üªÀÈ¢Þ E¯ÁSÉ, JA¹¹ © ¨ÁèPï. PÀĪÉA¥ÀÅ £ÀUÀgÀ, zÁªÀtUÉgÉ.
14) ²æêÀÄw ¦.J¸ï.¸À«vÁ UÀAqÀ r.«.¯ÉPÀÌzÀgï, 32 ªÀµÀð, °AUÁAiÀÄÛgÀÄ ¢ézÀ¸À vÀºÀ²Ã¯ÁÝgï gÀªÀgÀ PÀbÉÃj, zÁªÀtUÉgÉ.
15) ²æêÀÄw eÉÆåÃw PÉ.ºÉZï. PÉÆÃA ²ªÀPÀĪÀiÁgï ©.J¸ï. 34 ªÀµÀð UÀȺÀ¥Á®Q ¨Á®PÀgÀ ¨Á® ªÀÄA¢gÀ JA¹¹ © ¨ÁèPï zÁªÀtUÉgÉ.
16) ²æÃ.f.J¸ï.PÀĪÀiÁgï ©£ï ¯ÉÃmï f.±ÁAvÀ«ÃgÀ¥Àà, 54 ªÀµÀð, ¢ézÀ¸À, £ÀA.2, ¨sÀzÁæ£Á® ' G¥À «¨sÁUÀ zÁªÀtUÉgÉ.
17) ²æà Dgï.J¸ï. ¥Àæ¨sÁPÀgï vÀAzÉ J¸ï.UÀÄgÀĹzÀÝ¥Àà, 51 ªÀµÀð, °AUÁ¬ÄvÀ d£ÁAUÀ, PÀAzÁAiÀÄ ¤jÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ, ªÀĺÁ£ÀUÀgÀ ¥Á°PÉ, zÁªÀtUÉgÉ.
18) ²æà n.µÀtÄäR¥Àà vÀAzÉ ¯ÉÃmï ªÀĺÁzÉêÀ¥Àà, 46 ªÀµÀð, £ÉÃPÁgÀ ¥ÀlÖ¸Á° d£ÁAUÀ, QjAiÀÄ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ¹J¸ïr-1 ¨É«PÀA «zÁåyð¨sÀªÀ£À ºÀwÛgÀ zÁªÀtUÉgÉ,
19) ²æà Dgï.²ªÀ¥Àà vÀAzÉ ¯ÉÃmï gÁªÀÄ¥Àà, 54 ªÀµÀð PÀÄgÀħgÀ d£ÁAPÀ ¢é.zÀ.¸À. £ÀA. ¨sÀzÁæ £Á¯Á G¥À «¨sÁUÀ, d® ¸ÀA¥À£ÀÆä® E¯ÁSÉ, ºÀzÀr gÀ¸ÉÛ, zÁªÀtUÉgÉ,
20) ²æêÀÄw JA.J£ï. dAiÀÄ¥ÀzÀä UÀAqÀ © PÉÆmÉæñï, 33 ªÀµÀð, °AUÁ¬ÄvÀ d£ÁAUÀ, J¸ï.r.J. vÁ®ÆèPï PÀbÉÃj, zÁªÀtUÉgÉ. vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjAiÀĪÀgÀÄ ¸À°è¹zÀ ºÉaÑ£À ¸ÁPÀëå ¥ÀÅgÁªÉUÀ¼ÀÄ.
1) ²æà ºÉƼÀUÀÄA¢ «ÃgÀ¥Àà @ ¥ÀÅlÖFgÀ, »gÉêÀÄ®è£ÀPÉÃj UÁæªÀÄ gÀªÀgÀ ºÉýPÉ.
2) zÁªÀtUÉgÉ ±ÀÈw ªÉÆmÁ¸ïð gÀªÀgÀ°è PÉJ-17/JA-9686 £Éà ¹é¥sïÖ PÁgÀ£ÀÄß ¸À«ð¸ï ªÀiÁr¹zÀ zÁR¯Áw.
- 24 -
NC: 2024:KHC:52395 CRL.P No. 4078 of 2019
3) C¥Á¢vÀ ²æà ¸ÉÆêÀÄè£ÁAiÀÄÌ ¦J¸ïL. EªÀgÀ vÀªÀÄä£ÁzÀ ²æà ¥ÀgÀªÉÄñÀégÀ £ÁAiÀÄÌ EªÀgÀÄ ºÀqÀUÀ° vÁ®ÆèPï PÁ°é (¥À²ÑªÀÄ) UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄwAiÀÄ°è PÀvÀðªÀå ¤ªÀ𻹠¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ªÉÃvÀ£ÀzÀ §UÉÎ zÁR¯Áw
4) DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ «dAiÀÄ dÆåAiÀÄ®¸ïð, ªÀÄAr¥ÉÃmÉ, zÁªÀtUÉgÉ EªÀgÀ°è D¨sÀgÀtUÀ¼À£ÀÄß Rjâ¹ ¥ÁªÀw¹zÀ 2 ©¯ïUÀ¼ÀÄ.
5) ²æà C±ÀévÀ £ÁgÁAiÀÄt vÀAzÉ ºÀħ⽠¹zÀÝ¥Àà, ºÀgÀ¥À£ÀºÀ½î EªÀgÀÄ ºÀgÀ¥À£ÀºÀ½î mË£ï, 1£Éà ªÁqïð qÉÆÃgï £ÀA:370/109 gÀ SÁ° ¤ªÉñÀ£À ªÀiÁgÁl ªÀiÁrzÀ §UÉÎ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ ºÉýPÉ.
