Karnataka High Court
S K Paramesh vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 May, 2013
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF MAY, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION No.464 OF 2013
BETWEEN:
S.K. Paramesh,
Son of Late Kempe Gowda,
Age: 59 years,
Occupation: presently working
As the Principal,
Central Training Institute,
Bangalore - 560 001. ...PETITIONER
(By Shri. Ravi B. Naik, Senior Advocate)
AND:
The State of Karnataka,
(Through Lokayukta Police),
Bangalore - 560 001. ...RESPONDENT
(By Shri. B.A. Belliappa, Advocate for Respondent -
Lokayukta)
*****
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to quash First Information
2
Report in Crime No.92/2012, under Section 13(1)(e) read with
Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
pending on the file of the XXIII Additional City Civil and
Sessions Judge and Special Judge for Lokayuktha Cases at
Bangalore, as per the source report on 18.12.2012 implicating
the petitioner as accused and all further investigation materials.
This petition having been heard and reserved on
24.04.2013 and coming on for pronouncement of orders this
day, the Court delivered the following:-
ORDER
Heard the learned Senior Advocate, Shri. Ravi B. Naik, appearing for the counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The petitioner is said to be a Mechanical Engineer by qualification and had joined the services of the State Government as an Assistant Mechanical Engineer with the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, in the year 1981. And after years of blemishless service is said to have occupied the post of Director (Technical ), KSRTC.
The petitioner is married to a reputed Gynaecologist. They have two sons - one is employed in the United States of 3 America, since three years and the other is pursuing post- graduate studies in medicine.
The petitioner claims that his wife has made a name for herself in her profession and has earned substantial wealth, movable and immovable, in her own right.
A source report dated 15.12.2012 was submitted by the Inspector of Police (Lokayukta) to the Superintendent of Police (Lokayukta), on receipt of which, the latter had directed the former to register a case under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'PC Act', for brevity) and to take up investigation.
It was alleged that the petitioner had a total accumulated assets worth Rs.2,41,13,000/-, whereas his known sources of income was only Rs.1,35,00,000/-. Hence it was alleged that there was a difference of 78%, beyond the petitioner's known sources of income.
4
The check period indicated in the source report in the First Information Report was from the year 1981. It is stated that the properties owned by the petitioner's wife is worth about Rs.1,05,24,899/- as per her income tax returns. Her total income, from rentals, advances, interests and Amway distributorship is Rs.2,08,20540/-. After deducting the value of the assets standing in her name and expenditure, she would be left with a saving of Rs.33,77,224/-. Despite production of the material records in respect of the source of income of the wife of the petitioner - the said assets are sought to be treated as that of the petitioner. A wild and unfair allegation is said to have been made in the source report that the income and the practice of the petitioner's wife is projected as a front to legalize the assets of the petitioner.
3. It is contended that the proceedings initiated are, in any event, vitiated on account of the following further circumstances. An investigation under the provisions of the PC 5 Act cannot be entrusted to any officer below the rank of a Superintendent of Police. Hence, the entrustment of the investigation to a police inspector vitiates the proceedings and the same are liable to be quashed.
It is highlighted that the assets valuation in the source report is duplicated in the expenditure valuation of Rs.75 lakh. If this is deducted along with the assets belonging to the petitioner's wife, there would be no irregularity to be found in the assets held by the petitioner.
The discrepancies apparent in the source report are sought to be addressed in depth, in the body of the petition, attention is drawn to the same.
A large number of authorities are cited by the learned Senior Advocate to contend that the proceedings are liable to be quashed.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, would submit that the petition is filed at a stage when 6 there is hardly scope for examining the merits of the case in these proceedings. The only contention that may require to be addressed is whether there is an infirmity in so far as the investigation having been conducted by an officer below the rank of a Superintendent of Police. In this regard, the learned counsel has produced the relevant proceedings of the Superintendent of Police, City Division, Karnataka Lokayukta, dated 18.12.2012 as well as a copy of an Order dated 18.12.2012, passed by the Superintendent of Police, authorizing the Police Inspector-2, Karnataka Lokayukta, City Division, Bangalore City, to register a case under the PC Act against the petitioner and to investigate the case. He would hence submit that this would adequately meet the requirement of law in so far as the investigation having been conducted by a duly authorized officer and hence, the petition be dismissed.
