Karnataka High Court
Sri Kariyappa Karnal vs State Of Karnataka on 14 December, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 KAR 2492
Author: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
Bench: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
CRL.P.No.4100/2017
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4100/2017
BETWEEN:
SRI. KARIYAPPA KARNAL
S/O. SRI NINGAPPA KARNAL
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF
COMMERCIAL TAXES ENFORCEMENT-I
HUBLI 580032, R/AT NO.59, 2ND CROSS,
VISWESWARANAGAR, HUBLI 580032
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRASHANT HOSAMANI, AMICUS CURIAE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU
NO.25, RACE COURSE ROAD
HIGH GROUNDS, KHANIJA BHAVAN
BANGALORE 560001
2. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU
POLICE STATION, DHARWAD 580001
CRL.P.No.4100/2017
:2:
3. SRI P C YALIGARA
INSPECTOR OF POLICE
ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU
POLICE STATION
DHARWAD 580001
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SANTOSH B. MALAGOUDAR, SPECIAL PP FOR R1 TO R3)
---
This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
praying to quash the registration of First Information Report vide
Crime No.03/2017 of the Second respondent - Anti Corruption
Bureau Police, Dharwad, for the offences punishable under Sections
13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988, pending on the file of the III Addl. District and Sessions
Judge & Spl. Judge for CBI and Lokayukta Cases, Dharwad, so far
as the petitioner is concerned.
This petition coming on for Admission through physical
hearing/video conferencing hearing this day, the Court made the
following:
ORDER
The present petitioner, who is accused in ACB Crime No.3/2017 of the second respondent Police Station, has filed the present petition, which is for the offence punishable 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 pending on the file of the learned III Addl. District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI and Lokayukta cases, Dharwad CRL.P.No.4100/2017 :3: (hereinafter referred to as 'the Special Court', for brevity), has sought for quashing of the said Crime against him.
2. The respondents are being represented by the learned Special Public Prosecutor. Though initially, the present petitioner was being represented by the learned counsel of his choice, however, considering the continuous absence of the said learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court by a detailed order dated 09.11.2020, appointed an Amicus Curaie for the petitioner. Accordingly, learned Amicus Curiae is appearing for the petitioner.
3. Though this matter is listed for admission, with the consent from both side, the same is taken up for final hearing.
4. Learned Amicus Curiae for the petitioner and the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondents are physically present in the Court.
5. Heard their arguments in the matter and perused the materials placed before this Court.
6. The summary of the case of the prosecution is that, respondent No.3, as a Police Inspector of Anti Corruption Bureau CRL.P.No.4100/2017 :4: Police Station, Dharwad, submitted a report seeking an order for investigation by the Superintendent of Police under Section 17 of the PC Act, on 20.02.2017.
The summary of the said report is that, the present petitioner, who was working as an Assistant Commercial Tax Officer (Enforcement), Hubballi Division, Hubballi, has acquired an asset valued at 321.63% excess than his known source of income. In his report, which is at Annexure-C, the third respondent has given details of several (12 in numbers) immovable properties belonging to the family members of the accused, large number of movable properties, the calculation of his known source of income and the expenditure, with that he has arrived that the total value of the immovable and movable property was at `2,18,41,576/- and estimated expenditure was `43,00,000/-. The total of the above is `2,61,41,576/-. Total value of known source of income is `62,00,000/- and the excess of illegal income is `1,99,41,576/-, and the percentage is 1,99,41,576/62,00,000 x 100 = 321.63%.
Based upon the said report, the Superintendent of Police (Anti Corruption Bureau), North range, Belagavi, has ordered the Deputy CRL.P.No.4100/2017 :5: Superintendent of Police (Anti Corruption Bureau), Dharwad for registering a case and for investigation.
Based on the same, an ACB Crime No.3/2017 came to be registered against the present petitioner on 27.02.2017 with the 2nd respondent Police for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act.