6) ²æà AiÀÄÄ. gÀ²Ãzï vÀAzÉ E¸Áä¬Ä¯ï ¸Á¨ï, ªÁ¸À:937, nÃZÀgï PÁ¯ÉÆä, ºÀgÀ¥À£ÀºÀ½î gÀªÀgÀÄ qÉÆÃgï £ÀA:370/109 gÀ ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß C¥Á¢vÀjUÉ ªÀÄzÀåªÀwðAiÀiÁV ¤ªÉñÀ£À PÉÆr¹zÀ §UÉÎ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ ºÉýPÉ.
7) DgÉÆævÀgÀ ¥ÀwßAiÀiÁzÀ ²æêÀÄw ¸ÀĤÃvÁ gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÉÖÃmï ¨ÁåAPï D¥sï ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ, ºÀgÀ¥À£ÀºÀ½î ±ÁSÉAiÀÄ°è ºÉÆA¢zÀÝ J¸ï.©.SÁvÉ ¸ÀASÉå: 54042722233 gÀ zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À «ªÀgÀ. vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÁzÀ ²æà J¸ï.¹.ªÀÄAd¥Àà ¥Éǰøï G¥Á¢üÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ, PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ, zÁªÀtUÉgÉ gÀªÀgÀÄ C¥Á¢vÀgÁzÀ ²æà ¸ÉÆêÀÄè£ÁAiÀÄÌ ¦J¸ïL §¸ÀªÀ£ÀUÀgÀ oÁuÉ, zÁªÀtUÉgÉ EªÀgÀÄ ºÉÆA¢gÀĪÀ C¸ÀªÀÄvÉÆî£À D¹ÛUÀ¼À §UÉÎ ¸ÉÆøïð ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤ÃrzÀÄÝ, ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÉÆøïð ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÁßzsÀj¹ ²æà JA.PÉ.UÀAUÀ¯ï, ¥ÉÇ°Ã¸ï ¤jÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ, PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ, zÁªÀtUÉgÉ gÀªÀgÀÄ ²æà ¸ÉÆêÀÄè£ÁAiÀÄÌ ¦J¸ïL, §¸ÀªÀ£ÀUÀgÀ oÁuÉ zÁªÀtUÉgÉ EªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ UÀÄ£Éß £À:04-2014 gÀ°è ®AZÀ ¤gÉÆÃzsÀPÀ PÁAiÉÄÝ 1988, PÀ®A: 13(1) (E), PÀ®A:13(2) gÀ CrAiÀÄ°è ¥ÀæPÀgÀt vÀ¤SÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £ÀqɹgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ²æà ¸ÉƪÀÄè£ÁAiÀÄÌ ¦J¸ïL, §¸ÀªÀ£ÀUÀgÀ oÁuÉ EªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ zÁR¯ÁzÀ ªÉÆ.¸ÀA:04-2014 gÀ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ:25-04-2014 gÀAzÀÄ 1) DgÉÆævÀgÀ ªÁ¸ÀzÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀiÁzÀ ºÀgÀ¥À£ÀºÀ½î, DZÁgï ¯Éà Omï £À 2£Éà ªÀÄÄRå gÀ¸ÉÛ, 1£Éà CqÀØ gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ°ègÀĪÀ #370/110 gÀ ªÀÄ£É. 2) DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ ¨ÁrUÉ EgÀĪÀ
- 25 -
NC: 2024:KHC:52395 CRL.P No. 4078 of 2019 zÁªÀtUÉgÉ £ÀUÀgÀzÀ zÉêÀgÁeï CgÀ¸ï §qÁªÀuÉ, '©' ¨ÁèPï, 9£Éà PÁæ¸ï £À°ègÀĪÀ ªÀÄ£É £ÀA:¹4/J, GqÀÄVj ¤®AiÀÄ. 3) DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ PÀvÀðªÀå ¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛzÀÝ zÁªÀtUÉgÉ £ÀUÀgÀzÀ §¸ÀªÀ£ÀUÀgÀ ¥Éǰøï oÁuÉ. 4) DgÉÆævÀgÀ ¸ÀºÉÆÃzÀgÀ£ÁzÀ ²æà ¥ÀgÀªÉÄñÀégÀ £ÁAiÀÄÌ EªÀgÀÄ ªÁ¸ÀªÁVgÀĪÀ ºÀqÀUÀ° vÁ®ÆèPï, PÁ°é vÁAqÀ, ªÀÄ£É £ÀA:111 F ¸ÀܼÀUÀ¼À°è ¥ÀAZÀgÀ ¸ÀªÀÄPÀëªÀÄ ±ÉÆÃzsÀ£É £ÀqɹgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
£ÀAvÀgÀ vÀ¤SÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÁzÀ ²æà ªÀÄĸÁÛPï CºÀäzï, ¥Éǰøï E£ïì¥ÉPÀÖgï, PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ, zÁªÀtUÉgÉ gÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgɹ ºÉƸÀzÁV ºÉaÑ£À ¸ÁPÀëå ¥ÀÅgÁªÉUÀ¼ÉÆA¢UÉ ¸À°è¹zÀ G¯ÉèÃR(5)gÀ CAwªÀÄ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß DzsÀj¹ DgÉÆævÀ ¥Éǰøï C¢üPÁjAiÀÄ ªÀ±ÀzÀ°èzÀÝ F PɼÀPÀAqÀ MlÄÖ D¹Û, RZÀÄð ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DzÁAiÀÄzÀ «ªÀgÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¹gÀÄvÉÛãÉ.
