SRI P B RAMA MURTHY I A S vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 1st DAY OF JULY 2013

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA

WRIT PETITION No.2342/2007 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN: SRI P B RAMA MURTHY I. A. S., AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS S/O S BANGARESHWAR PRESENTLY WORKING AS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA URBAN WATER SUPPLY AND DRAINAGE BOARD, BANNERGHATTA MAIN ROAD BANGALORE ... PETITIONER (BY SRI C V NAGESH, Sr. COUNSEL) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE POLICE INSPECTOR CITY DIVISION, KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA M S BUILDING VIDHANA VEEDHI BANGALORE-560 001 2. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA M.S.BUILDINGS VIDHANA VEEDHI BANGALORE-560 001 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI J PRASHANTH, ADV. FOR R2 SRI JAGADISH MUNDARGI, GA. FOR R1)

2 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN CRIME NO. LAC 47/1998 VIDE ANX-D REGISTERED BY THE POLICE INSPECTOR, CITY DIVISION, KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA, BANGALORE, FOR THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION[1][e] OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT WHICH IS MADE PENAL UNDER SECTION 13[2] OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT OF WHICH IS FILED BEFORE THE SPECIAL JUDGE AND SESSIONS JUDGE FOR LOKAYUKTHA CASE, BANGALORE CITY AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING :

O R D E R The petitioner is before this Court seeking that the case registered in Crime No.LAC 47/1998 against the petitioner by the Police Inspector, City Division, Karnataka Lokayukta, Bangalore be quashed.

The brief facts are that the petitioner who is an I.A.S. Officer, at the time of filing the instant petition was discharging his function as Chairman and Managing Director of Karnataka Water Supply Drainage Board. At an earlier point, the Income-tax Department is stated to have conducted raid on the premises wherein the petitioner was residing on the allegation of accumulation of assets in disproportion to the known source of income. The

3 proceedings were initiated by the Income-tax Department. Based on such raid being conducted, the Lokayukta police had also registered a case in Crime No.LAC 47/1998. In the instant case, there are two aspects of the matter - one related to the raid conducted by the Income-tax Department and the other being the subsequent action initiated by the Lokayukta Police to proceed against the petitioner for possessing assets which according to them was disproportionate to his known source of income. 3. Insofar as the proceedings initiated by the Income-tax Department, the petitioner had filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax Department (Appeals-VI) Bangalore. The order passed therein is at Annexure-B to the petition. By the said order, the Commissioner of Income-tax has arrived at the conclusion that Assessing Officer had prosecuted the petitioner wrongly without there being any evidence against him for any undisclosed income subsequent to the search said to have been conducted therein. As against the said order passed by the Commissioner for Income-tax, the Revenue

4 had filed appeals before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal by its order dated 30.11.2006 has dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. Thus the proceedings initiated by the Income-tax Department had come to an end.

In the said circumstance, the question that would arise for consideration is with regard to the further proceedings that had been taken out by the Lokayukta police by registering Crime No.LAC 47/1998, which was based on the raid conducted by the Income-tax Department. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that in any event Lokayukta Police had not conducted any fresh investigation into the matter. Such contention has neither been controverted nor has any other materials been placed on record by the respondents.

Be that as it may, the contention which is presently put forth is that even under any circumstance, the sanction to prosecute was required to be obtained as provided under Section 19 of the P.C. Act, 1988. In that regard, the order dated 29.10.2005 (Annexure-H) would

5 disclose that the competent authority after considering all aspects of the matter was of the view that there was no prima facie case of the assets being disproportionate to the known source of income of the petitioner herein and as such it was intimated that the reference to the Government of India for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act did not arise. Hence, it was ordered that the matter be allowed to rest. 6. However, subsequently a fresh request was made seeking reconsideration of the earlier order by which leave had not been granted to prosecute the petitioner. The said request also came to be rejected by the order dated 10.08.2006 as at Annexure-J to the petition. Hence, in view of the same, the position remains that the sanction for prosecution has not been granted. It is in that circumstance the petitioner is before this Court contending that the further proceedings pursuant to registration of Crime No.LAC 47/1998 would not be sustainable in view of the sanction for prosecution not being granted and in similar circumstance, the Hon’ble

6 Supreme Court as well as this Court has held that in the absence of such sanction, there would be no purpose in allowing registration of the crime in such manner and the same have been quashed. 7. Specific reference is made to the order dated 22.01.2013 passed in W.P.No.3367/2007 and connected petition. In the said case, this Court had considered a similar situation, where the Lokayukta Police had registered a case and subsequently the State Government had rejected the request of sanction for prosecution. In the said circumstances, learned Single Judge of this Court with reference to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as hereunder: 9. In the matters on hand, the orders refusing Sanction make it amply clear that the Police have completed investigation and prepared the investigation report. Thus in the normal course, the Police would seek sanction of the State government to proceed with the prosecution. Only after the sanction is granted by the State Government, the Court will take cognizance and thereafter will issue process. In other words, if there is no sanction by the State government, the Court will not take cognizance.

7 10. In the matters on hand, as aforementioned, the complaint was filed and investigation went on without there being any sanction. Sanction is not necessary for completion of the investigation and to file investigation report. In these matters, investigation report as aforementioned is already prepared and the same is submitted to the State Government for according sanction. Unless there is sanction, the Court cannot take cognizance of the offence. Thus the mandatory requirement for taking cognizance is to have sanction from the State government. In the matters on hand, as aforementioned, sanction is refused by the State government after considering the investigation report on merits. If it is so, the Court will not take cognizance of the offence and will not proceed with the trial. Hence no useful purpose will be served in keeping the matters pending as it is before the Court below. Since the order of sanction is necessary to proceed further and as the prayer for grant of sanction made by the respondent is refused by the State Government, the proceedings are liable to be quashed and accordingly quashed.

Considering that the facts in the instant case are similar to the facts therein, insofar as the legal position relating to rejection of sanction of prosecution, I am of the opinion that even in the instant case the crime registered

8 in LAC No. 47/1998 against the petitioner, further proceedings of which had been initially stayed by this Court in any event cannot be allowed to proceed in the absence of sanction for prosecution against the petitioner as cognizance cannot be taken by the Court in the facts and circumstances noticed herein. In that view of the matter, the petition is allowed. The registration of Crime No.LAC 47/1998 (Annexure-D) and further proceedings stand quashed.

Sd/- JUDGE

akc/bms

SRI P B RAMA MURTHY I A S vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA