IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MAY, 2017 B E F O R E THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. VENUGOPALA GOWDA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2653/2015 BETWEEN:
Dr. V.L. NANDEESH AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS S/O LATE LINGADEVARU PROFESSOR & HOD MANDYA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES R/AT NO.1183, HOSPITAL ROAD ASHOK NAGARA MANDYA – 571 401.
(BY SRI H.C. SHIVARAMU, ADV.) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA POLICE MANDYA REP. BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI M.S. BUILDING BANGALORE – 560 001.
2. SHRI R.C. ANIL INCHARGE POLICE INSPECTOR KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA MANDYA DISTRICT …PETITIONER MANDYA – 571 401.
(BY SRI B.S. PRASAD, ADV. FOR R1 R2 IS SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED SRI A.S. PONNANNA, AAG FOR SRI M.A. SUBRAMANI, HCGP FOR STATE …RESPONDENTS SRI KRISHNA S. DIXIT, ASGI AS AMICUS CURIAE) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME NO.10/2013 DATED 19.12.2013 OF THE CASE AND COMPLAINT REGISTERED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT AND FILED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT INCLUDING FURTHER PROCEEDINGS RELATED TO CRIME NO.10/2013 OF MANDYA P.S., KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA AND PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE AT MANDYA FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES P/U/Ss.13(1)(e) AND 13(2) OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This petition was filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to quash an FIR registered by the respondent No.1, on 19.12.2013, in Crime No.10/2013, a copy of which was submitted to the learned Special Judge at Mandya. Case was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. When the matter was taken up for consideration, having regard to the nature of issues raised by the petitioner, it was felt necessary and expedient to deal with the matter as of public importance. Notice was directed to the respondents. Reports with regard to the pending investigations and prosecutions of the cases was called for. Orders were passed on different hearing dates commencing from 25.06.2015, wherein directions were issued to the Karnataka Lokayukta Police and the State Government in the matter of conducting expeditious investigation and also the according of sanction for prosecution of public servants concerned by the Government. Directions were also issued for expeditious prosecution of cases pending before the learned Special Judges under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as the undue delay in conducting of investigations or holding trial of the case(s) has the effect of bringing about blatant in violation of rule of law.
3. Sri A.S. Ponnanna, learned AAG having taken up the issues which came up for consideration during the course of hearing, came up with suggestions and assisted the Court. He submitted that in view of the steps taken, including the Circular issued by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Karnataka, in the matter of time bound action on the requisitions received from the Karnataka Lokayukta for according of sanction for prosecution, there is no need to keep this petition pending and/or issue of any further directions.
4. In the present case, investigation having been completed, ‘B’ report was submitted to the learned Special Judge, Mandya. Learned Trial Judge has, on 20.04.2017, accepted the ‘B’ report.
5. Sri A.S. Ponnanna submitted that in view of the action taken towards the compliance of all the orders passed in this petition, it may not be necessary to issue any further directions. Sri B.S. Prasad, learned advocate for respondent No.1 submitted that in view of appointment of Karnataka Lokayukta and the Upa-Lokayuktas also being functional, necessary action would be taken to streamline the entire process.
6. Sri Krishna S.Dixit, learned ASGI, who was requested to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae submitted that in view of orders passed in this petition, on the earlier occasions, it may not be necessary to issue any further directions.
7. In view of the assurances held out by the learned AAG and Sri B.S. Prasad, it is not necessary to issue any further directions in the case, as the ‘B’ report submitted was accepted by the learned Trial Judge and the case registered against the petitioner has stood terminated. There is no reason to doubt the submissions made on behalf of respondent No.1 and the other respondent that all necessary steps will be taken and reviewed from time to time. This Court expects the concerned to conduct review meetings atleast once in three months to consider further course of action, in the matter of conducting expeditious investigations and prosecution of cases arising under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The learned Trial Judges/Special Judges shall conduct trials and decide the cases with as much expedition as is possible by keeping in view the directions issued by the Apex Court in catena of cases.
Learned advocates appearing for the parties assisted the Court ably. I acknowledge with gratitude the assistance rendered to the Court by learned Amicus Curiae, Sri Krishna S. Dixit and Sri A.S. Ponnanna, learned AAG.
In view of the acceptance of ‘B’ report submitted by respondent No.1, it is unnecessary to decide this petition on its merit. Petition is disposed of as not surviving for consideration with no order as to costs.
Sd/- JUDGE ca