Calculation of D.A.(so far)
Sl. Particulars investigation
No.
1 Assets prior to check period -
2. Assets at the end of check 67,26,069=00
period
3. Assets during check period 67,26,069=00
(2-1)
4. Expenses incurred during 24,53,492=00
check period
5. Total of assets & Expenses 91,79,561=00
{3+4}
6. Income earned 36,79,899=00
7. Assets disproporionate 54,99,662=00
{6-5}
8. Percentage of D.A. 149.45%
{(7/6) x 100}
Assets disproportionate x 100 =149.45%
Income earned
- 26 -
NC: 2024:KHC:52395
CRL.P No. 4078 of 2019
vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸À°è¹gÀĪÀ CAwªÀÄ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ°è «ªÀj¸À¯ÁzÀ
C¥Á¢vÀgÀ D¹Û, RZÀÄð ºÁUÀÆ DzÁAiÀÄUÀ¼À ¥Àj²Ã®£É¬ÄAzÀ
¢£ÁAPÀ:01-06-1993 jAzÀ 24-04-2014 gÀ CªÀ¢üªÀgÉUÉ ¤UÀ¢üUÉÆAqÀ "ZÉPï ¦jAiÀÄqï" AiÀÄ°è UÀ½¹gÀĪÀ MlÄÖ D¹Û 67,26,069=00, MlÄÖ RZÀÄð 24,53,492=00, UÀ½¹gÀĪÀ D¹Û ªÀÄvÀÄÛ RZÀÄð MlÄÖ ªÉÆvÀÛ, 91,79,561=00 gÀÆUÀ¼ÁVzÀÄÝ, C¥Á¢vÀgÀÄ UÀ½¹gÀĪÀ DzÁAiÀÄ 36,79,899=00 gÀÆUÀ¼ÁVgÀÄvÀÛªÉ. C¥Á¢vÀgÀÄ UÀ½¹gÀĪÀ CPÀæªÀÄ D¹ÛAiÀÄ ¸ÀA¥ÀvÀÄÛ ºÀt gÀÆ 54,99,662=00 UÀ¼ÁVgÀÄvÀÛªÉ. CAzÀgÉ ±ÉÃPÀqÀªÁgÀÄ 149.45% gÀµÀÄÖ vÀªÀÄä §®è ªÀÄÆ®UÀ½VAvÀ®Æ ºÉaÑ£À ¥ÀæªÀiÁtzÀ D¸ÀªÀÄvÉÆî D¹ÛUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÀ£Àß ºÁUÀÆ vÀ£Àß PÀÄlÄA§zÀ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀ ºÉ¸Àj£À°è CPÀæªÀĪÁV UÀ½¹gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ªÉÄïÉÆßÃlPÉÌ PÀAqÀÄ §A¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. C¥Á¢vÀgÀ C¢üPÁjAiÀĪÀgÀÄ ºÉaÑ£À D¹ÛUÀ½UÉ ¸ÀªÀÄxÀð¤ÃAiÀÄ ¯ÉPÀ̪À£ÀÄß PÉÆqÀ®Ä C¸ÀªÀÄxÀðgÁVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
DzÀÝjAzÀ DgÉÆævÀ C¢üPÁjAiÀÄ «gÀÄzÀÞ PÀ®A:13(1)(E) gÉ/«13(2) ¦.¹.DPïÖ 1988gÀ CrAiÀÄ°è C¥ÀgÁzsÀ J¸ÀVgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀàµÀÖªÁV £À£ÀUÉ ªÀÄ£ÀªÀjPÉAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
F J¯Áè ªÉÄîÌAqÀ PÁgÀtUÀ½AzÀ D¥Á¢vÀ ¸ÀPÁðj £ËPÀgÀ£ÄÀ vÀªÀÄä §®èªÀÄÆ®UÀ¼À DzÁAiÀÄQÌAvÀ ºÉaÑ£À ¥ÀæªÀiÁtzÀ°è D¹ÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß UÀ½¹ ®AZÀ ¤gÉÆÃzsÀPÀ PÁAiÉÄÝ-1988gÀ PÀ®A 13 (1)(E) ¸ÀºÀªÁZÀ£À PÀ®A 13(2)gÀ CrAiÀÄ°è ²PÁëºÀð C¥ÀgÁzsÀªÀ£ÀÄß J¸ÀVgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ ¸ÀA¥ÀÇtðªÁV ªÀÄ£ÀªÀjPÉAiÀiÁVzÉ. DzÀÝjAzÀ EªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ®AZÀ ¤gÉÆÃzsÀPÀ PÁAiÉÄÝ-1988gÀ PÀ®A. 13(1)(E) eÉÆvÉUÉ PÀ®A13(2)gÀ CrAiÀÄ°è £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è C©üAiÉÆÃd£ÉUÉ M¼À¥Àr¸ÀĪÀÅzÀÄ CªÀ±Àå JAzÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÀUÀArzÉÝãÉ.
- 27 -
NC: 2024:KHC:52395 CRL.P No. 4078 of 2019 ¸ÀPÀëªÀÄ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀªÁzÀ £Á£ÀÄ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ PÀÈvÀå £ÀqÉzÀ ¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðzÀ°è ¦.J¸ï.L. zÀeÉð C¢üPÁjAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ, '¹' UÀÆæ¥ï £ËPÀgÀ£ÁVzÀÄÝ, D¥Á¢vÀ£À£ÀÄß PÉ®¸À¢AzÀ vÉUÉzÀÄ ºÁPÀ®Ä C¢üPÁgÀªÀżÀîªÀ£ÁVgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdå ¥Éǰøï PÁAiÉÄÝ 1963gÀ ¤AiÀĪÀÄ 23(©)G¥À ¤AiÀĪÀÄ (i) jAzÀ(iv) gÀ°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹gÀĪÀAvÉ. ¦.J¸ï.L. zÀeÉðAiÀÄ C¢üPÁjAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÉêɬÄAzÀ ªÀeÁ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ ºÁUÀÆ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdå ¥Éǰøï (²¸ÀÄÛ £ÀqÀªÀ½) 1965/1989 gÀ jÃvÁå ¦.J¸ï.L. zÀeÉðAiÀÄ £ËPÀgÀ£À£ÀÄß ¸ÉêɬÄAzÀ ªÀeÁ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ C¢üPÁgÀªÀżÀî ¥Áæ¢üPÁjAiÀÄÄ L.f.¦.gÀªÀgÁVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. DzÀÝjAzÀ ®AZÀ ¤gÉÆÃzsÀ PÁ¬ÄzÉ 1988 PÀ®A:19(1)(¹) Cr D¥Á¢vÀ £ËPÀgÀgÁzÀ ²æà ¸ÉÆêÀiÁè£ÁAiÀÄÌ ¦.J¸ï.L. §¸ÀªÀ£ÀUÀgÀ ¥Éǰøï oÁuÉ, zÁªÀtUÉgÉ f¯Éè ºÁ° ¦.L. gÉʯÉéøï zÁªÀtUÉgÉ f¯Éè gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ®AZÀ ¤gÉÆÃzsÀPÀ PÁAiÉÄÝ 1988 PÀ®A 13(1) (E) eÉÆvÉUÉ 13(2) gÀ CrAiÀÄ°è C©üAiÉÆÃd£ÉUÉ M¼À¥Àr¸À®Ä ªÀÄAdÆgÁw ¤ÃqÀĪÀ C¢üPÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ ºÉÆA¢gÀÄvÉÛãÉ. CzÀgÀAvÉ F PɼÀPÀAqÀ DzÉñÀ ºÉÆgÀr¸À¯ÁVzÉ.
DzÉñÀ ¸ÀASÉå:22/¹§âA¢(2)/¥ÀƪÀ/2017-18 ¢£ÁAPÀ:10/11/2018 DgÉÆævÀ C¢üPÁjAiÀiÁzÀ ²æà ¸ÉÆêÀiÁè£ÁAiÀÄÌ ¦.J¸ï.L, §¸ÀªÀ£ÀUÀgÀ ¥Éǰøï oÁuÉ. zÁªÀtUÉgÉ f¯Éè ºÁ° ¦.L. gÉʯÉéøï, zÁªÀtUÉgÉ f¯Éè EªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ºÀÄzÉݬÄAzÀ vÉUÉzÀÄ ºÁPÀĪÀ (ªÀeÁ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ) C¢üPÁgÀªÀżÀî ¸ÀPÀëªÀÄ ¥Áæ¢üPÁjAiÀiÁzÀ, ©. zÀAiÀiÁ£ÀAzÀ, L.¦.J¸ï, ¥ÉÇ°Ã¸ï ªÀĺÁ ¤jÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ. ¥ÀǪÀð ªÀ®AiÀÄ, zÁªÀtUÉgÉ DzÀ £Á£ÀÄ ²æà ¸ÉÆêÀiÁè£ÁAiÀÄÌ ¦.J¸ï.L. §¸ÀªÀ£ÀUÀgÀ ¥Éǰøï oÁuÉ, zÁªÀtUÉgÉ f¯Éè ºÁ° ¦.L.
- 28 -
NC: 2024:KHC:52395 CRL.P No. 4078 of 2019 gÉʯÉéøï, zÁªÀtUÉgÉ f¯Éè EªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ®AZÀ ¤gÉÆÃzsÀPÀ PÁAiÉÄÝ-1988gÀ PÀ®A, 13(1)(E) eÉÆvÉAiÀÄ°è NzÀ¯ÁzÀ PÀ®A 13(2) gÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ ²PÁëºÀð C¥ÀgÁzsÀPÁÌV ¸ÀPÀëªÀÄ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è C©üAiÉÆÃUÀUÉƽ¸À®Ä F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ªÀÄAdÆgÁwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀÄwÛzÉÝãÉ. F DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß £À£Àß ¸À» ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ ªÉƺÀj£À CrAiÀÄ°è ¢£ÁAPÀ: 10/11/2018 gÀAzÀÄ ºÉÆgÀr¹zÉ.
¸À»/-
(©. zÀAiÀiÁ£ÀAzÀ. L¦J¸ï) ¥ÉÇ°Ã¸ï ªÀĺÁ ¤jÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ, PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ ªÉƺÀgÀÄ: ¥ÀǪÀð ªÀ®AiÀÄ, zÁªÀtUÉgÉ."
19. On the basis of this order of sanction, a charge sheet was submitted before the Special Court and a case has been registered as Special Case (Lok) No.1/2019.
20. The petitioner being aggrieved by this charge sheet and registration of a criminal case in Special Case (Lok) No.1/2019 for the offences under Section 13(1)(e) and Section 13(2) of the PC Act, the petitioner has preferred this petition.
- 29 -
NC: 2024:KHC:52395 CRL.P No. 4078 of 2019
21. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the provisions of the PC Act do not provide for the Investigating Officer to make a second request for sanction to prosecute, after the first request had been rejected. He submitted that once investigation is completed and the entire materials relating to the investigation are placed before the Competent Authority and sanction is sought, fundamentally, the role of the Investigating Officer comes to an end. He submitted that only if the Competent Authority was of the view that the material procured during investigation did justify prosecution would the Competent Authority proceed to grant sanction. He submitted that even if there were materials justifying prosecution, the Competent Authority had the unfettered right to refuse sanction to prosecute, and this was because of the special protection that a public servant enjoys in respect of allegations of an offence under the PC Act.
- 30 -
NC: 2024:KHC:52395 CRL.P No. 4078 of 2019
22. Learned Senior Counsel also points out that once the Competent Authority had refused the request of the Investigating Officer for according sanction to prosecute the matter, the same would bring the investigation to a complete end and nothing further could be done by the investigation officer. He submitted that on rejection of sanction to prosecution, basically, the Investigating Officer becomes functus officio and he could take no steps whatsoever in this regard.
23. He also submitted that the Apex Court while dealing with a case relating to review of an order of sanction under Section 197 of the PC Act had categorically held in the case of Mohammed Iqbal Bhatti1 to the effect that an order refusing to sanction could not be reviewed and it could be reviewed only when fresh materials were placed before the sanctioning authority.
1 State of Punjab & Another v. Mohammed Iqbal Bhatti, (2009) 17 SCC 92.
- 31 -
NC: 2024:KHC:52395 CRL.P No. 4078 of 2019
24. He also placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Nishanth Sareen2 wherein it had been held that the power to review of an order granting or refusing sanction to prosecute was not unbridled or unrestricted. He submitted that according to this decision, it was not permissible to review or reconsider the matter on the same material once again and that was because the unrestricted power of review would not bring finality to such exercise and on change of the Government or change of the person authorized to exercise power of sanction, the matter concerning sanction could not be reopened.
25. He also submitted that the only permissible case for reviewing an order of sanction was when fresh material had come to light subsequent to the earlier order, which justified relooking into the decision of the sanctioning authority.
2 State of Himachal Pradesh v. Nishant Sareen, (2010) 14 SCC 527.
- 32 -
NC: 2024:KHC:52395 CRL.P No. 4078 of 2019
26. He submitted that in the instant case, the communication between the Investigating Officer through the ADGP, Lokayukta and the IGP clearly discloses that, fundamentally, fresh investigation was ordered by the IGP, who was not the competent authority to accord a sanction to prosecute, and he could not have issued a direction to collect fresh evidence. He submitted that this process was simply impermissible in law.
27. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-
Lokayukta, on the other hand, contended that the Investigating Officer possesses the power to conduct fresh investigation, notwithstanding the refusal of the Competent Authority to grant sanction to prosecute. He submitted that in the instant case, it was at the instance of the IGP that a fresh investigation was ordered. He therefore sought to contend that if an investigation was conducted at the instance of an authority sub-ordinate to the Competent Authority,
- 33 -
NC: 2024:KHC:52395 CRL.P No. 4078 of 2019 the same could not attacked as being without jurisdiction.
28. He placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Virender Kumar Tripathi3 to contend that the no failure of justice would be established by granting of a sanction to prosecute and therefore, the petition was required to be dismissed.
29. He also placed reliance on the judgment in the case of C. S. Krishnamurthy4 to contend that the order of sanction should speak for itself and so long as the satisfaction of the sanctioning authority was apparent, the order of sanction could not be interfered with.
30. In light of the above, the crucial question which requires to be addressed in this petition is:
Whether the Investigating Officer who was investigating a public servant for an offence under the provisions of the PC Act can 3 State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Virender Kumar Tripathi, (2009) 15 SCC 533.4
C. S. Krishnamurthy Vs. State of Karnataka, (2005) 4 SCC 81.
- 34 -
NC: 2024:KHC:52395 CRL.P No. 4078 of 2019 proceed with further investigation / fresh investigation / re-investigation, after his request for grant of sanction to prosecute had been rejected by the competent authority.
31. In order to answer this question, a brief overview of the provisions of the PC Act would have to be undertaken.
32. The PC Act was enacted with the objective of consolidating and amending the law relating to the prevention of corruption and matters connected therewith. Chapter-I deals with preliminary aspects of the enactment, while Chapter-II deals with appointment of Special Judges, and Chapter-III deals with offences and penalties under said Act.
33. Chapter-IV relates to investigation of cases under the Act. Section 17 of the Act stipulates that notwithstanding anything contained in the CrPC, no police officer below the rank specified therein can
- 35 -
NC: 2024:KHC:52395 CRL.P No. 4078 of 2019 investigate any offence punishable under the Act without the order of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Magistrate of the First Class, as the case may be, or make any arrest therefore without a warrant.
34. Thus, whenever an offence under the PC Act is alleged, the same cannot be investigated by a police officer as provided under the CrPC, but the power to investigate itself is conferred only to a class of officers as defined under Section 17 of the PC Act. The said provision categorically states that there should be a clear authorization by the State Government either by general or special order to investigate an offence under the Act or to make an arrest. It is therefore clear that in respect of an offence under the PC Act, the normal rule of enabling a police officer as contemplated under the CrPC to investigate is curtailed and the power to investigate is restricted to one class of officers.
