Chandrashekar Hiremath vs The State of Karnataka and Others

A.V. Chandrashekara, J.—1. These petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

Petitioner was working as an In-charge Director of Department of Prosecution, Government of Karnataka. During his tenure as In-charge Director of Prosecution, Government of Karnataka, Bangalore, a notification was issued by the State inviting applications for 197 posts of Assistant Public Prosecutors. Main examination was held and results were announced. Viva-voce was also conducted and 197 candidates were selected as Assistant Public Prosecutors.

One person by name Uday Simha N. - the complainant in PCR No. 32/2015 had obtained certain information under the Right to Information Act relating to the selection of Assistant Public Prosecutors. According to him, only 24 candidates belonging to General Merit were selected and remaining 75 candidates were picked up from other categories though sufficient candidates were available i.e., in general merit category. This is the violation of the horizontal and vertical posting of the candidates. It is his further alleged that this petitioner, in collusion with other officials, manipulated answer sheets so as to benefit several candidates.

One Mr. H.T. Ravi had taken up Assistant Public Prosecutors examination held on 16.05.2012. He has chosen to file application under Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C. before the Court dealing with cases arising out of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with an allegation that In-charge Director of Prosecution had manipulated answer sheets so as to benefit several candidates. The then In-charge Director of Prosecution is stated to have done the same, to help the candidates who had paid him huge bribe.

The private complaint No. 37/2014 filed by Sri. H.T. Ravi was referred to jurisdictional police of Lokayuktha to conduct investigation and to submit a final report. Before the complaint was referred to the jurisdictional police of Lokayuktha in terms of Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. to conduct investigation and to submit a report, the petitioner herein filed an application in terms of Section 210 of Cr.P.C. to stay the proceedings of PCR No. 37/2014 on the ground that Home Department had already conducted preliminary enquiry through the Commissioner of Police in regard to the allegations of interference in the answer sheets. The said application was dismissed after contest. Learned Judge after rejecting the said application filed under Section 210 of Cr.P.C. referred the matter to the jurisdictional police of Lokayuktha at Bangalore in terms of Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.

Subsequently, Sri. Uday Simha N. chose to file a complaint against the In-charge Director of Prosecution -Sri. Chandrashekar Hiremath alleging that 24 posts were selected in the general category and remaining 75 posts were selected from other categories and they were selected contrary to horizontal and vertical posting. This private complaint is also referred to the same Police by the learned Special Judge dealing with cases arising out of Prevention of Corruption Act. In the light of the same, these petitions are filed.

In the petition bearing No. 861/2015 filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, following are the reliefs sought in the petition:

"Wherefore, the petitioner most humbly prays that this Hon''ble Court may be pleased to:

I. Issue a writ in the nature of the certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and quash the private complaint dated 16.10.2014 lodged by the second respondent in PCR No. 34/2014 pending on the file of the Learned 23rd Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge and Special Judge for Prevention of Corruption Act, Urban District Bengaluru. The copy of the private complaint in PCR No. 37/2014 is produced as Annexure-A to the writ petition.

II. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and quash the order dated 10.12.2014 in PCR No. 37/14 of the Learned 23rd Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge and Special Judge for Prevention of Corruption Act referring the Complaint lodged by the second respondent for investigation under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to be done by the first respondent. The copy of the said order is produced as Annexure-F to the writ petition.

III. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and quash the First Information Report registered by the 1st respondent police for offences punishable under section 201, 465, 468, 471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code read with sections 13(1)(c)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act in Crime No. 59/2014. The Copy of which is produced at Annexure-G to the writ petition.

IV. Grant such other reliefs as this Honourable Court deem fit to grant in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice."

In the petition being No. 44114/2015 arising out of PCR No. 32/2015, following are the main reliefs sought in the petition:

"Wherefore, the petitioner most humbly prays that this Hon''ble Court may be pleased to:

I. Issue a writ in the nature of the certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and quash the private complaint dated 18.06.2014 lodged by the second respondent in PCR No. 32/2015 pending on the file of the Learned 23rd Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge and Special Judge for Prevention of Corruption Act, Urban District Bengaluru. The copy of the private complaint in PCR No. 32/2015 is produced as Annexure-A to the writ petition.

II. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and quash the order dated 04.09.2015 of the Learned 23rd Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge and Special Judge for Prevention of Corruption Act referring the Complaint lodged by the second respondent for investigation under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to be done by the first respondent. The copy of the said order is produced as Annexure-B to the writ petition.

III. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and quash the First Information Report registered by the 1st respondent police for offences punishable under section 465, 468, 471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code read with sections 13(1)(c)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act in Crime No. 63/2015. The Copy of which is produced at Annexure-G to the writ petition.

IV. Grant such other reliefs as this Hon''ble court deem fit to grant in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.

Sri. Ravi B. Naik, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted his argument at length. Heard Sri. Venkatesh P. Dalwai, representing Lokayuktha and Sri. Mohan S. Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 - Udaya Simha N.

Sri. Ravi B. Naik, learned Senior counsel has relied upon the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of T.T. ANTONY v. STATE OF KERALA & ORS - S.L.P. No. 1522/2000 disposed of on 12.07.2001. What is argued by Sri. Ravi B. Naik, learned Senior counsel is that the second reference made by the learned Special Judge will have to be merged with the first petition and there cannot be registration of two separate cases and if it is done, it will cause great hardship and inconvenience to the petitioner herein.

Sri. Venkatesh P. Dalawai, representing Lokayuktha fairly submits that he has no objection if this Court were to observe all the allegations of Sri. Udaya Simha N. and Sri. H.T. Ravi pertaining to the examination held for the selection of Assistant Public Prosecutors vide notification dated 16.05.2012 pertain to one examination held and that one comprehensive investigation be done and final report may be submitted. The fair submission so made by Sri. Venkatesh P. Dalwai is taken on record.

Admittedly, both the cases pertain to the selection of 197 posts of Assistant Public Prosecutor vide notification No. DPN:SSA/R.C.01/2011-12 dated 16.05.2012. One complaint pertains to selecting of candidates from other categories, another complaint relates to the interference with the answer sheets and manipulating the same in order to help few candidates for monetary consideration. Considering the contents of both the complaints filed before the trial Court and important aspects submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the respondent No. 1 - Lokayuktha Police has to conduct a comprehensive investigation in respect of the allegations found in both the complaints and submit a report to the Special Judge who has referred the complaint to the police in terms of Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. in terms of the decision in the case of T.T. ANTONY v. STATE OF KERALA & ORS - S.L.P. No. 1522/2000 disposed of on 12.07.2001.

Both the petitions are disposed of directing the Lokayuktha Police, Bangalore to conduct a comprehensive and thorough investigation in respect of both the case as expeditiously as possible and to submit a final report.