2012 (3) TMI 675 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the Writ Petition.
2. Validity of Lokayukta's Report.
3. Compliance with Section 9(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act (KL Act).
4. Prima facie case for registering the FIR.
5. Validity of Sanction Order by the Governor.
6. Final Order.

Summary:

Issue 1: Maintainability of the Writ Petition
The respondents argued that the Writ Petition is not maintainable because an earlier Writ Petition (No. 29430/2011) was dismissed as withdrawn unconditionally, and the remedy lies u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. The Court held that the dismissal of the earlier Writ Petition does not bar the present one since the case was not decided on merits, and thus, the doctrine of res judicata does not apply. The Court also held that the provision u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot take away the jurisdiction of the Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

Issue 2: Validity of Lokayukta's Report
The petitioner contended that the Lokayukta's report was outside the scope of reference and violated principles of natural justice. The Court found that the report by Lokayukta was not within the scope of the reference made by the Government u/s 7(2A) of the KL Act. The Court emphasized that the Lokayukta, being a quasi-judicial authority, must follow the principles of natural justice and provide a hearing to the petitioner.

Issue 3: Compliance with Section 9(3) of the KL Act
The Court held that even in cases referred u/s 7(2A) of the KL Act, the Lokayukta must comply with clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section 3 of Section 9, which includes forwarding a copy of the complaint to the public servant and affording an opportunity to offer comments. The Court noted that the Lokayukta failed to comply with these mandatory provisions.

Issue 4: Prima facie case for registering the FIR
The Court found that there was no prima facie case made out by the Lokayukta for registering a case for the offences u/s 7, 8, 9, and 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Court emphasized that suspicion cannot be a ground to tarnish the image and reputation of a person holding a constitutional post.

Issue 5: Validity of Sanction Order by the Governor
The Court held that the order of sanction granted by the Governor to initiate criminal proceedings against the petitioner was liable to be quashed. The Court noted that the petitioner was condemned unheard, leading to a violation of the principles of natural justice.

Final Order
The Writ Petition was allowed. The complaint dated 22.8.2011, the FIR registered in Crime No. 36/2011 for the offences u/s 7, 8, 9, and 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the Order of Sanction dated 2.8.2011, and the relevant portion of the Report at Chapter-XXII of the Karnataka Lokayukta dated 27.7.2011 were quashed.