Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. It is submitted that the Complainant had approached Governor of Karnataka seeking sanction for prosecuting Accused No.1 and had also approached the Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka seeking sanction to prosecute Dr. G.C. Prakash, I.A.S., (Accused No.7) and had approached the Speaker of Karnataka Legislative Assembly seeking sanction for prosecuting Accused Nos. 1 and 6.

9. It is submitted that since the Authorities concerned have not responded regarding the grant of sanction, the Complainant, on the premise of deemed sanction, placing reliance on the judgment in Vineet Narain and Others v. Union of India and Another1 ['Vineet Narain'] and the decision of Apex Court in Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh and Another2 ['Subramanian Swamy'], has sought to proceed legally.

II. SUBMISSIONS oF PARTIES:-

II(A). SUBMISSIONS oF COMPLAINANT:

14. Following are the submissions made on behalf of the Complainant:-

14.1. The Complaint ought not to have been dismissed in its entirety as the proceedings against Accused Nos. 2 to 5, 8 and 9 are not affected by the aspect of sanction for prosecution, as they were private persons.

14.2. The aspect of deemed sanction has not been considered as regards Accused Nos. 6 and 7 and if according to law, the deemed sanction is to be accepted, the proceedings were to continue against all public servants (Accused Nos. 6 and 7), except Accused No. 1 as regards whom there is a specific order of rejection of sanction. The deemed sanction is to be construed in light of the observations made by the Apex Court in Vineet Narain (supra) and Subramanian Swamy (supra).

III(C). WHETHER IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY RESPONSE FROM THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY REGARDING GRANT OF SANCTION SOUGHT AGAINST ACCUSED NOS. 6 AND 7 OUGHT THE SPECIAL JUDGE HAVE PROCEEDED ON THE PREMISE OF DEEMED SANCTION AS CONTENDED?

44. It is the assertion of the Complainant that as against Accused No.7, the request for sanction was made on 20.11.2020 as per Document No.19 to the Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka and as regards Accused No. 6, similar requisition was made to the Hon'ble Speaker of Karnataka Legislative Assembly on 25.11.2020. Till filing of the complaint on 02.06.2021, no reply having been received on the same, it is the contention of the Complainant that the concept of deemed sanction is to be applied by relying on the observations made in Subramanian Swamy (supra).

45. It has been contended by the Complainant that absence of any decision on the requisition of sanction as against Accused No. 7 (Dr. G.C. Prakash, IAS) and Accused No. 6 (Chairman BDA / M.L.A.), despite lapse of sufficient time, ought to be construed as deemed sanction in light of the observations made in Subramanian Swamy (supra). It has been contended that the absence of decision within three months from the date of receipt of request for grant of sanction ought to result in deemed sanction.