Yallappa vs State of Karnataka

K.N. Phaneendra, J.—The present petition is filed seeking quashing of the entire proceedings in Special Case No. 7/2013 pending on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge at Raichur, for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The records discloses that on the complaint lodged by one Hanumappa S/o Rayappa Pujari, the Lokayukta police have registered a case against the petitioner for the above said offences in Crime No. 13/2011 and laid trap against the petitioner. There is specific allegation in the complaint that petitioner has demanded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- for the purpose of filing ''B'' final report so far as the son of the complainant is concerned in connection with Crime No. 211/2011 registered by Lingasugur police for the offences punishable under the provisions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. In this context, it is alleged that petitioner has demanded the said amount over phone and conversation was also recorded with regard to the demand of the said money. However, the records show that trap has been failed. But on the basis that there was demand for bribe, charge sheet has been filed for the above said offences.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner raised two points for consideration. One is the charge sheet is filed without there being valid sanction from the competent authority and second point is even if the entire charge sheet papers are translated into evidence, it does not constitute any offence under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Therefore, entire proceedings are required to be quashed.

The learned counsel also contended that even for the purpose of investigating the matter, sanction is absolute requirement.

On perusal of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, it is clear that there is no such mandate that the investigating agency requires sanction order for the purpose of investigating the matter even on the basis of the first information report. Sanction is required only at the time of filing of charge sheet. If the investigation is done on the basis of the first information report filed by the private party before the Lokayukta police or suo-motu FIR registered by Lokayukta police, sanction is not required. If any private complaint is filed, either for taking cognizance or for referring the complaint to the police for investigation, the learned Magistrate has to insist for sanction order before referring the matter for investigation or taking cognizance of the offences. The object behind this is categorically discussed in a decision reported in Anil Kumar and Others Vs. M.K. Aiyappa and Another, .

The object is that if a private complaint is filed either for referring the matter to the police for investigation or for the purpose of taking cognizance, the learned Magistrate has to go through the contents of the compliant and he should come to the conclusion that either he can refer the matter to the police for investigation or he himself can take cognizance of the offences. When the learned Magistrate can take cognizance directly on the basis of the private complaint, it requires valid sanction order so as to refer the matter to the police or to take the cognizance. In this particular case, such a situation is not there. On the basis of the first information report lodged by one Hanumappa, Lokayukta police have registered a case and investigated the matter and after due investigation, they have submitted the charge sheet to the sanctioning authority and the sanctioning authority i.e., Superintendent of Police, Raichur, has accorded sanction in No. Est. (3) 17/2011-12 dated 03.06.2013. Therefore, that ground is not available to the petitioner.

The second ground is that no offence is constituted. Even on plain reading of the complaint averments, the learned counsel wants this Court to meticulously go through the statement of the witnesses recorded by the police. She has culled out certain contradictions in the statement of witnesses. But this Court while exercising power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is not obliged to consider the omissions or contradictions in the statement of the witnesses to find out truth or falsity of the allegations made against the petitioner. On plain reading of the complaint averments, as I have already narrated, the complainant has stated that there was demand of Rs. 5,000/- for the purpose of doing some official work, whether that has been fortified in the charge sheet has to be looked into by the Trial Court before framing of charges to find out whether there are sufficient grounds to frame charges and proceed against the accused. Therefore, this Court cannot step into the shoes of the Trial Court to exercise the power under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. Hence, on the above said grounds, the petitioner is not entitled to succeed in this petition.

Hence, I pass the following:

ORDER

"The petition is dismissed. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to approach the Trial Court by making proper application under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. In that event, the Trial Court has to give opportunities to both the parties and dispose of the said application in accordance with law."