IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.482/2015 BETWEEN:
1. Venkatesh, Aged about 40 years, Son of K.Narayanappa, R/at Hanumanthapur Village, Sidlaghatta Taluk – 562 101.
2. H.V.Veeraswamy, Aged about 58 years, Son of late T.V.Veerabhadrappa, R/at Hanumanthapur Village, Sidlaghatta Taluk – 562 101.
3. Krishnappa, Aged about 40 years, Son of Chennappa, R/at Hanumanthapur Village, Sidlaghatta Taluk – 562 101.
4. Mahamadhussain, Aged about 65 years, Son of late Gousesab, R/at Nagarthpet, Sidlaghatta – 562 101. ...Petitioners (By Sri.B.R.Viswanath, Advocate) AND:
State of Karnataka, By Lokayuktha Police, M.S.Building, (Represented by Special Public Prosecutor), Bangalore – 560 001. ...Respondent (By Sri. B.S.Prasad, Special P.P.) This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 of Cr.P.C praying to set aside the order dated 24.02.2015 in P.C.A. C.C.No.7/2013, passed by the Hon’ble Prl. District and Sessions Judge at Chickballapur, consequently discharge the petitioner by allowing the application filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. and pass such other and further order as this Hon’ble Court deem fit under the circumstances of the case.
This Criminal Revision Petition coming on for Admission, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Though the matter is listed for admission, with consent of learned counsel on both sides, the same is taken up for final disposal.
2. Heard Sri. B.R. Viswanath, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. B.S. Prasad learned Special Prosecutor for Lokayukta and perused the records.
3. The petitioners, who are accused Nos. 2, 3, 4 & 5 respectively have preferred this criminal revision petition under Section-397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, assailing the order dated 24.02.2015 passed in P.C.A. CC No.7/2013 pending on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapur. By the impugned order, the learned Sessions judge has rejected the application filed by the petitioners under Section 227 of Cr.P.C., seeking to discharge them for the offences alleged against them.
4. Succinctly stated, the facts of the case are as under:
A complaint was lodged before Lokayukta police, alleging that on 04.06.2011, the complainant has purchased land measuring 1 acre 5 guntas in Sy.No.21/4 of Hanumanthapura village from the wife and son of accused No.5 and thereafter katha and mutation was effected in his name. Though the boundary on the eastern side of the land has been described as Dibburahalli road, subsequently, the complainant noticed that accused No.1 who is working as the Secretary of Handiganala Grampanchayat, colluded with other accused and fabricated the revenue documents by showing portion of the road as land in katha Nos. 1290 & 1291/12-13 and sold the said land in favour of accused No.3 under the sale deed dated 01.08.2012. After noticing the same, the complainant lodged a complaint against the accused. After completion of investigation, the respondent-police laid charge sheet against all the accused persons for the offences punishable under Section 13 (1) (c) (d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 420, 464, 465, 468, 120-B read with Section 34 of IPC.
During the trial, the accused-petitioners herein including accused No.1 (Secretary of Panchayat) filed an application under Section-227 of Cr.P.C., praying to discharge them for the offences alleged against them. After hearing both the parties, by the impugned order, the learned Sessions Judge has rejected the said application. Assailing the same, the accused Nos. 2 to 5 have preferred the present petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the trial Court, without considering the provisions of law and its applicability, has passed the impugned order and hence, the same is not sustainable in law. Before conducting investigation, sanction from the competent authority has not been obtained and in the absence of necessary sanction to prosecute the petitioners, the proceedings under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 cannot be proceeded further. Since, these petitioners are not public servants, the penal provisions under the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be invoked against them. On these, grounds, he prays for setting aside the impugned order.
6. Per contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor strenuously argued that sanction is not necessary for investigation. However, after completion of investigation, the investigating agency obtained necessary sanction as against accused No.1 and filed charge sheet. Since, these petitioners are not public servants, obtaining sanction to prosecute them would not arise and that the question of sanction is a matter of consideration only after full fledged trial and the petitioners are not entitled to seek their discharge for the offences alleged against them at this stage on this technical ground. The trial Court, after considering the material on record, has rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioners. On these grounds, he prays for dismissal of the petition.
7. On careful perusal of the record, it is seen that the investigation officer, has laid the charge sheet against all the accused after obtaining necessary sanction from the competent authority to prosecute accused No.1, who is the Secretary of Village Panchayat. It is the case of the prosecution that these petitioners (accused Nos. 2 to 5) conspiring with the accused No.1, included the portion of the road, while effecting katha and mutation. When these petitioners are not public servants, question of obtaining necessary sanction from the competent authority does not arise. Added to that, accused No.1 has not challenged the impugned order.
8. At this juncture, it is just and appropriate to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Dinesh Kumar –vs- Chairman, Airport Authority of India & another (AIR 2012 Supreme Court, 858) wherein, it has been observed as here under:
“While drawing a distinction between the absence of sanction and invalidity of the sanction, this Court, in Prakash Singh Badal expressed in no uncertain terms that the absence of sanction could be raised at the inception and threshold by an aggrieved person. However, where sanction order exists, but its legality and validity is put in question, such issue has to be raised in the course of trial. Xxxxx.”
9. In the present case, admittedly, these petitioners are not public servants. Apart from that, the investigation officer has obtained necessary sanction from the competent authority to prosecute accused No.1 and thereafter filed charge sheet against the accused. The charges leveled against these petitioners are other than the offence punishable under penal provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act. In view of the dictum of the Apex Court referred to above, the question relating to validity of the sanction order is to be considered during trial and not at this stage which is premature.
The learned judge of the trial Court, on perusal of the material on record in proper perspective, has rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioners under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. No grounds are made out by the petitioners to interfere with the reasoned order passed by the Court below. Under these circumstances, none of the grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners has any leg to stand and consequently, the revision petition is liable to be rejected, inasmuch as, the same is devoid of merit.
Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Petition is rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE VR