Karnataka High Court
B Shivarudraswamy vs State By Lokayukta Police on 9 April, 2013
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION No.228 OF 2010
BETWEEN:
Sri. B. Shivarudraswamy,
Son of C. Basavaraju,
Aged about 60 years,
Residing at No.5,
"Sarvodaya",
Behind State Bank of India,
Malagala Main Road,
2nd Stage, 4th Block,
BDA Layout,
Bangalore - 560 091. ...PETITIONER
(By Shri. D. Pavanesh, Advocate for Shri. M.S. Bhagwat,
Advocate)
AND:
State by Lokayukta Police,
M.S. Building,
Bangalore - 560 001. ...RESPONDENT
(By Smt. T.M. Gayathri, Advocate)
*****
2
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to quash the order dated
4.12.2009 and all proceedings in Spl.C.No.10/2004 on the file
of the District and Sessions Judge Chamarajanagar, (Annexure-
A).
This petition is coming on for Hearing this day, the court
made the following:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
The petitioner was working as a Tahsildar in the year 1998. On a complaint in the same year by one Shridhar, a First Information Report was registered against the petitioner on the allegation of having demanded illegal gratification on the basis of which a case had been registered and he was charge-sheeted in the case in S.C.No.10/2004. The petitioner had filed an application under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Cr.P.C.', for brevity) read with Section 258 seeking discharge before the 3 Court of Sessions on the ground that there was invalid sanction for prosecution. The application filed under Section 227 Cr.P.C. was rejected in respect of which the petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the order rejecting the application for discharge. That was allowed by this Court and he was discharged from the charges leveled against him. The respondent had filed a Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court against the order of this Court. The Special Leave Petition having come up for admission, the Apex Court held that since the petitioner had attained the age of superannuation during the pendency of the proceedings, the petition was rendered infructuous and accordingly disposed of the same while leaving the question of law open. The order of the Apex Court reads as follows:
"It is brought to our notice that the respondent has since superannuated from service. In view of the said statement, this petition is rendered infructuous and is disposed of 4 accordingly. The question of law involved is left open."
However, the Court of Sessions has recommenced the proceedings against the petitioner holding that since the petitioner had been discharged by this Court on the ground that there was invalid sanction and as the question of law has been left open by the Apex Court, it should be construed as the matter being at large for determination by the Court below and therefore, on such recommencing of proceedings, the petitioner has approached this Court.
3. From the sequence of events narrated hereinabove, the order of discharge passed by this Court has not been set aside by the Apex Court in its order cited above. The general question of law that arises for consideration is however left open. This did not imply that the proceedings against the present petitioner stood revived insofar as the discharge is concerned. Consequently, the court below has misconstrued 5 the scope of the observation of the Supreme Court that the question of law has been left open. Consequently, the present petition is allowed. The proceedings pending in Special Case No.10/2004 on the file of the District and Sessions Judge, Chamarajanagar stand quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE KS