Allowed

Sri N R M Nagarajan v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC18 Nov 2023CRL.P/1201/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the impugned order rejecting the final B-report in a prosecution for possession of disproportionate assets. The Court quashed the proceedings due to lack of mandatory sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and erred of opinion on the B-report.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 20.01.2022 stood quashed and the B-report submitted by the respondent was accepted.

Sri N R M Nagarajan Vs State of Karnataka — Corruption | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:41345 CRL.P No. 1201 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶4

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1201 OF 2022

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SRI N R M NAGARAJAN S/O N R MARASWAMY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER RAMANAGAR CIRCLE (O AND M CIRCLE) KENGERI BANGALORE PRESENTLY WORKING AS CHIEF ENGINEER, KPTCL, TRANSMISSION ZONE KALBURGI - 570 001 HOUSE NO.33/9, AVYAYA 2^ND CROSS, 1^ST R BLOCK RAJAJINAGAR BANGALORE - 560 010

¶7

… PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. PARAMESHWAR N HEGDE., ADVOCATE)

¶9

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

AND:

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU BANGALORE CITY DIVISION REP. BY ITS SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 01

¶12

SOUMYA N POLICE INSPECTOR ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU BANGALORE CITY DIVISION REP. BY ITS SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

¶14

NC: 2023:KHC:41345 CRL.P No. 1201 of 2022

¶15

BENGALURU - 01

¶16

… RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. B B PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 - SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)

¶18

THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 20.01.2022 PASSED BY THE XXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE (P.C. ACT) BANGALORE (CCH-24) IN CR.NO.4/2018 AND CONSEQUENTLY ACCEPT THE 'B' FINAL REPORT AND ETC.

¶19

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Proceedings were initiated by the respondent against the petitioner for possessing assets disproportionate to the known source of income for the check period from the date of appointment of petitioner till the date of registration of FIR. The Investigating Officer after conducting detailed investigation submitted 'B' report with the learned Special Judge stating that there is no material to substantiate that the petitioner was possessing assets disproportionate to the known source of income.

¶22

The learned Special Judge rejected the 'B' report on 30.06.2021 and directed the Investigating Officer to conduct further investigation. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer conducted further investigation and submitted 'B report'.

¶23

The learned Special Judge passed the impugned order rejecting 'B' report on 20.01.2022 holding that there are sufficient material available on record to take cognizance of the

¶24

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:41345 CRL.P No. 1201 of 2022

¶25

offence under punishable under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short ' the Act') and further directed the Investigating Officer to seek sanction as stated under Section 19 of the Act. Taking exception to the same, this petition is filed

¶26

Sri. Parameshwar N. Hegde, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Special Judge is not supported by any reason and the same does not satisfy the requirement to take cognizance under Section 190 of Cr.P.C. He further submits that the cognizance taken of the offence alleged against the petitioner, in the absence of sanction to prosecute as stated under Section 19 of the Act is impermissible. He further submits that the direction issued by the learned Special Judge to the Investigating Officer to seek sanction under Section 19 of the Act is one without the authority of law.

¶27

Sri. B. B. Patil, learned counsel for respondent No.1 would submit that the learned Special Judge after perusing the entire 'B' report has come to the conclusion that there is prima facie case to proceed against the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Special Judge is in accordance with law and the same does not warrant interference.

¶28

Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶29

¶30

NC: 2023:KHC:41345 CRL.P No. 1201 of 2022

¶31

The Investigating Officer initially submitted 'B' report. The learned Special Judge rejected the 'B' report and directed the Investigating Officer to conduct further investigation. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer conducted further investigation and submitted 'B' report stating that there are no material to substantiate that the petitioner is possessing assets disproportionate to the known source of income. The learned Special Judge without forming an opinion that there is prima facie case to proceed against the petitioner has rejected 'B' report by stating that the Investigating Officer has not exhaustively considered the defence of the accused to exonerate him from the charges and the same is not permissible in law. This finding, in my view, is erroneous and not justified since the Investigating Officer is required to look into the material placed by the accused before submitting 'B' report and the Investigating Officer satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner has rightly submitted 'B' report.

¶32

The cognizance of the offence under the provisions of the Act can be taken only upon sanction to prosecute as stated under Section 19 of the Act. In the instant case, the learned Special Judge in the absence of sanction to prosecute has taken cognizance and the same stands vitiated for noncompliance of mandatory provisions contained under Section 19 of the Act. Even otherwise, the learned Special Judge has traversed beyond the scope of jurisdiction in directing the Investigating Officer to seek sanction from

¶33

¶34

NC: 2023:KHC:41345 CRL.P No. 1201 of 2022

¶35

competent authority, which tantamounts to directing the competent authority to grant sanction without applying its mind to the materials placed before it. Therefore, the continuation of the criminal proceedings will be an abuse of process of law.

¶36

9. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶37

ORDER

¶38

(i) The petition is allowed.

¶39

(ii) The impugned order dated 20.01.2022 passed by the XXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge & Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Bengaluru, stands quashed and consequently, the 'B' report submitted by the respondent - Lokayukta stands accepted.

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

Sri N R M Nagarajan v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri N R M Nagarajan v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Ravindranath B.L Vs Sri.H R Puttaboyi

Mr. Anjay Kumar Singh Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. L.K. Shivananda Vs the State by Deputy Superintendent of Police

Noorul Baig Vs State by Inspector of Police

Sri K.Mohammad Thabsheer Vs State of Karnataka

Arjun S Vs State by Channammanakere Achukattu Police