7. Learned Amicus Curiae for the petitioner in his arguments submitted that no prior permission was obtained from the competent authority before registering the case. As per the Government order dated 14.03.2016, which is at Annexure-F, a prior permission is required and the same has not been obtained. He further submitted that, though in the memorandum of petition it is stated that the Superintendent of Police, who orders for investigation, in turn has to obtain a sanction from the Additional Director General of Police, however, searching in the manual and in the judgment in the case of Vineet Narain V. Union of India reported in (1998) 1 SCC 226, he did not find any support for relying on the point, as such would not press on the said point. CRL.P.No.4100/2017 :6:
8. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondents in his argument submitted that, the mandate under Section 17 of the PC Act has been complied with. The Superintendent of Police has passed an order for investigation of the matter to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, as such, there is strict and complete compliance of the mandate of law. He too submits that there is noting under the law that the Superintendent of Police in turn should obtain a sanction from the Additional Director General of Police. He further submits that the investigation is almost completed and in case the petitioner is really aggrieved, he can always approach the Court in accordance with law in challenging the charge sheet. As such, quashing the FIR is too premature and without any ground for the same.
9. A perusal of the materials placed before this Court would go to show that the FIR alleges that the petitioner, as a Government employee, has accumulated the property excess than his known source of income. Giving the details of the alleged known source of income in nutshell and the alleged excess amount, it is stated that the present petitioner/accused has accumulated an CRL.P.No.4100/2017 :7: excess of `1,99,41,576/- assets/property which is excess by 321.63% from the known source of income. The report submitted by the respondent No.3 to the jurisdictional Superintendent of Police for Anti Corruption Bureau Cell, which is at Annexure-C also mentions the same.
10. Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act reads as below:
"17. Persons authorised to investigate.--Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), no police officer below the rank,--
(a) in the case of the Delhi Special Police Establishment, of an Inspector of Police;
(b) in the metropolitan areas of Bombay, Calcutta, Madras and Ahmedabad and in any other metropolitan area notified as such under sub-section (1) of section 8 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), of an Assistant Commissioner of Police;
(c) elsewhere, of a Deputy Superintendent of Police or a police officer of equivalent rank, shall investigate any offence punishable under this Act without the order of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class, as the case may be, or make any arrest therefor without a warrant:
Provided that if a police officer not below the rank of an Inspector of Police is authorised by the State Government in this behalf by general or special order, he may also investigate CRL.P.No.4100/2017 :8: any such offence without the order of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class, as the case may be, or make arrest therefor without a warrant:
Provided further that an offence referred to in clause (e) of sub-section (1) of section 13 shall not be investigated without the order of a police officer not below the rank of a Superintendent of Police."
Second proviso to the above Section makes it clear that an offence under Section 13(1) of PC Act shall not be investigated without the order of the police officer not below the rank of the Superintendent of Police.
In the instant case, as already observed above, the competent Superintendent of Police, after receiving the report submitted to him by the third respondent, who is the Police Inspector of Anti Corruption Bureau, Dharwad, has by his order dated 25.02.2017, directed the Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB Police Station, Dharwad District, to register the case and to investigate.
It is based upon the said specific direction given by the said Superintendent of Police, the investigation is said to have been proceeded further, after duly registering the FIR in that regard. CRL.P.No.4100/2017 :9: The proceedings of the Superintendent of Police ACB North range, Belagavi has also been placed by the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the perusal of this Court, which proceedings in No.AB/SP/NR/Belagavi/35/2017 dated 25.02.2017 makes it clear that the concerned superintendent of Police has passed a detailed reasoned order for registering the case under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act against the present petitioner. He has also given reason as to why he is proceeding to pass such an order and why he is directing one Sri. H. D. Mudaraddi, Dy.S.P., as the Investigating Officer in the matter.
Thus, the said order go to show that, it is only after verifying the materials placed before him, the Superintendent of Police concerned has passed a detailed reasoned order.
11. Therefore, when there is compliance of Section 17 of the PC Act and Superintendent of Police has passed a reasoned order and also when the Investigation is said to have reached its fag end, I am of the view that there are no grounds for invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR instituted in the case.
12. Accordingly, I proceeded to pass the following: CRL.P.No.4100/2017 : 10 :
ORDER The petition stands dismissed.
The Court while acknowledging the services rendered by the learned Amicus Curiae for the petitioner Sri. Prashant Hosamani, recommends honorarium of a sum of not less than `4,000/- to him payable by the Registry.
In view of the disposal of the main petition, I.A.No.1/2017 does not survive for consideration.
Registry to transmit the copy of this order to the concerned trial Court immediately.
Sd/-
JUDGE gab