Karnataka High Court
Sri Mallayya Koravanavar vs State Of Karnataka on 20 December, 2023
Author: M. Nagaprasanna
Bench: M. Nagaprasanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023 R
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION No.102152 OF 2022 (S - RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI MALLAYYA KORAVANAVAR
S/O CHANNABASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE (M AND E)
OFFICE OF JOINT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
GADAG - 582 101.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI NITIN RAMESH, ADVOCATE AND
SRI LINGESH V.KATTEMANE., ADVOCATE)
(VIDEO CONFERENCING)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
4TH FLOOR, M.S.BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE
SESHADRI ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA
2
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR
M.S.BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI A.T.KATTIMANI, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2;
SRI ANIL KALE, SPL.PP FOR R3) (VIDEO CONFERENCING)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT
ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR SUCH
WRIT OR ORDER TO QUASH THE DEPT. ORDER NO. EST-
1/ENQUIRIES -3 /31/2021-22 DATED 5/5/2022 PASSED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 17.11.2023, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court calling in question a
Government Order dated 09-09-2014 entrusting the inquiry to the
3rd respondent/Lokayukta; order dated 05-05-2022 passed by the
2nd respondent according sanction for his prosecution and has
sought for consequential benefits.
2. Heard Sri Nitin Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, Sri A.T. Kattimani, learned Government Advocate
appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri Anil Kale, learned
Special Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.3.
3. Facts, in brief, are as follows:-
The petitioner is appointed as an Agriculture Officer in the
services of the State Government with effect from 26-10-2002 and
posted as Agriculture Officer at Gadag District. When the petitioner
continued to work as Agriculture Officer and later as Assistant
Director of Agriculture, Gadag certain complaints arose with regard
to several lapses in implementation of Mahatma Gandhi National
Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as
'the Act' for short) and a Scheme notified there under. The
complaints arose on account of the report of Comptroller and
Auditor General of India. The complaints resulted in entrusting the
matter against several officers to the Lokayukta for conduct of
inquiry and investigation with regard to faulty implementation of
the Scheme in the State of Karnataka between 2007 and 2014 in
terms of a Government order dated 09-09-2014. The allegations
were irregularities in bills and wrongful disbursal of payments to
people who have never worked.
4. The petitioner being the Agriculture Officer was one of the
persons against whom allegations were made. The investigation
goes on for a period of seven to eight years and when the
investigation was complete, the Investigating Agency seeks
sanction from the hands of the Competent Authority to prosecute
the petitioner. The sanction was accorded on 05-05-2022. It is
then the charge sheet is filed before the concerned Court for
offences punishable under Section 13(1)(c)(d)(i)(ii)(iii) r/w Section
13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ('the PC Act' for
short), Sections 464, 465, 471, 420, 109, 120-B r/w 34 of the IPC
and Section 25 of the Act. It is the claim of the petitioner that it is
only when the sanction order came about, he comes to know of the
FIR being registered against him and was not questioned during the
time of investigation. Based on the said ground and on the ground
of delay in according sanction, the petitioner knocks at the doors of
this Court in the subject petition.
5. This Court, accepting and entertaining the delay, granted
an interim order of stay of further proceedings against the
petitioner. During the pendency of these proceedings comes about
a Government order dated 28-03-2023. The said Government order
withdraws the earlier Government order dated 09-09-2014. It is
then, the matter is moved for its disposal on the score that the
Government order which withdrew the earlier Government order
granting permission even to investigate takes away entire gamut of
offences against the petitioner.
6. Sri Nitin Ramesh, learned counsel representing the
petitioner would contend that by a Government order dated
09-09-2014 permission was granted to investigate and also initiate
departmental inquiry against all the guilty. Pursuant to the
Government order several proceedings take place and sanction is
also accorded for prosecution on 05-05-2022. He would submit
that the subsequent Government order dated 28-03-2023 clearly
takes away the effect of Government order dated 09-09-2014.
Therefore, the very power that was conferred upon the Lokayukta
to initiate departmental inquiry or prosecute is effaced lock stock
barrel. He would submit that the petition be allowed and all
proceedings be quashed in terms of the Government order. In the
event that would not become acceptable to quash the proceedings
in its entirety, the learned counsel would submit that sanction is
accorded by an incompetent Authority. He would place reliance
upon sub-section (2) of Section 19 of the PC Act to contend that
only the Authority competent to remove Government servant from
service is empowered to grant sanction. He would submit that even
on this ground the entire proceedings are vitiated.
7. Per-contra, the learned counsel representing the Lokayukta
Sri Anil Kale would put up strenuous and vehement defence to the
action of granting sanction and the proceedings taken to its logical
conclusion, as in terms of the Government order dated 28-03-2023,
according to the learned counsel, it would be retractable only to
cases where investigation is pending and not to cases where
investigation is concluded and charge sheet is filed. He would
submit that sanction is accorded by the competent Authority and
this plea, if available, can be raised before the concerned Court at
the time when the trial takes place. This Court, exercising its
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, would not
interfere with the proceedings, as the allegation of corruption is of a
mountainous proportion against several accused and the petitioner
is also one among them.
8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions
made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the
material on record.
9. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The petitioner
gets embroiled in certain proceedings in the capacity of him being
the Agriculture Officer or as Assistant Director of Agriculture. The
proceedings are generated on account of a report from the
Comptroller and Auditor General of India who had published a
report with regard to several lapses in implementation of the
Scheme under the Act in several Districts including Gadag District.
Gadag District was where the petitioner was one of those allegedly
responsible for irregularities in preparation of bills and
disbursement of funds. The allegation involves several crores of
rupees. The period of faulty implementation is between 2007 and
2014. Based on the said report, a Government order comes to be
issued on 09-09-2014 entrusting the matter to the Lokayukta. The
Government dated 09-09-2014 reads as follows:
"¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉñÀ ¸ÀASÉå UÁæC¥À 111 GSÁAiÉÆà 2013 ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ:09-
09-2014
¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ°è «ªÀj¹zÀAvÉ, ªÀĺÁvÀä UÁA¢ü gÁ¶ÖçÃAiÀÄ UÁæ«ÄÃt GzÉÆåÃUÀ SÁvÀj
AiÉÆÃd£É - PÀ£ÁðlPÀzÀ C£ÀĵÁ×£ÀzÀ §UÉÎ K¦æ¯ï 2007 jAzÀ ªÀiÁZïð 2012gÀ CªÀ¢üAiÀĪÀgÉUÉ
¨sÁgÀvÀzÀ ¯ÉPÀÌ ¤AiÀÄAvÀæPÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀĺÁ ¯ÉPÀÌ¥Àj±ÉÆÃzsÀPÀgÀÄ (C & AG), EªÀgÀÄ §¼Áîj,
©eÁ¥ÀÄgÀ, ZÁªÀÄgÁd£ÀUÀgÀ, aPÀ̧¼Áî¥ÀÄgÀ, UÀzÀUÀ, ºÁ¸À£À, gÁAiÀÄZÀÆgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ²ªÀªÉÆUÀÎ, F
JAlÄ f¯ÉèUÀ¼À°è £ÀqɸÀ¯ÁzÀ PÁAiÀÄ𠤪ÀðºÀuÉAiÀÄ ¯ÉPÀÌ ¥Àj±ÉÆÃzsÀ£ÉAiÀÄ 2013£Éà ªÀµÀðzÀ
ªÀgÀ¢ ¸ÀASÉå - 7 gÀ°è ¥ÀvÉÛ ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVgÀĪÀ ¯ÉÆÃ¥ÀzÉÆõÀUÀ¼À®èzÉà gÁdåzÀ EvÀgÉ G½zÀ
f¯ÉèUÀ¼À®Æè ¸ÀA¨sÀ«¹gÀ§ºÀÄzÁzÀ CªÀåªÀºÁgÀ/¯ÉÆÃ¥ÀzÉÆõÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß F PɼÀUÉ MzÀV¸ÀĪÀ DPÀgÀ
¸ÀÆaUÀ¼À DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É vÀ¤SÉ ªÀiÁr ¸ÀPÁðgÀPÉÌ ªÀgÀ¢ ¸À°è¸À®Ä ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀ£ÀÄß PÀ£ÁðlPÀ
¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ C¢ü¤AiÀĪÀ, 1984gÀ PÀ®A 7 (2A) gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ ¨ÉAUÀ¼Æ À gÀÄ
EªÀjUÉ ªÀ»¹zÉ.
1. ¨sÁgÀvÀzÀ ¯ÉPÀÌ ¤AiÀÄAvÀæPÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀĺÁ ¯ÉPÀÌ¥Àj±ÉÆÃzsÀPÀgÀÄ (C & AG),
gÀªÀgÀ PÁAiÀið¤ªÀðºÀuÁ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ°è PÀAqÀħA¢gÀĪÀAvÉ PÉ®¸ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß
¤ªÀð»¸ÀzÉÃ, AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¸ÁªÀÄVæUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀÆgÉÊPÉ ªÀiÁqÀzÉà PÉ®ªÉÇAzÀÄ D¸ÀPÀÛ
ªÀUÀðUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸Á«gÁgÀÄ PÉÆÃn gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄUÀ¼À SÉÆnÖ ©®èUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀȶֹgÀĪÀ
§UÉÎ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ ¨ÁQ G½¢gÀĪÀ ©¯ïUÀ¼À°è £ÉÊd ©®ÄèUÀ¼ÉµÀÄÖ
ªÀÄvÀÄÛ SÉÆnÖ ©®ÄèUÀ¼ÉµÀÄÖ? SÉÆnÖ ©®ÄèUÀ½UÉ dªÁ¨ÁÝgÀgÀÄ AiÀiÁgÀÄ?
2. AiÉÆÃd£ÉAiÀÄ C£ÀĵÁ×£ÀzÀ°è C£ÉÃPÀgÀÄ ±Á«ÄïÁV zÁR¯ÉUÀ½®èzÉ CxÀªÁ
¸ÀļÀÄî zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸Àȶ׹ ºÀt zÀÄgÀÄ¥ÀAiÉÆÃUÀ ªÀiÁrPÉÆArzÁÝgÉAiÉÄÃ?
EzÀPÉÌ dªÁ¨ÁÝgÀgÀÄ AiÀiÁgÀÄ?
3. £ÉÊd PÀÆ°PÁgÀgÀ / ¥ÀÆgÉÊPÉzÁgÀjUÉ ºÀt ¥ÁªÀw¸ÀzÉà C£Àå ªÀåQÛUÀ½UÉ
CAzÀgÉ ¥sÀ¯Á£ÀĨsÀ«UÀ¼À®èzÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÀÆgÉÊPÉzÁgÀgÀ®èzÀ ªÀÄÆgÀ£Éà ªÀåQÛUÀ½UÉ
PÀÆ°/©®Äè ¥ÁªÀwªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVzÉAiÉÄÃ?
4. ºÀt zÀÄgÀÄ¥ÀAiÉÆÃUÀ ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀÄîªÀ GzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ SÉÆnÖ/C£ÀĪÀiÁ£Á¸ÀàzÀ
©¯ïUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸Àȶ׹ ¥ÁªÀw ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ ©¯ïUÀ¼À ¸ÀASÉå ªÀÄvÀÄÛ §lªÁqÉ
ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁzÀ MlÄÖ ªÉÆvÀ۪ɵÀÄÖ?
5. MAzÉà PÁªÀÄUÁjAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ««zsÀ DyðPÀ ªÀµÀðzÀ°è ºÁUÀÆ ««zsÀ
AiÉÆÃd£ÉUÀ¼À°è ¥ÀÄ£ÀgÁªÀwð¹ PÁªÀÄUÁj PÉÊUÉwÛPÉƼÀî¯ÁVzÉAiÉÄÃ?
CAvÀºÀ PÁªÀÄUÁgÀUÀ¼ÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀŪÀÅ ºÁUÀÆ dªÁ¨ÁÝgÀgÀÄ AiÀiÁgÀÄ?
6. F AiÉÆÃd£ÉAiÀÄ ¯ÉPÀÌ ¥Àj±ÉÆÃzsÀ£É ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ dªÁ¨ÁÝj ºÉÆwÛgÄÀ ªÀ
¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀUÀ¼ÀÄ DyðPÀ C²¸ÀÄÛ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÀµÀÖªÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ UÀªÄÀ £ÀPÌÉ
vÀgÀĪÀ°è «¥sÀ®ªÁVªÉAiÉÄÃ? ºÁVzÀÝ°è AiÀiÁªÀ ªÀÄlÖzÀ°è PÀvÀðªÀå
¯ÉÆÃ¥ÀªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ? CzÀPÉÌ PÁgÀtUÀ¼ÉãÀÄ?
vÀéjvÀªÁV vÀ¤SÉ £Àqɹ ¤¢ðµÀÖ ²¥sÁgÀ¹ì£ÉÆA¢UÉ ¸ÀPÁðgÀPÉÌ ªÀgÀ¢
¸À°è¸ÀĪÀÅzÀÄ.
F ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ ¸ÀÄUÀªÀÄ vÀ¤SÉUÉ ¸ÀÆPÀÛ ¸ÀºÀPÁgÀ ¤ÃqÀ®Ä ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀ CUÀvÀå
zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀiÁ£Àå ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀ PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ PÉÆÃjPÉAiÀÄ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ vÀPÀëtªÉà MzÀV¸À®Ä J¯Áè
f¯Áè ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvïUÀ¼À ªÀÄÄRå PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÁðºÀPÀ C¢üPÁjUÀ½UÉ DzÉò¹zÉ.
¨sÁgÀvÀzÀ ¯ÉPÀÌ ¤AiÀÄAvÀæPÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀĺÁ ¯ÉPÀÌ¥Àj±ÉÆÃzsÀPÀgÀ 2013£Éà ¸Á°£À ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ
¸ÀASÉå - 7£ÀÄß F DzÉñÀzÉÆA¢UÉ ®UÀwÛ¹zÉ."
(Emphasis added)
The Government in terms of the afore-quoted order directed the
Lokayukta to conduct inquiry and submit a report in terms of
Section 7(2A) of the Lokayukta Act, 1984. The reason for directing
an enquiry to be conducted is in the preamble. The preamble is
that the C & A G of India had raised certain objections with regard
to payment of bills under the scheme. The allegation was
misappropriation of hundreds of crores by producing fake bills
without actually those persons working under the scheme. It is
therefore, the aforesaid order was passed. The points of reference
were six. The crux of reference was to unearth the truth as to who
was responsible for irregular drawing up of bills and faulty
disbursement of payments. The allegation was that several crores
of rupees have been paid on bills which have been forged or falsely
generated. The first reference assumes complete significance as to
why inquiry was necessary. The investigation is conducted which
leads to filing of final report before the concerned Court.
10. Since the petitioner was a Government servant, sanction
in terms of Section 19 of the PC Act was imperative and, therefore,
a requisition for sanction was sent to the hands of the competent
Authority. Sanction is accorded by an order dated 05-05-2022.
