Shri. Oli Eshappa Alias ... vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 2908 Kant

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                  DHARWAD BENCH

      DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022

                      BEFORE

      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

                 CRL.P NO 101757 OF 2021

BETWEEN

SHRI. OLI ESHAPPA ALIAS ISHWARAPPA
S/O. LATE SANNAVEERAPPA
AGE. 65 YEARS,
OCC. PENSIONER,
R/O. KOYILARAGATTI VILLAGE,
TQ. HADAGAL, DIST. BALLARI.
                                           ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.SHRIKANT T PATIL, ADV.,)

AND

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
R/BY SPL.P.P. DHARWAD BENCH,
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA HOSAPETE,
DIST. BALLARI.
                                           ...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI.RAMESH CHIGARI, HCGP)


     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC.
SEEKING TO THE CHARGE SHEET SUBMITTED BY THE
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA POLICE, HOSAPETE IN CRIME
NO.6/2009 SUBSEQUENTLY NUMBERED AS SPECIAL CASE
NO.35/2012 ON THE FILE OF III RD ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, BALLARI (SITTING AT
HOSAPETE) FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 13(1) (E)
R/W SECTION 13(2) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT BE
QUASHED.

     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                                      2




                                 ORDER

1. Petitioner is before this Court calling in question the

proceedings in Spl.Case.No.35/2012 for the offences

punishable under Sections 13(1)(e) R/w. Section 13(2) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act.

2. The only issue that falls for consideration is whether

the alleged offences would be protected under the

amendment to Section 19 of the PC Act which came about on

23/7/2018. It is not in dispute that the alleged offences are

of the year 2012 and amendment to Section 19 does not

have retrospective effect as is held by the Apex Court in the

case of State of Rajasthan V/s. Tajmal Choudhary in

criminal appeal No.1647/2021, wherein the Apex Court

holds as follows:

"8. In T.N. BETTASWAMAIAH Vs. State of Karnataka being W.P No.29176/2019 (GM-RES), decided on 20.12.2019, which is reported reported in MANU/KA/9503/2019, the Karnataka High Court referred to the judgment of this Court in Hitendra Vishnu Thakur vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors reported in (1994) 4 SCC 602, and rightly held:

"21. ...But in Hitendra Vishnu Thakur & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others (1994) 4 SCC 602 it is held that statute which not only changes the procedure but also creates new rights and liabilities shall be construed to be prospective in operation unless otherwise provided either expressly or by necessary implication. A careful reading of both Section 17A as also Section19 do not contain any express provision to show that they are retrospective in nature nor it is so discernable by implication.

22. In Dr. Subramanian Swamy vs. Dr. Manmohan Singh and Another (2012) 3 SCC 64 it is held that any anti-corruption law has to be interpreted n such a fashion as to strengthen fight against corruption and where two constructions are eminently reasonable, the Court has to accept the one that seeks to eradicate corruption than the one which seeks to perpetuate it."

9. Reference may also be made to the judgment of this Court in GJ Raja vs. Tejraj Surana" reported in (2019) 19 SCC 469, cited by Mr. Sourav Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, where this Court followed the judgment of this Court in Hitendra Vishnur Thakur (supra) and held that a

statute which affect substantive rights is presumed to be prospective in operation unless made retrospective and unless textually impossible a statute which merely affects procedure is presumed to be retrospective. However, a statute which not only changes the procedure but also creates new rights or liabilities is to be construed to be prospective in operation, unless otherwise provided either expressly or by necessary implication.

10. In state of Telangana vs. Managipet alias Mangipet Sarveshwar Reddy reported 2019 (19) SCC 87, this Court rejected the arguments that amended provisions of the PC Act would be applicable to an FIR, registered before the said amendment came into force and found that the High Court had rightly held that no grounds had made out for quashing the proceedings.

11. It is a well settled principle of interpretation that the legislative intent in the enactment of a statute is to be gathered from the express words used in the statue unless the plain words literally construed give rise to absurd results. This Court has to go by the plain words of the statute to construe the legislative intent, as very rightly argued by Mr. Roy. It could not possibly have been the intent of the legislature that all pending investigations upto July, 2018 should be rendered infructuous. Such an interpretation could not possibly have been intended.

12. In his usual fairness, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent does not seriously dispute the proposition of law that Section 17A does not have retrospective operation. Learned Senior Counsel, however, argues that the Court might have looked into the merits and, in particular, the fact that investigation had ultimately been closed. We need not go into that aspect since the High Court has quashed the proceedings only on the ground of permission not having been obtained under Section 17A of the PC Act."

3. In the light of the law declared by the Apex Court

supra nothing further survives for consideration in the case at

hand. The criminal petition stands dismissed.

SD JUDGE Vb/-