Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2019
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
WRIT PETITION NO.18777/2018 (GM-KLA)
BETWEEN:
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA POLICE M.S.BUILDING DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU – 560 001 REPRESENTED BY DYSP KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA
… PETITIONER
(BY SRI B.S.PRASAD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS (DPAR)
(POLICE SERVICE – A)
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU – 560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
N. HANUMANTHARAYA
S/O. LATE NARASIMHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
POLICE INSPECTOR
SHIRA RURAL CIRCLE
TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 561 208
PRESENTLY WORKING AT:
POLICE INSPECTOR
SECURITY TO CHIEF MINISTER
BENGALURU – 560 001
PERMANENT RESIDENT OF
C H PALYA, GUJJANADUMAJARA
NIDUGUL HOBLI
PAVUGADA TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 561 202 … RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SRIDHAR N. HEGDE, HCGP FOR R1 SRI PADMANABHA V. MAHALE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI NAVEED AHMED, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 31.03.2017 IN REJECTION ORDER NO.OE 16 PO.SI.PA 2018, BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-C.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
Sri B.S.Prasad, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Sri Sridhar N. Hegde, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1.
Sri Padmanabha V. Mahale, learned senior counsel for Sri Naveed Ahmed, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the Karnataka Police has assailed the validity of the order dated 31.03.2017 passed by the State Government, by which, it has refused to accord sanction of prosecution against respondent No.2 for the offences punishable under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘PC Act’ for brevity).
The facts giving rise to filing of this writ petition in nutshell are that respondent No.2 joined the police service on 26.08.1996 as a Police Sub-
4 Inspector. The respondent No.2 is in possession of disproportionate assets and thereupon an offence under Section 12(1)(E) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act was registered and an investigation was conducted. After the investigation, the petitioner came to the conclusion that respondent No.2 has disproportionate assets over his income to the extent of 23.53% and sent a final report to respondent No.1 along with all the documents and sought for grant of sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act. The State Government by an order dated 31.03.2017 has refused to grant sanction for prosecution of respondent No.2. With the aforesaid factual background, the petitioner has approached this Court.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the sanctioning authority has assumed the power of the Special Judge and has attached evidentiary value to the material which was produced
5 before it, and therefore it was clearly beyond the purview of the sanctioning authority. It is further submitted that the sanctioning authority was only required to form an opinion on the basis of the material placed before it after consideration of the circumstances whether or not, the sanction has to be granted for prosecution.
In support of these submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on decisions viz., (1) ‘SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (C.B.I.) VS. DEEPAK CHOWDHARY AND OTHERS’, AIR 1996 SUPREME COURT 186;
(2) ‘STATE (ANTI-CORRUPTION BRANCH), GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANOTHER VS. DR. R.C.ANAND AND ANOTHER’, (2000) 4 SUPREME COURT CASES 615;
6 (3) ‘LALU PRASAD ALIAS LALU PRASAD YADAV VS. STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH CBI (AHD) PATNA’, (2007) 1 SUPREME COURT CASES 49;
(4) ‘STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION VS. MAHESH G. JAIN’, (2013) 8 SUPREME COURT CASES 119; AND
(5) ‘K. VEERASWAMI V. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS’, (1991) 3 SUPREME COURT CASES 655.
On the other hand, learned High Court Government Pleader has supported the order passed by respondent No.1.
Learned senior counsel for respondent No.2 has submitted that, it is the duty of the sanctioning authority to apply it’s mind to the material, which has been produced before it and thereafter it has come to
7 the conclusion whether or not the sanction for prosecution has to be granted.
It is also submitted that the authority cannot act in a mechanical manner and has to apply it’s mind by taking into account the materials produced before it. In support of this submission, the learned senior counsel for respondent No.2 has placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of Bombay High Court of Judicature in ‘Mr. ASHOK SHANKARRAO CHAVAN VS. HIS EXCELLENCY SHRI. CH. VIDYASAGAR RAO, THE HON’BLE GOVERNOR OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS‘, DATED 22.12.2017 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.776/2016’.
I have considered the submissions made by both the parties and perused the records.
The principles with regard to grant of sanction are well settled in law, the sanctioning authority has to take into account the material placed before it and also to consider all the relevant facts, material and evidence and has to consider the same. The consideration of the material before the sanctioning authority implies application of mind. The order sanctioned therefore must prima facie show that the sanctioning authority has considered the evidence and other materials placed before it and this fact has to be established by extrinsic evidence and material filed before it, to show that all relevant material has been considered by the sanctioning authority (SEE:‘JASWANT SINGH VS. THE STATE OF PUNJAB‘, AIR 1958 SUPREME COURT 124 AND ‘STATE OF BIHAR VS. P.P.SHARMA, IAS AND ANOTHER’, AIR 1991 SC 1260.
Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘STATE (ANTI-CORRUPTION BRANCH), GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANOTHER VS. DR. R.C.ANAND AND ANOTHER’ (supra).
In the backdrop of the aforesaid well settled legal position, the relevant extract of the impugned order may be noticed, which reads as under:- “vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjAiÀÄÄ DgÉÆævÀgÀ zÉÊ£ÀA¢£À RZÀÄð-ªÉZÀÑUÀ¼À ¨Á§ÄÛ MlÄÖ 9,47,119/- gÀÆ.UÀ¼ÉAzÀÄ ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ ¸ÁÖöån¹ÖPï vÀdÕjAzÀ CAzÁdÄ ¥ÀnÖ vÀAiÀiÁj¹zÀÄÝ, DgÉÆævÀgÀ C£ÀħAzsÀUÀ¼À°è£À «ªÀgÀuÉAiÀÄAvÉ ¸ÀzÀjAiÀĪÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼À°è zÀªÀ¸À-zsÁ£ÀåUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¨É¼ÉAiÀÄÄwÛzÀÄÝ, ¸ÀzÀjAiÀĪÀÅUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÀªÀÄä zÉÊ£ÀA¢£À DºÁgÀzÀ ¨Á§ÄÛ G¥ÀAiÉÆÃV¹gÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ ¸ÀzÀj ªÉZÀѪÀ£ÀÄß vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjAiÀÄÄ £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹gÀĪÀ RZÀÄð-ªÉZÀÑzÀ ¥ÀnÖ¬ÄAzÀ PÉÊ©qÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ PÉÆÃjgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. vÀªÀÄä zÉÊ£ÀA¢£À EvÀgÉ PËlÄA©PÀ ªÉZÀѪÀ£ÀÄß C¢üPÁjAiÀÄÄ 97,469/- gÀÆ.UÀ¼ÉAzÀÄ EvÀgÉ ªÀ¸ÀÄÛUÀ¼À RjâUÀ¼À ¸ÀA§AzsÀ 84,595/- gÀÆ.UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÉZÀÑ ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÉÛÃ£É JAzÀÄ ¥Àæw¥Á¢¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. MmÁÖgÉ DgÉÆævÀgÀ D¹Û Rjâ CªÀÅUÀ¼À C©üªÀÈ¢ÞUÁV ªÀå¬Ä¹zÀ RZÀÄð, ªÀÄPÀ̼À «zÁå¨sÁå¸ÀPÁÌV, ¥ÀwßAiÀÄ
10 C£ÁgÉÆÃUÀåzÀ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ DVgÀĪÀ RZÀÄð, «zÀÄåZÀÒQÛ, ¤ÃgÀÄ ¸ÀgÀ§gÁdÄ EªÀÅUÀ½UÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀ RZÀÄð-ªÉZÀÑUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjAiÀÄÄ 27,84,125/- gÀÆ.UÀ¼ÉAzÀÄ vÉÆÃj¹zÀÄÝ, DgÉÆævÀgÀ E§âgÀÄ ªÀÄPÀ̼À°è ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ 2011 jAzÀ 2014gÀªÀgÉUÉ ¨É¼ÀUÁ«AiÀÄ°è ªÁå¸ÀAUÀ ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ, D ¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðzÀ°è DPÉAiÀÄÄ DgÉÆævÀgÀ ¸ÉßûvÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è EzÀÄÝzÀjAzÀ DPÉAiÀÄ ªÀåAiÀÄQÛPÀ RZÀÄð-ªÉZÀÑUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÁªÀÅ ¨sÀj¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀÄ, 2009 jAzÀ 2012gÀªÀgÉUÉ DgÉÆævÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ ªÀÄAUÀ¼ÀÆj£À ±Á¯ÉAiÀÄ°è ªÁå¸ÀAUÀ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ DvÀ£À ºÁ¸ÉÖ¯ï RZÀÄð 1,51,000/- gÀÆ.UÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÁ£ÀÄ ¨sÀj¹gÀÄvÉÛÃ£É JAzÀÄ ¥Àæw¥Á¢¹zÀÄÝ, vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjAiÀÄ CAzÁdÄ ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ°è ¥ÀÄ£ÀB CzÉà CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ vÀªÀÄä ªÀÄPÀ̼ÀfêÀ£À ¤ªÀðºÀuÁ ªÉZÀѪÀ£ÀÄß vÀ£Àß RZÀÄð-ªÉZÀÑUÀ¼À ¨Á©Û£À°è vÉÆÃj¹gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ C¸ÀªÀÄAd¸ÀªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀÄ ¥Àæw¥Á¢¹gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ £ÀA§®ºÀðªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ªÉÄîÌAqÀ J¯Áè «ªÀgÀuÉUÀ¼À »£É߯ÉAiÀÄ°è DgÉÆævÀgÀ PËlÄA©PÀ ¤ªÀðºÀuÉAiÀÄ ªÉZÀÑ vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁj ¥Àæw¥Á¢¹gÀĪÀAvÉ 27,84,125/-gÀÆ.UÀ¼ÀÄ DVgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. §zÀ°UÉ gÀÆ.15,92,844/- DVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.” * * * * * * “vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjAiÀÄÄ DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä §®è DzÁAiÀÄzÀ ªÀÄÆ®QÌAvÀ Cw ºÉaÑ£À CPÀæªÀÄ D¹ÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ JAzÀÄ D¥Á¢¹, Source ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É vÀ¤SÉ PÉÊUÉÆArzÀÄÝ, vÀ¤SÉAiÀÄ £ÀAvÀgÀ DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä DAiÀiÁ ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À J¦Dgïì£À°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹gÀĪÀ D¹ÛAiÀÄ ºÉÆgÀvÁV ¨ÉÃgÁªÀÅzÉà D¹ÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢®è¢gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ zÀÈqsÀ¥ÀnÖzÀÝgÀÆ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ªÀ¸ÀÄÛUÀ¼ÀÄ DgÉÆævÀgÀ RZÀÄð-ªÉZÀÑUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÁAzÀ©üðPÀªÁV ºÁUÀÆ CªÀÅUÀ¼À ªÀiË®åPÀÌ£ÀÄUÀÄtªÁV CAzÁf¸ÀzÉà ºÉaÑ£À ªÀiË®åªÀ£ÀÄß vÉÆÃj¹
11 DgÉÆævÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÁ ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÀAiÀiÁj¹gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀÄ §gÀÄwÛzÉ. DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¨ÉãÁ«Ä D¹ÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢®è¢gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjAiÀÄ vÀ¤SɬÄAzÀ¯Éà zÀÈqsÀ¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ªÉÄïÉÆßÃlPÉÌ DgÉÆæ ‘¤zÉÆÃ𶒠JAzÀÄ PÀAqÀÄ §A¢zÀÝgÀÆ ¸ÀzÀjAiÀĪÀgÀ£ÀÄß Qæ«Ä£À¯ï £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è DgÉÆæ JAzÀÄ ºÉ¸Àj¹ «ZÁgÀuÉUÉƼÀ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀÅzÀÄ £ÁåAiÀħzÀÞªÁVgÀĪÀÅ¢®è.”
Besides that, it is pertinent to mention here that the sanctioning authority has referred to the details furnished by respondent No.2 with regard to ancestral assets and the said self-acquired property of his wife. The sanctioning authority has also taken into account, the income tax returns filed by respondent No.2, wherein, the income from agricultural and horticultural sources was also disclosed. Thus, on the basis of meticulous assertion of material produced before it, the sanctioning authority has come to the conclusion that the instant case is not a fit case for sanction under Section 19 of the Act. The aforesaid order by no stretch of imagination can said to be either perverse or based on no evidence. This Court
12 exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot sit in appeal over the decision, which has been taken by the sanctioning authority and substitute its opinion.
In view of the preceding analysis, I do not find any merit in this writ petition, the same fails and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE
cp*