Sanction is accorded by the Commissioner of Agriculture, terming
himself to be the Competent Authority in the Department of
Agriculture. The moment sanction is accorded, the petitioner has
knocked at the doors of this Court contending that sanction is not
accorded by the competent authority. Therefore, I deem it
appropriate to consider the veracity of grant of sanction as is
contended by the petitioner. Section 19 of the PC Act reads as
follows:
"19. Previous sanction necessary for prosecution.--
(1) No court shall take cognizance of an offence
punishable under sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 alleged to
have been committed by a public servant, except with the
previous sanction save as otherwise provided in the
Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 (1 of 2014) --
(a) in the case of a person who is employed in
connection with the affairs of the Union and is
not removable from his office save by or with
the sanction of the Central Government, of
that Government;
(b) in the case of a person who is employed in
connection with the affairs of a State and is
not removable from his office save by or with
the sanction of the State Government, of that
Government;
(c) in the case of any other person, of the authority
competent to remove him from his office.
[Provided that no request can be made, by a person other
than a police officer or an officer of an investigation agency or
other law enforcement authority, to the appropriate Government
or competent authority, as the case may be, for the previous
sanction of such Government or authority for taking cognizance
by the court of any of the offences specified in this sub-section,
unless--
(i) such person has filed a complaint in a competent court
about the alleged offences for which the public servant is sought
to be prosecuted; and
(ii) the court has not dismissed the complaint under
Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)
and directed the complainant to obtain the sanction for
prosecution against the public servant for further proceeding:
Provided further that in the case of request from the
person other than a police officer or an officer of an
investigation agency or other law enforcement authority, the
appropriate Government or competent authority shall not accord
sanction to prosecute a public servant without providing an
opportunity of being heard to the concerned public servant:
Provided also that the appropriate Government or any
competent authority shall, after the receipt of the proposal
requiring sanction for prosecution of a public servant under this
sub-section, endeavour to convey the decision on such proposal
within a period of three months from the date of its receipt:
Provided also that in case where, for the purpose of grant
of sanction for prosecution, legal consultation is required, such
period may, for the reasons to be recorded in writing, be
extended by a further period of one month:
Provided also that the Central Government may, for the
purpose of sanction for prosecution of a public servant,
prescribe such guidelines as it considers necessary.
Explanation.--For the purposes of sub-section (1), the
expression "public servant" includes such person--
(a) who has ceased to hold the office during which the
offence is alleged to have been committed; or
(b) who has ceased to hold the office during which the
offence is alleged to have been committed and is holding an
office other than the office during which the offence is alleged to
have been committed.]
(2) Where for any reason whatsoever any doubt
arises as to whether the previous sanction as required
under sub-section (1) should be given by the Central
Government or the State Government or any other
authority, such sanction shall be given by that
Government or authority which would have been
competent to remove the public servant from his office at
the time when the offence was alleged to have been
committed.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),--
(a) no finding, sentence or order passed by a special
Judge shall be reversed or altered by a Court in
appeal, confirmation or revision on the ground of
the absence of, or any error, omission or
irregularity in, the sanction required under sub-
section (1), unless in the opinion of that court, a
failure of justice has in fact been occasioned
thereby;
(b) no court shall stay the proceedings under this Act
on the ground of any error, omission or irregularity
in the sanction granted by the authority, unless it is
satisfied that such error, omission or irregularity
has resulted in a failure of justice;
(c) no court shall stay the proceedings under this Act
on any other ground and no court shall exercise the
powers of revision in relation to any interlocutory
order passed in any inquiry, trial, appeal or other
proceedings.
(4) In determining under sub-section (3) whether the
absence of, or any error, omission or irregularity in, such
sanction has occasioned or resulted in a failure of justice the
court shall have regard to the fact whether the objection could
and should have been raised at any earlier stage in the
proceedings.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this section,--
(a) error includes competency of the authority to grant
sanction;
(b) a sanction required for prosecution includes
reference to any requirement that the prosecution
shall be at the instance of a specified authority or
with the sanction of a specified person or any
requirement of a similar nature."
(Emphasis supplied)
Sub-section (2) of Section 19 mandates that sanction shall be given
by that Government or authority which would have been competent
to remove the Government servant from his office at the time when
the offence was alleged to have been committed. Therefore, sub-
section (2) of section 19 of the PC Act mandates that it is the
competent authority alone who can accord sanction. Section 19 also
mandates that no Court shall take cognizance of offence punishable
under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 unless sanction is accorded by
the competent authority which is empowered to remove from office.
Therefore, in terms of Section 19(1)(b) of the Act sanction has to
be accorded by the State Government.
