This petition challenged the sanction for prosecution in a corruption case. The court found prima facie evidence establishing the demand and the nature of the work. It held that defects in sanction are for the trial court and dismissed the writ.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 4345 OF 2021 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI. H.C. MALLARJU SON OF LATE M. CHICKABASAVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT 156, HYAKANUR VILLAGE, MUGOOR HOBLI, T. NARSIPURA TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. N.B.N.SWAMY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
MAJOR BY AGE, AGRICULTURIST, BELAGOLA VILLAGE, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT.
DELETED AS PER ORDER DATED 01.03.2021
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. WAHEEDA M.M., HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 3;
SRI. B.B.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2;
NOTICE SERVED ON RESPONDENT NO.4;
VIDE ORDER DATED 01.03.2021 RESPONDENT NO.5 IS DELETED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF SANCTION FOR PROSECUTION PASSED ON 03.09.2018 IN NO.CBS/ACB/AE/Aa.Mam.Nee.Ba/VCB/2018-19 VIDE ANNEXURE-H BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3, THE CHIEF ENGINEER, OFFICER OF CHIEF ENGINEER, COMMUNICATIONS AND BUILDINGS, (SOUTH), K.R. CIRCLE, BANGALORE AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner has challenged the prosecution launched against him in Spl.C.No.356/2018 pending trial before the District and Sessions Judge and Special Court, Mandya (henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court') for the offences
NC: 2023:KHC:45053 WP No. 4345 of 2021
punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
NC: 2023:KHC:45053 WP No. 4345 of 2021
(i) that as on the date of the trap, the file relating to respondent No.4 was entrusted to Smt. S. Indrani as per the charge handover certificate dated 09.05.2017. Therefore, there was no work pending before the petitioner relating to
respondent No.4, which is very fundamental to offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
(ii) that the fixation of rent for the year 2016-17 was already done and would be in force for a period of 3 years and therefore, the question of respondent No.4 again applying for obtaining certificate for fixation of rent on 25.04.2017 did not arise. Therefore, the petitioner is unnecessarily implicated in a colourable prosecution. In support of his contention, he relied upon Clause 321 of the Karnataka Public Works Departmental Code, which reads as follows:-
" 321. Fair Rent:
1. The fixation of fair rent for private buildings taken on rent for Government purposes shall be done on the basis of the rates provided in the schedule of rates of concerned division or at market rate whichever is applicable minus proportionate depreciation according to the life of the building.
2. Fair rent shall be calculated as per norms prescribed in paragraph 286.
3. Fair rent once fixed shall be valid for a period of three years. At the end of three years period fresh valuation of the building in the same
manner as aforesaid shall be carried out, as if it is a fresh valuation based on the conditions prevailing at that time."
(iii) that fixation of fair rent in respect of private buildings by officials of Public Works Department is done under Clause 320 of the Karnataka Public Works Departmental Code. The learned counsel therefore, contended that even if it is assumed that the petitioner was responsible for the issuance of the non-availability certificate and the prescribed certificate for fixing the rent, this was in the course of exercise of a private right and cannot be construed that the petitioner had demanded money in the course of discharge of his public duty. In this regard, he relied upon Clause 320 of the Karnataka Public Works Department Code, which reads as follows:-
" 320. Valuation of private
buildings:-
Engineers of the Public Works Department are permitted to prepare valuations of buildings whenever requested by the private institutions or individuals, subject to the condition that this work is not done during the office working hours, and that the Government work does not suffer. Remuneration received shall be declared every
month to the officer under whom they are working, and 30% of the amount so earned shall be credited to Government funds. The certificate issued by them shall clearly state that this valuation is not in any way binding on the Government."
(iv) the authority appointing the petitioner is the State Government, while sanction to prosecute the petitioner is granted by the Chief Engineer. Therefore, the prosecution against the petitioner is liable to be set at naught.
respondent No.4 had agreed to meet the demand of the petitioner. He contends that the question whether the concerned file was before the petitioner or not is a matter of fact that has to be proved by the petitioner. In so far as grant of sanction is concerned, he claimed that any defect in sanction is a matter for trial and not a ground to quash the prosecution under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Central Bureau of
Investigation and others vs. Pramila Virendra Kumar Agarwal and another [(2020) 17 SCC 664] and contended that any defect in sanction has to be established in trial and invalidity of the sanction has to be raised during the trial.
NC: 2023:KHC:45053 WP No. 4345 of 2021
conducted a trap, which turned out to be successful. The concerned file relating to respondent No.4 was also recovered from the petitioner. In addition to this, the telephone conversation between respondent No.4 and the petitioner did prima-facie establish that the demand was made by the petitioner for an official work before him. The file relating to respondent No.4 was furnished by the petitioner before the investigating officer, making it more than probable that some official work of respondent No.4 was pending before the petitioner. If the case of the petitioner that an official work was not pending before him, the reliance placed on Clause 320 of the Karnataka Public Works Departmental Code is misplaced, as it is not the statement of the petitioner that he had taken up work of non-availability of suitable building and assessment of fair rent in a private capacity. It is not his case that he was bound to pay 30% of the amount received as fee to the State Government. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that evaluating the rent payable in respect of premises was a part of his private duty, cannot be accepted. The records placed by the respondent No.2 indicates a primafacie case to proceed against the petitioner. This certainly
NC: 2023:KHC:45053 WP No. 4345 of 2021
cannot be looked into in a proceeding under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that sanction was not valid as it was issued by a person not competent to remove him from service, is a fact that has to be established by the petitioner before the Trial Court as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Central Bureau of Investigation and others , referred supra. In that view of the matter, there is no error committed by the Trial Court in taking cognizance of the offence against the petitioner warranting interference by this Court.
The Trial Court shall try the petitioner independently based on the evidence adduced by the prosecution and uninfluenced by any observations made in this order.
forthwith.
Sd/JUDGE
PMR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition for quashing the prosecution under Section 482 Cr.P.C. succeeds given the prima facie evidence of demand and recovery of tainted notes.
Whether the allegations constitute corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act or are in the discharge of a private right.
Whether a defect in the sanction order for prosecution warrants quashing at this stage under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Central Bureau of Investigation and others vs. Pramila Virendra Kumar Agarwal and anotherReferred¶58
(2020) 17 SCC 664 · Who else cites this
5 provisions across 5 enactments
SRI. H.C. MALLARJU SON OF LATE M. CHICKABASAVAIAH
STATE OF KARNATAKA
LOKAYUKTA
THE CHIEF ENGINEER COMMUNICATIONS AND BUILDINGS
SRI. B.D. KRISHNA
THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
R. NATARAJ
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