5. Given the above facts and circumstances, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent, given the 7 stage of the proceedings initiated against the petitioner - there is hardly scope for examining the merit of the case on facts. The only point for consideration in this petition therefore would be whether there is an infirmity in the investigation having been conducted by an officer other than an authorized officer.
Though the learned Senior Advocate Shri. Naik seeks to question even the authorization now sought to be produced by the respondent, on the ground that the Order ought to disclose reasons as to why the investigation is being entrusted to an officer below the rank of a Superintendent - this is not a material objection that can be sustained.
The copies of the proceedings and the order passed by the Superintendent produced by the counsel for the respondent reads as follows :
"PROCEEDINGS OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CITY DIVISION, KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA Sub: Possession of properties disproportionate to the known sources of 8 income by Sri. S.K. Parmesh, Director (Technical), KSRTC, Bangalore.
Ref: Source Report submitted by Sri. Vazeer Ali Khan, Police Inspector, KLA, Bengaluru Rural district, Bengaluru Dated 15.12.2012 *** I have gone through the source report submitted by Sri. Vazeer Ali Khan, Police Inspector, KLA, Bengaluru Rural district, Bangaloru relating to his receipts of credible information that Sri. S.K. Parmesh, Director (Technical), KSRTC, Bangalore, has acquired properties disproportionate to his known sources of income to the extent of Rs.1,06,13,000-00 and thereby committed an offence under section 13(1)(e) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
From the material placed before me and with application of my mind I am satisfied that a prima-facie case is made out against Sri. S.K. Parmesh, Director (Technical), KSRTC, Bangalore warranting a statutory investigation for an offence under section 13(1)(e) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988.
As per the Government of Karnataka notification No.HD 236/97 dated 20.08.1997 Police Inspectors of Karnataka Lokayukta Organization have been specially authorized to investigate cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988.9
ORDER No.LOK/INV(G)/SP/CITY/8/2012, DATE 18.12.2012 Therefore by virtue of the powers vested in me under Provisions of section 17 of he Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, I , U.P. Shivarama Reddy, Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta, Bengaluru City Division, BengaluruCity, order that Sri. Narasimhamurthy.P, Police Inspector-2, Karnataka Lokayukta, City Division, BengaluruCity to register a case under section 13(1)(e) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1998 against Sri. S.K. Parmesh, Driector (Technical), KSRTC, Bangalore and to investigate the said case.
Further I authorize Sri. Narasimhamurthy.P, Police Inspector-2, Karnataka Lokayukta, City Division, BengaluruCity under the provisions of the section 18 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 to inspect the bankers books in so far as it relates tot eh accounts of the persons suspected to be holding money on behalf of the said Sri. S.K.Parmesh, Director (Technical), KSRTC, Bangalore and to take or cause to be taken certified copies of the relevant entries there from and to freeze the bank accounts as per Sec. 102 of Cr.P.C. if necessary, the Bankers concerned shall be bound to assist the police officer Sri. Narasimhamurthy.P, Police Inspector-2, Karnataka 10 Lokayukta, City Division, BengaluruCity, in the exercise of the powers under the said section of law."
From a reading of the above, it is evident that there is sufficient attention to detail is devoted in entrusting the investigation to the Police Inspector. On the other hand - a similar contention as in the present case canvassed against an authorization order being a typed proforma and therefore presumably was issued mechanically etc., as canvassed in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Shri Ram Singh, JT 2000 (1) SC 518, is met with the following observation by the apex court:
"14. We are not satisfied with the finding of the High Court that merely because the order of the Superintendent of Police was in typed proforma, that showed the non-application of the mind or could be held to have been passed in a mechanical and casual manner. As noticed earlier the order clearly indicates the name of the accused, the number of FIR, nature of the offence and power of Superintendent of Police permitting him to authorize a junior officer to investigate. The time between the registration of the FIR and authorization in terms of second proviso to Section 17 shows further the application 11 of mind and the circumstances which weighed with the Superintendent of Police to direct authorization to order the investigation."
Therefore, if the same token of reasoning is applied there is no merit in this petition and is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE nv*