11. The petitioner is a servant of the government. The
appointing authority to the petitioner is the government and the
authority competent to remove the petitioner from service is the
State Government. It is trite that for the officers of the Central
Government or the State Government as the case would be, it is
the only the authority who is competent to remove the government
servant from service, is the authority who is empowered to grant
sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of the Act. If it were to
be an employee of any public enterprise, it would have been the
authority to whom the power is delegated that is not the issue in
the case at hand. Admitted fact is that, the petitioner is a
government servant. Therefore, the State Government ought to
have accorded sanction, while the sanction is accorded by the
Commissioner in the Department of Agriculture, it therefore, runs
foul of Section 19 of the Act itself. The file regarding sanction
ought to have been placed before the State Government and the
State Government in terms of the Transaction of Business Rules
had to accord sanction. The file is not even placed before the
government. Therefore, the very prosecution gets cut at its root
and any further continuance would vitiate the entire process.
12. Insofar as the contention that sanction is not obtained can
be urged at any point in time in a proceeding, as urged by the
learned counsel appearing for the respondents, is again
unacceptable, in the light of the judgment rendered by the Apex
Court in the case of NANJAPPA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA1
wherein the Apex Court has held as follows:
".... .... ....
21. In B. Saha v. M.S. Kochar [(1979) 4 SCC 177 :
1979 SCC (Cri) 939] this Court was dealing with the need for a
sanction under Section 197 CrPC and the stage at which the
question regarding its validity could be raised. This Court held
that the question of validity of an order of sanction under
Section 197 CrPC could be raised and considered at any stage
of proceedings. Reference may also be made to the decision of
this Court in K. Kalimuthu v. State [(2005) 4 SCC 512 : 2005
SCC (Cri) 1291] where Pasayat, J. speaking for the Court, held
that the question touching the need for a valid sanction under
Section 197 CrPC need not be raised as soon as the complaint
is lodged but can be agitated at any stage of the proceedings.
The following observation in this connection is apposite: (SCC
p. 521, para 15)
"15. The question relating to the need of sanction under
Section 197 of the Code is not necessarily to be considered
as soon as the complaint is lodged and on the allegations
contained therein. This question may arise at any stage of
the proceeding. The question whether sanction is necessary
or not may have to be determined from stage to stage.
Further, in cases where offences under the Act are
concerned, the effect of Section 197, dealing with question
of prejudice has also to be noted."
22. The legal position regarding the importance of
sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act is thus much too clear to admit
equivocation. The statute forbids taking of cognizance
by the court against a public servant except with the
previous sanction of an authority competent to grant
(2015) 14 SCC 186
such sanction in terms of clauses (a), (b) and (c) to
Section 19(1). The question regarding validity of such
sanction can be raised at any stage of the proceedings.
The competence of the court trying the accused so much
depends upon the existence of a valid sanction. In case
the sanction is found to be invalid the court can
discharge the accused relegating the parties to a stage
where the competent authority may grant a fresh
sanction for the prosecution in accordance with law. If
the trial court proceeds, despite the invalidity attached
to the sanction order, the same shall be deemed to be
non est in the eyes of law and shall not forbid a second
trial for the same offences, upon grant of a valid
sanction for such prosecution.
.... .... ....
24. In the case at hand, the Special Court not only
entertained the contention urged on behalf of the
accused about the invalidity of the order of sanction but
found that the authority issuing the said order was
incompetent to grant sanction. The trial court held that
the authority who had issued the sanction was not
competent to do so, a fact which has not been disputed
before the High Court or before us. The only error which
the trial court, in our opinion, committed was that,
having held the sanction to be invalid, it should have
discharged the accused rather than recording an order
of acquittal on the merit of the case. As observed by this
Court in Baij Nath Prasad Tripathi case [Baij Nath
Prasad Tripathi v. State of Bhopal, AIR 1957 SC 494 :
1957 Cri LJ 597] , the absence of a sanction order
implied that the court was not competent to take
cognizance or try the accused. Resultantly, the trial by
an incompetent court was bound to be invalid and non
est in law.
(Emphasis supplied)
13. The Apex Court in an another case in STATE OF
MIZORAM v. C.SANGNGHINA2 has held as follows:
".... .... ....
12. In Nanjappa case [Nanjappa v. State of Karnataka,
(2015) 14 SCC 186 : (2016) 2 SCC (Cri) 360] , after referring to
a number of judgments, this Court summarised the principles in
para 23 as under : (SCC pp. 199-200)
"23. Having said that there are two aspects which we
must immediately advert to. The first relates to the effect
of sub-section (3) to Section 19, which starts with a non
obstante clause. Also relevant to the same aspect would
be Section 465 CrPC which we have extracted earlier.
***
23.2. A careful reading of sub-section (3) to
Section 19 would show that the same interdicts
reversal or alteration of any finding, sentence or
order passed by a Special Judge, on the ground that
the sanction order suffers from an error, omission
or irregularity, unless of course the court before
whom such finding, sentence or order is challenged
in appeal or revision is of the opinion that a failure
of justice has occurred by reason of such error,
omission or irregularity. Sub-section (3), in other
words, simply forbids interference with an order
passed by the Special Judge in appeal, confirmation
or revisional proceedings on the ground that the
sanction is bad save and except, in cases where the
appellate or revisional court finds that failure of
justice has occurred by such invalidity. What is
noteworthy is that sub-section (3) has no
application to proceedings before the Special Judge,
who is free to pass an order discharging the
accused, if he is of the opinion that a valid order
(2019) 13 SCC 335
sanctioning prosecution of the accused had not
been produced as required under Section 19(1).