- 36 -
NC: 2024:KHC:52395 CRL.P No. 4078 of 2019
35. Section 17A of the Act states that no enquiry or inquiry or investigation of an offence relatable to recommendations made or decision taken by a public servant in discharge of official functions or duties can be made, unless specific approval is given by the competent authority. Thus, if an allegation is sought to be made that an offence has arisen due to a decision taken by the public servant in discharge of his official functions or duties, there is a further safeguard provided to the public servant, inasmuch as, in those cases, there cannot even be an investigation unless there is an approval for investigation granted by the competent authority.
36. As could be seen from Sections 17 and 17A of the PC Act, the power to investigate an offence under the Act is only available to the authorized officers, but even if the authorized officer is inclined to investigate an offence in relation to a recommendation made or decision taken by the public servant in discharge of
- 37 -
NC: 2024:KHC:52395 CRL.P No. 4078 of 2019 official functions or duties, he is required to seek the approval of the competent authority.
37. Thus, if an offence is relatable to a decision taken by the public servant, firstly, the authorized officer cannot even investigate unless an approval is accorded for such an investigation.
38. The 2nd proviso to Section 17 ensures that the competent authority does not frustrate the request of the authorised officer to investigate by simply not taking a decision, and makes it obligatory for a decision to be taken within three months of the request or an extended period of three more months, provided reasons for the extension are recorded in writing.
39. Chapter-V of the PC Act provides for 'sanction for prosecution and other miscellaneous provisions'.
40. Section 19 declares that no court shall take cognizance of an offence under Sections 7, 11, 13
- 38 -
NC: 2024:KHC:52395 CRL.P No. 4078 of 2019 and 15 unless previous sanction from the competent authority has been granted.
41. Thus, on completion of investigation, the authorized officer is required to approach the competent authority as stipulated under Section 19 of the PC Act and seek sanction to prosecute.
42. It may be pertinent to notice here that in criminal proceedings, the first step is always launching an investigation by a police officer and the second step is to launch a prosecution on the basis of the materials secured during the course of the investigation.
43. However, when it comes to an offence under the PC Act, the law creates a slight but deliberate deviation. Firstly, the police officer -- as contemplated under the CrPC -- cannot investigate and it is only a class of police officers who are authorised who can initiate investigation. Secondly, even after the completion of the investigation, a police officer cannot proceed to
- 39 -
NC: 2024:KHC:52395 CRL.P No. 4078 of 2019 prosecute the public servant unless he has obtained previous sanction of the competent authority to prosecute.
44. It is also to be stated here that if the authorized police officer under the PC Act completes investigation and lays a charge sheet against the public servant, the law prohibits the Court to take cognisance of the offence. It is therefore clear that unless there is previous sanction of the competent authority to prosecute a public servant for an offence under the PC Act, the launching of prosecution would be still-born.
45. It should be kept in mind that the concept of investigation and the concept of prosecution as contemplated under Sections 17 and 19 of the PC Act lie in completely different spheres. At the time of according approval for investigation, the competent authority only has the benefit of material which is available with the Investigating Officer, which would
- 40 -
NC: 2024:KHC:52395 CRL.P No. 4078 of 2019 obviously be not complete, and the material would only be examined to determine if an investigation is justified. Thus, the level of scrutiny of the material obtained would not be extensive and would be limited to the satisfaction that there is a prima facie probability of an offence.
46. However, at the time of according sanction to prosecute, the Competent Authority is required to assess the material that had been collected during the course of investigation which, in the view of the investigation officer, was sufficient to launch prosecution and which would in his view bring about a conviction. The competent authority would therefore have to examine all the materials that are secured during the course of investigation and satisfy himself that the material so collected warrants prosecution and that the intended prosecution is neither frivolous or vexatious.
- 41 -
NC: 2024:KHC:52395 CRL.P No. 4078 of 2019
47. It is to be noticed here that the allegation against a public servant stands on a different footing and this is probably because the law assumes that a public servant would act honestly and discharge his functions with integrity. Thus, whenever an allegation is made against a public servant that he had committed an offence as provided under the Act, the Competent Authority is bestowed with the responsibility of scrutinizing the material and satisfying himself that there exists material which justifies the prosecution of a public servant.
48. In a given case, it may so happen that the Competent Authority may refuse to grant sanction even if there are some materials indicating commission of an offence. This is probably because the facts surrounding the allegation would be within the exclusive knowledge of the Competent Authority and he can make a professional determination as to
- 42 -
NC: 2024:KHC:52395 CRL.P No. 4078 of 2019 whether such act of the public servant amounted to an offence under the PC Act or not.
49. The Competent Authority may take the view that a mere infraction or an irregularity, which would not have any bearing on the public servant's integrity does not warrant a prosecution or that the allegation regarding the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification cannot be accepted given the preceding facts and the procedure to be followed by the public servant in the discharge of his duties.
50. In other words, the conclusive right to determine whether prosecution is justified or not would lie only with the Competent Authority as contemplated under Section 19 of the PC Act. By no stretch of imagination can an Investigating Officer contend that he has the unfettered right to prosecute a public servant.
