Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. The petitioner has sought for quashing of the order dated 13.8.2002 passed by the XXIII Additional Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in Spl. C.C. No. 443/02 taking cognizance and issuing summons for the offences under Sections 7, 13(l)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2. The petitioner was working as a Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies and during 1996-97. He was on deputation (O.O.D.) as a Manager Janatha Bazar, K.G. Road, Bangalore. One N.L. Gangadhar had complained to the Lokayukta police stating that the petitioner was demanding bribe to do an official favour. A trap was laid and the case was registered by the Lokayukta police in Crime No.3/1997 for the offences under Sections 7, 13(l)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. After the investigation, Lokayukta placed the matter before the Government for obtaining the sanction to prosecute the petitioner. It appears that the Government refused to grant sanction to prosecute the petitioner and ordered an enquiry by the Upalokayukta by order dated 22.01.1998. The Government did not accord the sanction as required under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Hence, 'B' report came to be filed against the same. Notice was issued to the complainant although complainant appeared and engaged the counsel when the matter was set, up for to file objections to 'B' report and although the matter was adjourned for several times, neither the complainant nor the counsel had appeared before the Special Court. As such for want of sanction, the Special Court closed the case and accepted the 'B' report. Further in the meanwhile, when the matter was referred to Upalokayukta, the Upalokayukta after going through the investigation papers and materials had held that there is a prima-facie case/material to proceed against the petitioner to prosecute under Section 7, 13(l)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and proceeded to accord sanction to prosecute the petitioner acting under Section 14 of the Lokayukta Act, 1984. Meanwhile, the Upalokayukta had also ordered to hold D.E. against the petitioner. Again the Government by order dated 16.10.2000, ordered not to accept the report of the Lokayukta to hold D.E. and to close the matter.

10. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that for any prosecution to be launched under the Provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, sanction of the Government under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is mandatory and that the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act are quite different from the provisions of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984, not only in the matter of investigation but also on other aspects. He further contends that once a judicial order is passed for accepting "B" Final Report and holding that there is no sanction granted by the Government as required under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, it is hot open for the Lokayukta Police to circumvent the law by obtaining an order under Section 14 of the Lokayukta Act, 1984 from Upalokayukta and to file Charge Sheet. It is further contended that Government is the Recommendatory Body and not the Karnataka Upalokayukta, and moreover a judicial order, which is not challenged in the Higher Court, remains intact and final. He also contended that in the present case, the principles of natural justice is violated and that too without giving notice 10 the petitioner before passing the order under Section 14 of the Lokayukta Act, 1984.

11. The investigation conducted for the allegation under the Prevention of Corruption Act by the Lokayukta Police is wholly different from the investigation conducted under Section 9 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, and Section 14 of the Lokayukta Act is applied only to the investigation conducted under Section 9 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act and it has no relevance and bearing on the investigation that is conducted under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act on the complaint to the Lokayukta Police. In the light of the observation made by this Hon'ble Court in a decision reported in ILR 2002 KAR 830, the Sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is must for prosecution of any person under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

19. Further, it is made clear that the Government shall considering the final report submitted by the Lokayukta Police, to accord sanction as required under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and thereafter Lokayuktha Police shall move the concerned Court to prosecute the same after obtained sanction as required under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

20. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned order taking cognizance against the petitioner for the offences under Section 7, 13(l)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act on the strength of the sanction accoided under Section 14 of Lokayukta Act is quashed. However, it is made clear, that the respondent-Lokayukta Police is at liberty to prosecute the petitioner after obtaining necessary sanction as required under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.