23.3. Sub-section (3), in our opinion, postulates a
prohibition against a higher court reversing an order
passed by the Special Judge on the ground of any defect,
omission or irregularity in the order of sanction. It does
not forbid a Special Judge from passing an order at
whatever stage of the proceedings holding that the
prosecution is not maintainable for want of a valid order
sanctioning the same.
23.4. The language employed in sub-section (3) is, in
our opinion, clear and unambiguous. This is, in our
opinion, sufficiently evident even from the language
employed in sub-section (4) according to which the
appellate or the revisional court shall, while examining
whether the error, omission or irregularity in the sanction
had occasioned in any failure of justice, have regard to
the fact whether the objection could and should have
been raised at an early stage. Suffice it to say, that a
conjoint reading of Sections 19(3) and (4) leaves no
manner of doubt that the said provisions envisage a
challenge to the validity of the order of sanction or the
validity of the proceedings including finding, sentence or
order passed by the Special Judge in appeal or revision
before a higher court and not before the Special Judge
trying the accused.
23.5. The rationale underlying the provision obviously
is that if the trial has proceeded to conclusion and
resulted in a finding or sentence, the same should not be
lightly interfered with by the appellate or the revisional
court simply because there was some omission, error or
irregularity in the order sanctioning the prosecution under
Section 19(1). Failure of justice is, what the appellate or
revisional court would in such cases look for. And while
examining whether any such failure had indeed taken
place, the court concerned would also keep in mind
whether the objection touching the error, omission or
irregularity in the sanction could or should have been
raised at an earlier stage of the proceedings meaning
thereby whether the same could and should have been
raised at the trial stage instead of being urged in appeal
or revision."
13. In light of the above principles, considering the case
in hand, even before commencement of trial, the respondent-
accused was discharged due to lack of proper sanction, there
was no impediment for filing the fresh/supplementary charge-
sheet after obtaining valid sanction. Unless there is failure of
justice on account of error, omission or irregularity in grant of
sanction for prosecution, the proceedings under the Act could
not be vitiated. By filing fresh charge-sheet, no prejudice is
caused to the respondent nor would it result in failure of justice
to be barred under the principles of "double jeopardy".
.... .... ....
15. The whole basis of Section 300(1) CrPC is that the
person who was tried by a competent court, once acquitted or
convicted, cannot be tried for the same offence. As discussed
earlier, in the case in hand, the respondent-accused has not
been tried nor was there a full-fledged trial. On the other hand,
the order of discharge dated 12-9-2013 passed by the Special
Court was only due to invalidity attached to the prosecution.
When the respondent-accused was so discharged due to lack of
proper sanction, the principles of "double jeopardy" will not
apply. There was no bar for filing fresh/supplementary charge-
sheet after obtaining a valid sanction for prosecution. The
Special Court once it found that there was no valid sanction, it
should have directed the prosecution to do the needful. The
Special Court has not given sufficient opportunities to produce
valid prosecution sanction from the competent authority. The
Special Court erred in refusing to take cognizance of the case
even after production of valid prosecution sanction obtained
from the competent authority and the High Court was not right
in affirming the order of the Special Court. The Special Court
and the High Court were not right in holding that the filing of
the fresh charge-sheet with proper sanction order for
prosecution was barred under the principles of "double
jeopardy".
(Emphasis supplied)
The afore-quoted judgment followed the judgment in the case of
NANJAPPA (supra) to hold that charge cannot be filed without
obtaining a valid sanction.
14. In the light of the aforesaid judgments of the Apex Court
with regard to competent authority according sanction, the ground
of want of sanction by the competent authority as urged by the
petitioner deserves to the accepted and held in favour of the
petitioner. Since the sanction goes to the root of the matter being
contrary to Section 19, the proceedings taken up in the aftermath
without a valid sanction are vitiated.
15. Therefore, if the Government is the competent authority
to remove the petitioner from service, sanction could not have been
accorded by the 2nd respondent styling himself as the competent
authority. The 2nd respondent could be the authority to direct
conduct of disciplinary proceedings or draw up a charge sheet
against the Government servant for conduct of disciplinary
proceedings. He is not the authority competent to remove the
petitioner from his office. Therefore, under sub-section (2) of
Section 19 of the PC Act, the Government alone is the competent
authority to grant sanction to prosecute the petitioner, apart from
the fact that sanction is accorded after about 8 years from the date
of conduct of investigation. The issue of sanction thus cuts at the
root of the matter.
16. The other submission is on the strength of Government
order issued on the aftermath of filing of the present petition i.e.,
Government order dated 28-03-2023 which reads as follows:
¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉñÀ ¸ÀASÉå:Dgïr¹-EfJ¸ï/171/2021, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ, ¢£ÁAPÀ:28-03-2023.
¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ°è «ªÀj¹zÀ CA±ÀUÀ¼À »£À߯ÉAiÀÄ°è ªÀĺÁvÀäUÁA¢ü gÁ¶ÖçÃAiÀÄ UÁæ«ÄÃt
GzÉÆåÃUÀ SÁwæ AiÉÆÃd£É - PÀ£ÁðlPÀ K¦æ¯ï 2007 jAzÀ ªÀiÁZïð 2012gÀ CªÀ¢üAiÀĪÀgÉV£À
PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÀðºÀuÉAiÀÄ §UÉÎ ¨sÁgÀvÀzÀ ¯ÉPÀÌ ¤AiÀÄAvÀæPÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀĺÁ ¯ÉPÀÌ ¥Àj±ÉÆÃzsÀPÀgÀ 2013£ÉÃ
ªÀµÀðzÀ ªÀgÀ¢ ¸ÀASÉå - 7gÀ°è PÀAqÀÄ §A¢gÀĪÀ CªÀåªÀºÁgÀUÀ¼À PÀÄjvÀÄ vÀ¤SÉ £Àqɹ ªÀgÀ¢ ¤ÃqÀ®Ä
PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛjUÉ ªÀ»¹gÀĪÀ DzÉñÀ ¸ÀASÉå: UÁæC¥À 111 GSÁAiÉÆà 2013 ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ,
¢£ÁAPÀ:09.09.2014 gÀ£ÀÄß vÀPÀët¢AzÀ eÁjUÉ §gÀĪÀAvÉ DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀPÁðgÀªÀÅ »AzÀPÉÌ
¥ÀqÉ¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
CzÀgÀAvÉ, ¸ÀzÀj DzÉñÀzÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀæ PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄÄ ºÀÆrzÀ / zÁR°¹gÀĪÀ J®è
¥ÀæPÀgÀtUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÀ¤SɬÄAzÀ »A¥ÀqÉAiÀÄĪÀAvÉ DzÉò¹zÉ."
(Emphasis added)
This Government order withdraws the earlier Government order
issued on 09-09-2014. The earlier Government order had several
references. After those references for conduct of investigation the
Lokayukta had completed the investigation and sought sanction
from the hands of the authority. Whether competent or otherwise
is what is discussed hereinabove. Nonetheless the charge sheet is
filed before the concerned Court. The Government order is clear
that in terms of the earlier Government order dated 09-09-2014 all
cases which are pending at the stage of investigation are
withdrawn.
17. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent/Lokayukta has
produced the note sheet maintained with regard to cases in
Districts where charge sheets are filed and investigations are
pending. They read as follows:
Sl. Police Station Crime No. Remarks
No.
1 Raichur Lokayukta 6/2014 Police have filed
Police Station Charge sheet in
Spl.CC No.132/2017.
2 Shivamogga 11/2014 In this case Police
Lokayukta Police have filed 'B' final
Station report and the same
is accepted by the
Trial court on
14/7/2021
3 Chamarajanagar 9/2014 Police have filed
Lokayukta Police Charge sheet in
4 Vijayapura 9/2014 Police have filed
Lokayukta Police Charge sheet in
5 Hosapete 7/2014 Police have filed
(Ballari) Charge sheet in
Lokayukta Police Spl.CC No.5003/2018
Station
6 Gadag Lokayukta 6/2014 Police have made a
Police Station request with the
Disciplinary Authority
to accord prosecution
sanction order to
submit charge sheet
against the erring
officials. The same is
pending.
7 Hassan 22/2014 In this case Police
Lokayukta Police have filed 'B' final
Station report and the same
is accepted by the
Trial court on
15/7/2022
8 Chikkaballapur 13/2014 The matter is under
Lokayukta Police investigation.
Station
81. Apart from the above, after conducting investigation under the
provisions of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984, certain reports
have been submitted to the Government for initiating
disciplinary action against the erring public servants. In some
cases, the Government has entrusted the departmental inquiry
to this institution, which are under progress. The details of such
reports sent to the Government and the present status of such
reports are as follows:-
Sl. District Date of Report Remarks/Status of
No. sent to Report
Government
1 Raichur No.Compt/LOK/BCD The Govt. by order No,.RDP
/3084/2014/ARLO-3 28ENQ 2019 dated
dated 1/4/2019 13/5/2019 entrusted inquiry
against Sri Sanjeevkumar
AE, Panchayath Raj
Engineering Department
Devadurga and the enquiry
in No.LOK/DE/153/2019 is
in progress.
The Govt. by order No.RDP
266 GPK 2019 dated
28/12/2021 entrusted
inquiry against Sri Mallappa,
Panchayath Development
Officer, Ganadala GP to this
institution and the inquiry
against him is pending in
No.UPLOK-2/DE/2/20222.
2 Koppal No.Compt/LOK/BCD The Government by order
/3084/2014/ARLO No.RDP 120 GPK 2021 dated
- 3 Dated 3/9/2021 entrusted inquiry
16/4/2021 against 5 officials and
inquiry against them is
pending vide
No,.LOK/DE/170/2021 in
this institution.
3 Bagalkot No.Compt/LOK/BCD Report sent stating that no
/3084/2014/ARE- irregularities or illegalities or
19 dated misappropriation of funds
12/12/2022 noticed during the
investigation of Sunaga
Keluru, & Shoorpali Grama
Panchayaths.
