Karnataka High Court
B Srinivasa Reddy vs State Of Karnataka Office Of The ... on 23 February, 2012
Author: N.Ananda
Bench: N.Ananda
1IGH COURT OF KARNATAKAHIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH CO -.- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 23" DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012 12 | B SRINIVASA REDDY AGED 63 YEARS, .. S/OBIDDAREDDY -- . OCC MANAGING DIRECTOR. KARNATAKA URBAN WATER SUPPLY AND DRAINAGE BOARD, BANGALORE R/O NO.5, 1-A CXOS8, KHB COLONY (MIG) 5TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE - 560098, ... PETITIONER (By Sri. RAVE B NAT, ADV) : = ' - ~ STATE OF KARNATAKA _. OFFICE. OF THE LOKAYUKTA -. DR B R AMBEDKAR ROAD, M8 BUILDING BANGALORE-01 "2... SRIB PARAMESHWARAPPA OCC:DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA M S BUILDING, CITY DIVISION BANGALORE-01 3. SKID T SRINIVAS OCC: SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE POLICE WING, KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA 4IGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH - 2. BANGALORE DIVISION BANGALORE. .. RE SPONDENTS: - (By SRIB A BELLIAPPA, ADV. FORR-1. _ SRI R.G.RAJENDRA REDDY, ADV. FOR Ri TO 3) CRLP FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT/SOURCE REPORT DATED 22.11.2007 AND FIR DATED 23.11.2007 BEARING CRIME NO.18/2007 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURES-A AND B TO THIS PETITION AND IWVOKE Irs EXTRAORDINARY JUFISDICTIGN/INHERENT POWER AND STRIKE DOWN SECTION 19(3)(c) OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: report regintored in Crime No.18/2007 by second - rempondent. at Phe heard Sri Ravi B. Naik, learned Senior S Counsel for petitioner and Sri B.A.Belliappa, learned s Counsel for respondent No.1.
3. It is not in dispute and cannot be disputed that petitioner was the Managing Director of Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board, Bangalore. As per the source report, on the basis of which crime pO gh LEV en , HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKAHIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH CO
- 3.
Was registered, the percentage of disproportionate assets held by petitioner is 1396.25. |
4. Sri Ravi B. Naik, learned, Senior Counsel, for | petitioner submits that petitioner caunot. be prosecuted :
for an offence punishable under Section 13(2) e) r/w. Section 13(2) of the. Prevention of Corruption Act (for short, 'Act'}, after hin retirement from service The first information report, should not have been suo moto registered by the Lokayaitha police. The description and value of assets 8s stated in the information report are highly exaggerated. The registration of firet information i is motiveited.
oe oN 5. The learned Counsel for Lokayukta would juntity 'the registration of firet information report by S contending that there is no provision in the Act barring Ss vegistration of first information on the basis of source
-- 7 information. There is no need to disclose the name of source informant.
6. The first submission of Sri Ravi B. Naik, learned Senior Counsel for petitioner that petitio ner cannot be w* hm ~f{ vk.
4IGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH :
prosecuted after retirement from service is opposed to the provisions of Section 13(1)(e) reading as bereunsder:
"13. Crbninal misconduct by a .
public servant - (1) A public. sevvant ip eaid a to commit the offence of 'criminal: | () if he of any person on his behalf, is in possession or has, at any 'ime during the period ¢ or his office, been in vossession for which | the. "public. servant cannot satisfactorily. _ socoumt,- of pecuniary 'resources or Property dis proportionate to his known s scurcee of iricome.
| - Explanation:- For the purposes of this oe Section, "Known sources of income" means | income received from any lawful source and _ euch receipt has been intimated in _ aceordance with the provisions of any law, rules or orders for the time being applicable
- to a public servant.
(2) Any public servant who commite crimmal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisomment for a term which shall be not less than one year by which may extend te sever: years and shall also be liable to fine."
