IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.15722 OF 2019 (GM - RES) Between:
Sri. S.C.Jayachandra, S/o Chikkaboraiah, Aged about 57 years, R/at NO.150, 6th Cross, Bapuji Layout, Chandra Layout, Bangalore – 560 040.
…Petitioner (By Smt.Swamini G Mohanambal, Advocate for Sri.Sandeep Patil, Advocate) And:
1. State of Karnataka, Represented by its Under Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore – 560 001.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel And Administrative Reforms, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore – 560 001. …Respondents (By Smt. Prathima Honnapura, AGA) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the sanction order dated 20.03.2019 passed by the R-1 (produced as Annexure – A) and etc., This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in 'B' Group, this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Smt. Swamini G. Mohanambal, learned counsel, for Sri Sandeep Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Smt. Prathima Honnapura, learned AGA for respondents.
2. The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In this petition, the petitioner, inter alia, prays for the following reliefs:
(i) Issue writ of certiorari and quash the sanction order dated 20.3.2019 bearing No.CAaSuE 06 EMuV 2009 passed by respondent No.1 (produced as Annexure-A) And/or (ii) Grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.
4. Facts giving rise to filing of this writ petition briefly stated are that, the proposal of Lokayuktha was received by the State Government on 26.3.2014. After examination of the proposal of Lokayuktha, the Government passed an order of sanction under Section 19(1)(B) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’), stating that the value of assets of petitioner was 38% more than the known source of income. Thereupon, a case was registered against the petitioner namely Spl. Case No.138/2018 in the Court of LXXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, and Special Judge, Bengaluru City, under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The trial Court by an order dated 1.1.2019 discharged the petitioner on the ground that the sanction has not been obtained properly. Thereafter, the matter was again placed before the State Government. The State Government, by an order dated 20.3.2019, has granted sanction for prosecution of the petitioner. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioner has approached this Court and sought the reliefs as stated supra.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the first order of granting sanction under Section 19(1)(b) of the Act, dated 7.2.2017, is still in force and therefore, the second order dated 20.3.2019 could not have been passed. It is further submitted that the State Government has no power under Section 19(b) of the Act to review its own order. It is also submitted that no fresh material was produced before the State Government before passing the order dated 20.3.2019 and the same is vitiated in law. In support of her submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Nishant Sareen [Crl.A. No.2353/2010 decided on 09.12.2010 (arising out of SLP (Criminal) No.2239/2010)].
6. On the other hand, learned AGA submitted that the trial Court by an order dated 1.1.2019 has discharged the petitioner only on the ground of invalidity of the sanction and it granted liberty to the prosecution to file charge sheet after obtaining fresh sanction. Thereafter, a fresh sanction was obtained in accordance with the order passed by the trial Court and the same does not suffer from any infirmity.
7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records.
8. Before proceeding further, it is apposite to reproduce the relevant extract of the order dated 1.1.2019 passed by the trial Court, which reads as under:
“The applications filed by accused under Sections 227 and 239 of Cr.P.C. and under Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act, are allowed and the accused is discharged only on point of sanction, with a liberty to the prosecution, to file charge sheet after obtaining fresh sanction.
Office is directed to give the entire charge sheet to the Investigating Officer, when the Investigating Officer or the holding Investigating Officer comes for taking the same.”
9. From the perusal of the order, it is evident that the petitioner was discharged only on the point of sanction and liberty was granted to the prosecution to file charge sheet after obtaining the fresh sanction. In other words, the legal effect of the previous order dated 7.2.2017 passed by the State Government granting sanction under Section 19(1)(b) of the Act has been obliterated in law by the trial court while passing the order dated 1.1.2019. Thereafter, the State Government has examined and has granted permission for prosecution afresh by its order dated 20.3.2019.
10. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the State Government has reviewed its own order dated 7.2.2017 does not arise for consideration, is stated to be rejected as the State Government has passed a fresh order granting sanction under Section 19(1)(b) of the Act dated 20.3.2019. The aforesaid order has been passed in compliance of the order dated 1.1.2019 passed by the trial Court. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner has not chosen to challenge the validity of the order dated 1.1.2019, which has attained the finality. In other words, the aforesaid order binds the petitioner as well. Therefore, the respondents are well within their rights to pass the fresh order of sanction on 20.3.2019. The impugned order granting sanction does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference by this Court in exercise of power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
11. In the result, I do not find any merit in the petition. The petition fails and it is hereby dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Cs/-
CT:SN