51. As noticed above, the right of the police officer to prosecute a public servant is restricted to a class of
- 43 -
NC: 2024:KHC:52395 CRL.P No. 4078 of 2019 officers and the power to investigate is also curtailed and ultimately, the Courts cannot take cognisance unless there is sanction accorded by the Competent Authority to prosecute such public servant. Thus, the launch of prosecution, even by an authorised officer under the PC Act, would be a non-starter and would only be an exercise in futility if the previous sanction for the prosecution is not accorded by the Competent Authority.
52. In this regard, a reference can also be made to the proviso to Section 19 of the PC Act. The first proviso to Section 19 mandates that a request for grant of sanction can be made only by a police officer or an officer of an investigation agency or other law enforcement authorities to the appropriate Government or the Competent Authority.
53. However, the proviso permits a person who has filed a complaint in the competent Court against the
- 44 -
NC: 2024:KHC:52395 CRL.P No. 4078 of 2019 alleged offence of a public servant, to seek prosecution against such public servant.
54. Section 19(1)(c)(ii) of the PC Act provides that if the Court has not dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of the CrPC, it is required to direct the complainant to obtain sanction for prosecution against a public servant for further proceedings.
55. It is to be noticed here that the Court may under Sections 200 and 202 of the CrPC be of the view that there were materials which justify taking cognizance, but even this power of the Court to take cognizance of an offence is barred and the law stipulates that the Court is bound to direct the complainant to secure sanction from the Competent Authority.
56. The Competent Authority, merely because the complainant has been directed to obtain sanction, cannot automatically accord sanction and this is because the proviso to Section 19 of the PC Act stipulates that the Competent Authority cannot
- 45 -
NC: 2024:KHC:52395 CRL.P No. 4078 of 2019 accord sanction to prosecute a public servant unless the public servant has been provided an opportunity of being heard.
57. It is therefore clear that even if the complainant approaches the Competent Authority, the Competent Authority by himself, on the basis of the material that had been placed before him, cannot straightaway grant sanction to prosecute. The Competent Authority is bound to hear the public servant before he considers the grant of sanction.
58. This procedure indicates that in cases where the complainant chooses to contend that he has enough material to prosecute a public servant and has already approached the Court of law, the Competent Authority -- on the complainant approaching him with the material for grant of sanction as directed by the Court -- is still required by law to hear the public servant before according sanction. This is because that even if there are some incriminating materials
- 46 -
NC: 2024:KHC:52395 CRL.P No. 4078 of 2019 which prima facie warrant prosecution, the public servant may have a very good justification as to why no offence can be alleged against him.
59. If the Competent Authority on hearing the public servant takes the view that there is no offence made out, then the question of prosecuting the public servant would not arise. It is to be kept in mind that at this stage, the Competent Authority would be considering the request of sanction in the background of the fact that the Criminal Court which was approached by the complainant had decided not to dismiss the complaint and had directed him to secure sanction, and even in such a situation, the Competent Authority would still have to hear the public servant and could thereafter refuse to grant sanction.
60. A conjoint reading of Sections 17 and 19 of the PC Act would thereby indicate that the prosecution of a public servant is not be conducted as a matter of
- 47 -
NC: 2024:KHC:52395 CRL.P No. 4078 of 2019 course and in order to prosecute a public servant, there is more than one safeguard provided at every stage and, ultimately, if the Competent Authority is of the view that there was no justification for prosecuting a public servant, the matter should come to a complete end and nothing further can be done.
61. Keeping in mind this legal aspect, the facts of the present case would have to be examined.
62. As already noticed above, the Investigating Officer after registration of a FIR on 24.04.2014 proceeded to commence investigation and on completion of investigation, sought sanction to prosecute and while seeking the same, he produced the final report that he had prepared after investigation before the Competent Authority. The Competent Authority thereafter found that there was no material which justified a prosecution of the public servant, and it accordingly refused the request for grant of sanction to prosecute.
- 48 -
NC: 2024:KHC:52395 CRL.P No. 4078 of 2019
63. It is to be borne in mind that in this particular case the request for sanction to prosecute was made by the ADGP, Lokayukta, who by himself is a police officer of a high rank and this request was considered by another police officer of the highest rank i.e., DGP and he came to the conclusion that the material secured did not warrant prosecution.
64. The moment the Competent Authority who was incidentally the highest authority in the police department was not satisfied that there was no material to prosecute the petitioner, obviously, the entire matter ought to have come to an end.
65. However, since the investigation officer was of the view that the matter had to be reconsidered, a request was made by the ADGP Lokayukta to the IGP to reconsider the matter of granting sanction and at that stage, the IGP -- who was not the competent authority to accord a sanction to prosecute -- has called upon the ADGP, Lokayukta petitioner to cause
- 49 -
NC: 2024:KHC:52395 CRL.P No. 4078 of 2019 a fresh investigation to be made and fresh evidence be secured in order to consider the second request for grant of sanction to prosecute.
66. Thus, after the competent authority had refused sanction to prosecute, correspondence has ensued between the Investigation Officer to his superior i.e., the ADGP, Lokayukta who, in turn, engaged in a correspondence with the IGP who was not the competent authority to accord sanction to prosecute, but he nevertheless ordered a fresh investigation and for submission of a fresh request for sanction to prosecute. This would basically mean that an officer subordinate to the competent authority was asking for a fresh investigation and on the basis of this fresh investigation, a fresh request for sanction to prosecute had been made.
