Case Law Details
State of Karnataka Lokayukta Police Appellant Vs S Subbegowda (Supreme Court Judgment)
Conclusion: In present facts of the case, it was held that Section 19(3) of Prevention of Corruption Act clearly forbids the court in appeal, confirmation or revision, the interference with the order passed by the Special Judge on the ground that the sanction by the government was bad, save and except in cases where the appellate or revisional court finds that the failure of justice had occurred by such invalidity.
Facts: The appellant by way of instant appeal has assailed the judgment and order dated 16.08.2018 passed by the High Court of Karnataka whereby the High Court has allowed the said petition by discharging the respondent (original petitioner-accused) from the offences charged under Section 13(1) (e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, on the ground that the sanction accorded to prosecute the respondent-accused by the Government was illegal and without jurisdiction.
The allegation levelled against the respondent-accused during his tenure in the office as an Executive Engineer had amassed the wealth disproportionate to his known sources of income. On the completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer had sent the papers to the State Government seeking sanction to prosecute the respondent as required in Section 19(1) of the said Act. The Government of Karnataka on the basis of the material placed before it, had accorded the requisite sanction by issuing the Government order dated 13.09.2010. Thereafter the chargesheet came to be filed in the Court of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru wherein it was alleged that respondent had abused his position as a public servant, had indulged into corrupt practices and had amassed wealth disproportionate to his known sources of income.
The trial court framed the charge against the respondent-accused on 23.12.2014 for the offence of criminal misconduct under Section 13(1)(e) punishable under Section 13(2) of the said Act. The prosecution thereafter examined as many as 17 witnesses in support of its case, and in the midst of the trial the respondent-accused again filed third application under Section 227 of CrPC seeking his discharge from the case on the ground that the respondent was an employee of the Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board and could be removed only by the said Board in view of Rule 10 of Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957. The trial court vide the order dated 05.06.2018 dismissed the said application by passing a detailed order holding, inter alia, that the third successive application filed by the respondent-accused for the discharge from the case, when the evidence of 17 witnesses had been recorded and when the contention based on the sanction was already rejected by the Court earlier, was liable to be dismissed. The aggrieved respondent filed the Criminal Petition under Section 482 of CrPC before the High Court, which came to be allowed by the High Court.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