HGH COURT OF KARNATAKAHIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH CO
- 5 .-
7. In a decision reported in 1989 SCC (Cx) 128 fin the case of State of Punjab Ve. Kailash Nath and connected matters), the Supreme Court t haa hele oo "7, In the normal course what falls within the purview of the berm 'conditions of service" may be classified aa salary or wages including subsistence allowance during suspension, the periodical increments, pay- scale, eave, provident fund, gratuity, confirmation, promotion, aeniority, tenure or termination of | nervice, compulsory or (Prtinatire retirement, superannuation, pension, ms changing the age of superannuation, dputation and disciplinary : proceedings. Whether or not a government
-- servant should be prosecuted for an offence committed by him obviously cannot be treated to be something pertaining to conditions of service. Making a provision 'that a government servant, even if he is _ guilty of grave misconduct or negligence which constitutes an offence punishable either under the Penal Code or Prevention of Corruption Act or an analogous law should be granted immunity from such prosecution after the lapse of a particular period so as to provide incentive for efficient work wo TO.
4IGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH |
- 6 -
only be against public policy but would alsa" : | be counter productive. It is likely to be an --
incentive not for efficient work. but for. | committing offences inchiding embezzlement oe and misappropriation by some of ther at the | fag end of their tenuis ef service end making an effort that the offence is not. detected within the period prescribed for launching prosecution or manipulating delay in the matter of launching prosecution. Further, instances ~ are not - wanting where a government & servant may escape prosecution at the initial stage for want of evidence but during the course of prosecution of some other person evidence may be led or material may be produced which establishes | - complicity and guilt of such government servant. By that time period prescribed, if | ary. for launching prosecution may have expired and in that event on account of such period having expired the government ". servant concerned would succeed in avoiding prosecution even though there may be sufficient evidence of an offence having been committed by him. Such a situation, in our opinion, cannot be created by framing a rule under Article 309 of the Constitution a ' crd) GH CO f1GAH COURT OF KARNATAKAHIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HI ~ F.« down an embargo on prosecution com a ws, condition of service." a
8. Under the Prevention of Commuption. ba, complainant has not been defined and there is no bar for taking cognizance of the offences on the basis of source information, without disclosing the name of source informent. The Provisions of Criminal Procedure Code are mode applicable to. any proceeding in relation to an offerice under the Frevention of Corruption Act but for certain modifications of Sub Section 1 of Section 243, Sub Section 2 a of Section 317 and Sub Section 1 of Section 397 CrP.c wheih are not relevant for the = purpose of this case.
9. Sv cours while exercising its power to quash . Se the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C, will have to | Ss accept the averments of firet information report at their os ; . face value. The submission of learned Senior Counsel that properties not belonging to petitioner are inchided in the source information report and the figures shown PX pan [rv ad :
} HUH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH |
- 8 -
under the items of expenditure are highly exaggerated + be . oe
10. The law ix fairly well settled that investigation for an offence punishable under Section 1316}, | accused will be called upon to cxplain his known source of income and assets. and the pecuniary source held by him or on his behalf. in ouch an event, petitioner can produce documenta te show. chat what has been shown in the source information report is either falke or exaggerated, 'Therefore, at this stage, this cannot be a ground to quash the Sret information report.
- 41. The 3 next 'submission that first information me, report ia + inotivated and the State had failed to remove petitioner from the post of Managing Director from Se Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board, os carmot be accepted. The motives attributed to fret informant cannot be a ground to quash the first information report.
12. Therefore, I hold that there are no grounds to quash the first information report. The petition iz nN ee pred 7 Sd/-
_. JUDGE comsideration during cubsequent stages of the case, | this petition and they shali not be taken into observations made herein are restricted for decision of 2 accordingly, dismissed. It is made clear that 'the O23 HSIH VAVLVNYV) dO LYNOD HOSIH VAVLVNUVH 40 LINO? HOIH VIVIVNYVY dO LUNOD HDIH VAVIVNUVH JO LYNOD HOIN VVLVNUVN 4O LINO? HON