4 Bidar No.Compt/LOK/BCD Report sent stating that no
/3084/2014/ARE- irregularities or illegalities or
19 dated 5/1/2023 misappropriation of funds
noticed during the
investigation of Ladha and
Auradh Grama Panchayaths.
5 Dakshina No.Compt/LOK/BCD Report sent stating that no
Kannada /3084/2014/ARE- irregularities or illegalities or
19 dated misappropriation of funds
16/2/2023 noticed during the
investigation of Jokatte,
Permude, Ekkuru, Marodi,
Belalu, Nada, Mennabettu,
Kinnigoli,Malavur, Kemral,
Bajpe,Paduperar,Koyyuru,
Mittabagilu,Aikala,Surinje,
Ulaibettu Grama
Panchayaths.
6 Shivamo- No.LOK/BCD/3084/ Report sent to the
gga 2014/ARLO-3 dated Government for initiating
2/11/2023 disciplinary proceedings
against certain PDOs and
Secretary Grade - II. The
same is pending
consideration by the
Government.
7 Chamara- No.LOK/BCD/3084/ Report sent to the
ja Nagar 2014/ARLO-3 dated Government for initiating
28/2/2023 appropriate proceedings
against certain Ex-
presidents of Grama
Panchayaths, Junior
Engineer and Administrative
officer. The same is
pending consideration by
the Government.
8 Hosapete No.LOK/BCD/3084/ Report sent to the
2014/ARLO-3 dated Government for initiating
28/7/2021 disciplinary proceedings
against erring officials. The
same is pending
consideration by the
Government.
9 Bengalu- No.Compt/LOK/BCD Report sent stating that no
ru North /3084/2014/ARE- irregularities or illegalities or
and 19 dated misappropriation of funds
South 12/12/2023 noticed during the
Taluks investigation of Doddajala,
Sulikeri, H.Gollahalli, Taralu,
Kittanahalli Grama
Panchayaths.
10 Udupi No.Compt/LOK/BCD Report sent stating that no
/3084/2014/ARE- irregularities or illegalities or
19 dated misappropriation of funds
12/12/2023 noticed during the
investigation of 52 Grama
panchayaths in Udupi
District.
11 Bengalu- No.Compt/LOK/BCD Report sent to Government
ru Rural /3084/2014/ARLO- for initiating disciplinary
3 dated 15/5/2020 proceedings against
Sri K.S.Chandrashekhar,
Panchayath Development
Officer of Venkatagiri Kote
Grama Panchayath,
Devanahalli Taluk. The
same is pending
consideration by the Govt."
In few of the Districts charge sheets are filed and in few cases 'B'
reports are filed. In the cases of Gadag District, as observed
hereinabove, sanction is accorded and in few of the Districts
investigation is still pending. In the light of what is indicated
hereinabove, it is not that the Lokayukta slews have kept quiet for
the last 8 years. In certain cases investigation is still pending and
in certain cases charge sheets are filed and trial is on. In cases
where trial is on, as observed in the Government order, the
proceedings cannot be annulled. It is only in cases where
investigation is underway the benefit of the Government would
enure to the accused. Therefore, the effect of the Government
order, in the considered view of this Court is that, it does not take
away every proceeding lock stock and barrel. It, at best, would take
away the investigations pending in cases.
18. The issue involved is with regard to several hundreds of
crores being misappropriated by public servants in implementation
of the Scheme. Fake bills are generated, persons who have never
worked have been granted money. What is granted is not the
money belonging to the officers, it is public money. Therefore, in
cases where trial is on, the trial cannot be disturbed. In cases
where investigation is still pending in terms of the Government
order, they would cease forthwith. Any other interpretation would
be putting a premium on the case of the State, which at one breath
projects hundreds of crores to be the misappropriated amount and
therefore, investigation would be required against public servants
and in the other breath, the orders that are passed earlier for
conduct of investigation are blissfully withdrawn. When public
money and loot of such public money forms the fulcrum of the
allegation, the Government which is the conscious keeper of the
people should not indulge in acts of change of breath with the
change in Government. If on an allegation based upon certain
decision sanction is accorded for prosecution, it cannot be said that
change in Government would change the decision, as the allegation
remains the same. Therefore, the submission of the learned
counsel for the petitioner that the Government order has effaced
the entirety of the Government order dated 09-09-2014 is, on the
face of it, unacceptable. But, the issue of sanction being accorded
by incompetent authority merits acceptance, not for complete
obliteration of the crime, but only as a temporary reprieve to the
petitioner. The State has to accord sanction bearing in mind the
observations made in the course of the order, if it chooses to do so,
within two months.
19. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Writ Petition is allowed in part.
(ii) Order dated 05-05-2022 which accords sanction for
prosecution of the petitioner stands obliterated.
(iii) The Competent Authority/State Government is reserved
liberty to accord sanction for such prosecution bearing
in mind the observations made in the course of this
order and the time frame mentioned therein.
Sd/-
JUDGE
bkp
CT:MJ