67. The letter dated 25.04.2017 from IGP, Eastern Range, Davangere to the ADGP, Lokayukta, which is already extracted above, establishes the above
- 50 -
NC: 2024:KHC:52395 CRL.P No. 4078 of 2019 conclusion without any doubt. Since the entire course of action of conducting a fresh investigation and securing fresh evidence was on the basis of this letter of IGP, it is obvious that the entire process was without any jurisdiction.
68. The Investigating Officer has basically proceeded to conduct a second investigation and claimed to have secured evidence on the basis of which he sought to contend that he had a justifiable right to prosecute. As noticed above, the Investigating Officer had only a right to seek sanction of the Competent Authority to prosecute. The Investigating Officer cannot demand that he has an absolute right to prosecute a public servant.
69. It is also to be noticed here that an investigation of a crime has to come to an end at some point of time. Under the provisions of the CrPC, investigation comes to an end on the filing of the final report and once a final report is filed, under normal
- 51 -
NC: 2024:KHC:52395 CRL.P No. 4078 of 2019 circumstances, there cannot be any further investigation, unless, of course, approval of the Court is obtained to make a further investigation.
70. It may also be pertinent to state here that if completely fresh materials become available regarding the commission of an offence under the PC Act which could justify a fresh investigation on the basis of the fresh material. Then, in such a case, it would be open for the Investigating Officer to approach the Competent Authority and request it to consider the fresh materials that had become available after he had rejected the sanction to prosecute and review the order of sanction.
71. However, this procedure of seeking review would be available only if completely fresh material had come to light after the rejection of the earlier request for sanction to prosecute had been rejected by the competent authority. Merely because investigation was incomplete or improper or inadequate, that
- 52 -
NC: 2024:KHC:52395 CRL.P No. 4078 of 2019 would not be a ground to reopen the investigation and cover up the lacunae and thereafter seek sanction to prosecute.
72. It is quite possible that the Competent Authority may point out the lacunae in the request for sanction while refusing sanction. This would not mean that the Competent Authority has given a licence to the Investigating Officer to conduct a re-investigation or a further investigation.
73. In this regard the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Nishant Sareen (supra), wherein it is stated as follows, would be relevant:
"12. It is true that the Government in the matter of grant or refusal to grant sanction exercises statutory power and that would not mean that power once exercised cannot be exercised again or at a subsequent stage in the absence of express power of review in no circumstance whatsoever. The power of review, however, is not unbridled or unrestricted. It seems to us a sound principle to follow that once the statutory power under
- 53 -
NC: 2024:KHC:52395 CRL.P No. 4078 of 2019 Section 19 of the 1988 Act or Section 197 of the Code has been exercised by the Government or the competent authority, as the case may be, it is not permissible for the sanctioning authority to review or reconsider the matter on the same materials again. It is so because unrestricted power of review may not bring finality to such exercise and on change of the Government or change of the person authorised to exercise power of sanction, the matter concerning sanction may be reopened by such authority for the reasons best known to it and a different order may be passed. The opinion on the same materials, thus, may keep on changing and there may not be any end to such statutory exercise.
13. In our opinion, a change of opinion per se on the same materials cannot be a ground for reviewing or reconsidering the earlier order refusing to grant sanction. However, in a case where fresh materials have been collected by the investigating agency subsequent to the earlier order and placed before the sanctioning authority and on that basis, the matter is reconsidered by the sanctioning authority and in light of the fresh materials an opinion is formed that sanction to prosecute the public
- 54 -
NC: 2024:KHC:52395 CRL.P No. 4078 of 2019 servant may be granted, there may not be any impediment to adopt such a course."
74. This would thus fortify the conclusion arrived at in this case that a review of the order of sanction would be available only if fresh materials come to light and a review of the order would be impermissible on a fresh investigation ordered after sanction to prosecute had been refused.
75. Simply put, once the Competent Authority refuses sanction after considering the material secured during the course of investigation, the question of prosecuting a public servant would not arise.
76. Reliance placed on Virender Kumar Tripathi (supra) would be of no avail since the Apex Court in that case was dealing with a case wherein an order of discharge had been set aside on the ground that the order of sanction had a defect and in that context the Apex court, failure of justice should have been occasioned by this defect in the order of sanction.
- 55 -
NC: 2024:KHC:52395 CRL.P No. 4078 of 2019 Obviously, this judgment cannot be pressed into service by the Lokayukta to support fresh investigation at the instance of a competent authority and the grant of the second request for sanction to prosecute.
77. Similarly, the reliance placed on the case of C. S. Krishnamurthy also cannot be of any avail because in that case, the Apex Court was dealing with a case in which the accused had been acquitted on the ground that the order of sanction was not valid and in that context, the Apex Court had held that the order of sanction should speak for itself and if the order did not indicate the same, evidence was required to be led to show that all the particulars were placed before the sanctioning authority for due application of mind. Obviously, the question as to whether a fresh investigation could be called upon by an incompetent authority, which ultimately led to a second request for sanction being made and being granted, was not considered in that case.
- 56 -
NC: 2024:KHC:52395 CRL.P No. 4078 of 2019
78. In this case, since the Competent Authority (the DGP) had refused sanction to prosecute after the investigation was completed by the Investigating Officer, all further proceedings which have led to the second request for sanction to prosecute the petitioner and the grant of sanction on 10.11.2018 would be totally without jurisdiction. Consequently, the charge sheet that has been filed thereafter and the registration of a Special Case in Spl.Case (LOK) No.1/2019 against the petitioner would also be without jurisdiction and they are accordingly quashed.
79. This petition is accordingly allowed.
Sd/-
(N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 74