Karnataka High Court
Sri G D Jayarama vs Karnataka Lokayuktha Police on 3 November, 2011
Author: B.S.Patil
Bench: B.S.Patil
the WRIT PETITION 6844/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE OSPF DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2011 : a BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTIC E-B-S.PATIL | W.P.No.36844/2011 (GM-RES} BETWEEN: Sri GD Jayarama, S/o late M.A. Devaiah Aged about 56 years, Working as Assistant Executive ing ineer Presently on deputation at Brokat: ; Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, Chamarajapet Sub- Div ision, J. Road, Bangalore. So , PETITIONER (By Sri M.S. Bhagwat, Adv} AND: Karnataka Lokay. ruktha Police:. Rep. by the Deputy Supe Hntendent of Police, fity Division, | ee Bangalore, an _.. RESPONDENT 'By Sri M. Se sudiaker Pal, Ady 3 This writ petition is fled under Articles 226 & 227 of the "Constitution of India, praying to quash the complaint, FIR and "charge sheet and all proceedings in Special C.C.No.26/10 on tle ofthe XXH Addl.City Civil Sessions Judge and Special ect - Judge i at Bangalore, vide Annexure-C, D and A respectively and ° ee. This petition coming on for preliminary hearing this ca > Court made the following: "i WERIEP PETYTION 6644/2011] ORDER
L. In this writ petition, petitioner is seeking to quash the:
Complaint, FUR, Charge Sheet and all proceedings. in. Special C.C.No.26/2010 on the file of the XX) Additional City. Civil &. Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bangalore "City, vide Annexures-C, D & A respectively.
2. Petitioner was working a5 a Junior Engineer in the Public Works Department, Government of Karriataka. He was deputed to the office of the Bangalore' Development Authority, BDA 24 Stace,.Bangalore. Complaint was Complex, Banashenk filed agains! the petitiener by one Ik.Ganesh before the Police Inspector, Karnataka Lokayukiha. alleging that the petitioner had demanded bribe in order to show official favour. The Lokayuktha Police registered a complaint. After conducting inves ition. 'elong with all the documents, the Lokayuktha . Police "requ ested: the Government io accord sanction to 'prosecute the 'petitioner under Section 19 of the Prevention of m Corruption Act, 1988. The State Government by order dated . 0 1, 09.2007 refused to accord sanction to prosecute the "petitioner. é gain, another request was made by the WEED PETITION .36844/201 1 and accord sanction. The Government again rejected" the request of the Lokayvuktha Police vide order dated O1.01}.2068.. A third request was made by the Lokayuktha Polee and the ~ Government or: 16.64.9008. Yet another request on Ube fourth occasion was made by the Lokayuktlia Police seeking sanction which was also refused on 06.11.2008...
3. On the fifth occasion when ihe Lokayuktha Police made yet another request #0 the Govertimient to acéord sanction for prosecuting the' petitioner, the: Goverment accorded sanction on 18.01.2010"- This wats challenged by the petitioner before this Court in W.P. No. 1986/2010. This Court by order dated 05.01.2011 quashed the 'sanietion order holding that in the absence' of any fresh inajerials placed belore the Government, the Government could not have reviewed its earlier decision and
-. accorded sanction for prosecution. Ht was however made clear in the said order that there was no impediment for the Goverrnnent to take note of fresh material relevant in that . regara to take any decision afresh.
"~4,. Pursuant to the said order, the Government passed an "order on 06.07.2011, copy of which is produced at Annexure-M, SASS a AA SEE eS ER WRIT PETITION 36844 /2011 holding that on careful consideration of the entire materials..no case had been made out for according sanction for prosecution. against the petitioner and that the previous order. dated ~ 18.01.2010 granting sanction deserved to'be cancelled. Though | it was not necessary for the Government to 'cancel the previous:
order of sanction which had been already set aside. by-this Court, the fact remains that by.the order produced at Annexure-M, the State Government, upon reconsideration of the matter, came to the conclii8ier that-no case had been made out for according sanction. - However, in the meanwhile, the Lokayuktha Police had filed charge sheet on 28.01.2010 and the Special Judge had taken.cegnizance of the matter on 29.01 2010.
o "grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that despite the Sanction order having been set aside and the | Government having come to the conclusion that mo case was : 7 made out for prosecuting the petilioner. learned Special Judge 7 is proceeding with the matter having regard to the charge sheet i already filed and the cognizance taken in the matter. It is in this. background the counsel for the petitioner submits that as ~ the entire foundation jor the prosecution initiated against the LL ETE FES WERE PETITION 40844 /2011 D xetitioner is no longer in existence. the proceedings pending. in Faire = & By Special C.C. No.26/2010 are required to be quashed. >
6. Upon hearing the learned counsel tor the petitioner ana - the learned counsel appearing for the respo ndéat'= Lokayuktha Police. | find that in the light of the order already passed by th is Court in W.PLNo. 1986/2016 disposed of on 05.01 201 | and the Order dated 06.07.2011 passed by "the "Government vide Annexure-M whereunder the carher order of sinetion dated 16.01.2016 had beer withd awn' arid on reconsideration it is eonchided that 20 case Was made out against the petitioner to proceed wit hn ihe prosecution, nothing survives for the Special Judge to proceed in tie maiterin' Special CC No. 26/2010 and hence the entire. "precectlings pending in Special Es AVONo.26/2010 including the FIR and the charge sheet are quashed. Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. a/e PKS