Sri T A Ramababu S/O Sri T.R.Adisesha ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 September, 2008

[Cites 4, Cited by 2]

Karnataka High Court

Sri T A Ramababu S/O Sri T.R.Adisesha ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 September, 2008

Bench: D.V.Shylendra Kumar

um Ur KAKNAIAKA HIGH COURiT_0E.:KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HSGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HEGH COGRT OF KARNATAKA HEGH COURT

:11 THE CQURT er mnnmmm
AT BANGALORE

Dated this the 23rd day of Septemh§:~'»,.V2SSa._ 3

THE I-IOWBLE MR JI,!'8fl'ICE' --11:_: ﬁ.r

Writ Petition No. of

BETWEEN

SR1. 'I'.A. RAMABABU,

AGED 49 YEARS, " ._ V
S/0 SR1. 'I'.R. AD{_SES.HA .5013. . »
ASSISTANT ;3'RUs::-1-S c<:>N'1?R<:i'LL13;2'; ..
DRUGS CQ1'€TR€)LL._DE-PARFMEN'F;'* .

MANGALéi)RE.'CIR'CL_Eb, _ V.
R/'0 F'LAT'~NO.,. :93, ..
SHIVASVHAKTHI HPASRTMENF, ' " V
NEAR KADI-EPTE' _ -

MANGALORE. * .j-~

" Jois, Sr. Counsei, for

'=_Mf"S. Vagdevi Associates]

. STATE OF KARNATAKA
' BYJTS SECRETARY,

PI.EAL'}'='H AND FAMELY WELFARE
,.SEPARTMSNT,

ME. BUILDINGS / VIKASA SOUDHA,

AVIDHANA VEEDHI,

BANGALORE --- 560 001.

THE ADDITIONAL INSPECTOI?
GENERAL OF POLICE,
KARNATAKA LOKAAYUKHTHA,
MS' QUILIDINGS,

VEDHANA VEEDHI,
BANGALORE - 560 001.

PETITIONER

3. THE DRUGS CONTROLLER'
EN KARNATAKA.
WKLACE ROAD,

BANGALORE -- 560 00:. :§';3e§i=*oNoeE;N-3.3

{By Smt. K. Sarojini Mutha."f1na;"AGA,'for«R1"and R3;
Sri. BA. Beliiappa, A.dv:_ii'oreeR'2}.

THIS PETITION Is m,E.':)oND'1'~:I§ AIWICLE8 .226 At;»:D'22*7 or

THE CONSTITUTION OF' IE\3{)I!§., *§'F\'AYINC} TO QUA'$VH"'OR'DERS'DT.

25.8.2006 85 28.9.2006 WDE ENNEXURE ~-.-_ A«?3 BVRESPECTIVELY
AND ETC-, 9

Tms PB3'I'I'I'IO;N ---.cEjo;v:1;5iG;_oi¥:" Fofé' ~ PRELIMINARY HEARING,
*3' GIROUPTHIS DAY, THE coLr:?1"M;_5D.E_»%rﬁ2; FOLLOWING:

T..." .. ...--.m 1:-u.r'u\rI nu.-n1 s..uunr ur,.:I\AKNAIAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

eiﬁpiogree of the state government

questionizlgtlle argue seixetion orders issued by
the fxst purpose of the provisions

of Section _19(x1L)" of Corruption Act, 1988

..... V' V

2. X and B produced along with the

hit identicai sanction orders under the very

M two diﬂerent dates 25-8-2006 and
and the petitioner had initialiy sought for

of these two orders, in View of further

3
d€VCl0pII1€I}fLS during the pendency of the an
additional prayer is added by way of gin./fpr
the entire records relating to" it
cnme sheet dated 23/27-12i;2ocs'isearmgiitsé
Special Case No 33 of gegemvgis .theV»j¢oi;iri:"'oi'V:p:inciipa1
District & SessiotisV.Judé.g?e;A. district at
Mangalore. This for in the wake
of the had been translated
into the petitioner before
th§ court has also taken

cogiizeince of

it The is mainly on the ground that the
orders at A1mexure~A and B are not
the very fact that there are two orders
lack of application of mind on the part: of the
auigiioritiesg that in complying with the statutory
l"§rec';i1iI*emeI1ts of Section 19(1) of the Act, it is Well

established on authority of law that want of sanction after

..... 'II nnmvnunnn nsurrt t.Uul{IA Uf KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

...-....--. . uwil s.s.:uni ut_': IKAKNRIAKA 1-IEGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HEGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HEGH COURT

4
due application of mind vitiates the for

prosecuting a person; that the condition

for the court to take cog11izaIie*e'of the

under Sections 7 and 13 the J

present case, the ./gmtllorifyi of
sanction, a :}ul1ity.._iI} lawijjrlot only the
impugned sanctioii foeiquashed by issue of
a writ: of proceedings
before V

4. gagged to the respondents and they

havelle-.otcred'* The first respondent--State, secoiiri respoiident-additional inspector general of police the Karnataka Lokayukta are Ieprcsented by 2 Muthmma, learned Additional Government Adtrocatef and the third respo:odent:--drugs controller in .. it is represented by Sri B A Belliappa.

