IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7186 OF 2016 BETWEEN:
G.K. SHANKAR NAIK S/O SRI KRISHNA NAIK, AGED 34 YEARS OCCUPATION:POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR, SPECIAL TASK FORCE (SEC) VISHVESHWARAYA TOWERS, BENGALURU-560 001 THEN SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAVAREKERE POLICE STATION, RAMNAGAR DISTRICT RESIDENT OF DOOR NO.812, 12TH MAIN,HOYSALA ROAD, VINAYAKA LAYOUT, NAGARBHAVI 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560 074 PERMANENT R/O GEDALAHALLI THANDYA, DENANUR POST, KADUR TALUK, CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577 101 (BY SRI: PRASANNA KUMAR P, ADVOCATE) ... PETITIONER AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA POLICE, RAMANAGAR DISTRICT, RAMANAGAR REPRESENTED BY ITS SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, OFFICE OF KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, M.S. BUILDING, DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001 2. MR CHETAN S/O PUTTAIAH, AGED 28 YEARS R/AT NO.462/42, 2ND CROSS,MARUTHINAGAR, HEROHALLI, MAGADI-BANGALORE MAIN ROAD, YESHWANTHPUR HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU-560 022 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: B.S.PRASAD SPL. PP FOR R1 R-2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 01.09.2016 PASSED BY THE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMANAGAR IN SPL.C.C.NO.97/2016 (CR.NO.10/2014) THEREBY TAKING COGNIZANCE AND ORDERING TO REGISTER CASE FOR THE OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 7, 8, 13(1)(d) R/W 13(2) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.97/2016 BEFORE PRL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMANAGARA PENDING THEREON AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.5.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R A short question that arise for consideration in this petition is :-
“Whether the Disciplinary Authority has power to review its own order refusing sanction for prosecution of the delinquent servant?”
2. The facts leading to the above question are as follows:-
The petitioner herein was working as Police Sub-Inspector of Tavarakere Police Station, Ramanagar. He was sought to be prosecuted on the charges that at his instance, accused Nos.1 to 4 demanded and received illegal gratification of Rs.50,000/- for releasing the seized gas cylinders to the complainant.
3. At the first instance, the Disciplinary Authority viz., Inspector General of Police, Central Range, Bengaluru refused sanction for prosecution of the petitioner, on the ground that the material produced before him did not make out the offences alleged against the petitioner. However subsequently, the Inspector General of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta communicated a letter to the Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta, Ramanagar to seek review of the said order and accordingly the Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta, Ramanagar placed the very same material before the subsequent Disciplinary Authority seeking sanction. Accordingly, by order dated 30.07.2016, the Inspector General of Police, Central Range, Bengaluru accorded sanction for the prosecution of the petitioner for the offences punishable under sections 7, 8, 13(1) (d) r/w 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH vs. NISHANT SAREEN, reported in (2010) 14 ACC 527, STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER vs. MOHAMMED IQBAL BHATTI reported in (2009) 17 SCC 92, GOPIKANT CHOUDHARY vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS, reported in (2000) 9 SCC 53, STATE OF PUNJAB vs. LABH SINGH, reported in (2014) 16 SCC 807 and a decision of our High Court in SHRI. L. MEGHA NAIK vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, ENERGY DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS reported in ILR 2015 KAR 2053.
5. Further, placing reliance on the copy of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition No.9045/2015 dated 06.03.2017, whereby the Special Leave Petition preferred against the order has been dismissed, thereby confirming the order passed by this Court in SHRI L. MEGHA NAIK Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA would submit that in the absence of express power of review, it was not permissible for the Sanctioning Authority to review or reconsider the matter on the same material again.
6. Learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-Karnataka Lokayukta has fairly submitted that the very same material which was collected during investigation and which was assessed by the earlier Disciplinary Authority was placed for consideration of the subsequent Sanctioning Authority.
7. In the above factual situation and in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above decision, the only conclusion that could be arrived at is that the Disciplinary Authority had no power or jurisdiction to review the order passed by the previous Sanctioning Authority, as a result, the sanction accorded by the Inspector General of Police, Central Range, Bengaluru vide order dated 30.07.2016 is without authority of law and cannot be sustained.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The proceedings pending against the petitioner in Spl.C.C.No.97/2016 on the file of Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Ramanagara, for the offences punishable under sections 7, 8, 13(1) (d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is quashed for want of sanction.
Liberty is reserved to respondent No.1-Karnataka Lokayukta to challenge the order dated 04.04.2016 refusing sanction for prosecution of the petitioner in accordance with law and thereafter to take such action as permissible under law.
Sd/- JUDGE *mn/-