5. I have heard Sri Subramanya Jois, learned senior counsel appearixxg for the petitioner, Ms K Samjini 8 izxjtial stage granted stay of Axmexure-A and of order dated 4-12-2006 and that iznteriﬂil extended further notwitlastaxlfjling : jet"

the preseeuting authority 5 before the special courtteeters/2??--V12'--2Ao:}6;~~.V it' 'issjvirttially acting it: disregard-to order 'a13d*' to compound the violation, the taken cogne nee of the Anne:-mre--P and N produced" for amendment and additiorxal therefore the proceedings havlzizgllbeerx the wake of the interim order of - steyl to ditashed independent of the grounds . «. _ A foritivalidéitiyng the sanction orders.

" of the first resporldenbstate, while the orders are defended, submission made Ms K 'T Muthanna, learned AGA is that it is a valid lleednetion order issued in the normal course and fully in terms of the procedure to be followed in this regard, a/ '£ :3 O U I Q I 3 'E 2 an 5 lulu O E :3 O U 1 9 3 3 'E Z n:

§ H. O .

E D O U 1:

Q I 3 '5:

Z on § II-

E :3 O U :1: 9 I 3 "<2 2 °' { § :2.

§ O U 3:

I § § n:

§ "-

O 3?

:3 11 power for staying any proceedings as a conseqtience of such examination, notwithstanding Act. Speciﬁc attention is drawn sub-section {4} which A' clear' J answering the questionVas:'L:'to>Wl"ieLher order is vitiated or not due:-to an§:*"error'or_oraiss'ien*'or irregularity etc. and such provision. competency of the authority gi'ent relevant aspect and when theV"::'Vco.t_1tended that the authority in the instant case is oniy the iuuntieri importance and therefore the matter eiieﬁiiilation for writ jurisdiction.

hiatfe-.4vbestoWed my mixious consideration to the pieatiir1gs' aim submissions at the Bar.

T It 'is,__Ato be noticed in the first instance that Section A in chapter V of the Act, which is essentially a

-procedural aspect and more in the nature of a safeguard M" ' -'-'UI\AIA l\HKNI-\iAlS.I-\ HEGI-E COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT "iorovided to a public servant who is sought to be

- -.-. -. ........n..-nu-u n-urn it.n.I_tJItI Ur KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURI G' KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNAMKA HIGH E x;

prosecuted. It is deﬁnitely not a substantial provision, though from the angle of a public be a substantial procedural safeguarcl. it I V 3

15. The Supreme Court a of the cases that are be threshold and which where there is no at it isicontended there need not be any sancti_on'_'atid--*ca%__'where the sanction senior counsel appearing for the petitioner r/ orders are not 'law as asserted by a person cases, including the validit'_s,f of . _sanction_, the Supreme Court has observed is"vaV:natt¢f;'Oiwmch is required to be case, it cannot be contended that O there at all. In fact it is the very sanction ~ erder whichﬂs sought to be quashed by the petitioner, several grounds. It is for this reason, the I URT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT[.0lt-'-_: KARNATAKA HEGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT 16

20. Even with regard to the explanation to, ..sL1l3+.sectiorz (4), on which reliance is placed by Sri Jeis, learned senior counsel appearing for {$etitior:er;"

indicate that the error he t.he* "

purpose of subsection be one of competency of sanction, that again is a matter__ validity or legality of the temch can be raised at the ma:c$a;gel.e% O .;

2 The loﬁ1y.,_otherlquestion raised is that of prosecution havirtga. the interim order by" court etc. While it is true that no court, .A a court subordinate to the high court can 2 arty in contravention of the stay order, it established on record that the interim order had ll ' brought to the notice of the court below before the Oproeeedings began in that court, the order sheet indicates this court has subsequently stayed the prosecution 1 7 proceedings and thereafter the proceedings gone on. But, I fmd that there is no the the petitioner ta raise it"aLt"st1ehA'stage_V2is_Aié_;'aarg¢,iiab1eand as is advisable. '

22. Withoutprejuﬂiee--.td'V__st1ch§'-Vf.iossi'§)i1ities all earlier intmim . writ petition is sal-

Judge V' ., 2 ..... .. W UKI ur IV-IKNAIAKA HIGH COURT GE KARNATAKA 4 HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COUR? OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA F-HGH COURT proceedings, as this court i_s.....t1ot p1*ei"1t:iu_;1<iing., K "then, validity of the sanction order at this ~sta';ge,"'b.i1:'it["1s.E3pen ter "

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court