9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (2) TMI 1309 - HC - Indian LawsGrant of sanction in a corruption case involving a government official - Amasse of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income - offence punishable under Sections 109 177 468 465 471 of IPC - HELD THAT - The case for granting sanction to prosecute the petitioner is to be placed before the Minister-in-charge who in turn has to place the same before the Cabinet and the Cabinet after taking a decision shall recommend to the Governor who in turn will direct the Secretary of the Department to pass an appropriate order. Similar issue involved in this petition came up for consideration before the Co-ordinate of this Court in the case of B. Shivashankar -vs- State by Karnataka Lokayuktha Police Bengaluru .. where it was held that the ground for want of sanction by the Competent Authority as urged by the petitioner deserves to be accepted. In the instant case sanction to prosecute the petitioner who is the head of the department has been granted by the Minister-in-charge who is not the competent authority as specified under KCSR and also the Transaction Rules 1977. The petitioner is due for retirement on attaining the age of superannuation in the month of April 2023. Hence permitting the respondent to launch criminal prosecution afresh would be an abuse of process of law since the petitioner will be deprived of speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India for no fault of him. The impugned proceedings are quashed - petition allowed.
Issues involved:
The judgment involves issues related to the legality of sanction granted for prosecution u/s 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the application of Transaction of Business Rules, 1977, and the authority competent to grant sanction in a corruption case involving a government official. Details of the Judgment: Issue 1: Sanction for Prosecution The Inspector of Police registered an FIR against the petitioner for amassing disproportionate assets u/s 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The charge sheet was laid against the petitioner and his wife, who was later discharged due to non-application of mind by the Police in verifying her assets assessed by the Income Tax Department. The petitioner sought discharge on grounds of unauthorized sanction, lack of application of mind, and inclusion of his wife's assets in his. The High Court initially discharged the petitioner, but the Supreme Court directed a fresh consideration. Issue 2: Competent Authority for Sanction The petitioner, a Chief Engineer, argued that only the Cabinet had the authority to grant sanction for prosecution, as per the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, 1977. The Minister-in-charge's sanction was deemed unauthorized as it did not follow the prescribed procedure of placing the proposal before the Cabinet and obtaining approval from the Governor. The respondent Lokayukta contended that the Minister-in-charge was the competent authority, citing previous court decisions. Judicial Analysis and Decision The Court analyzed the Transaction of Business Rules, 1977, and held that the Cabinet, followed by the Governor's approval, was the competent authority to grant sanction for prosecuting the petitioner, who was the head of the Department. The sanction granted by the Minister-in-charge was deemed unauthorized. Previous court decisions were distinguished as they did not consider the specific rules governing the sanction process. The Court also cited Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, emphasizing the need for proper authorization before prosecuting a government official. Considering the petitioner's impending retirement and the lack of compelling reasons for a fresh trial, the Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the pending proceedings against the petitioner. Significant Legal References: - Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Karnataka Civil Services Rules, 1977 - Transaction of Business Rules, 1977 - Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act - Previous court decisions on competent authority for sanction This summary provides a detailed overview of the judgment, highlighting the key legal issues, arguments presented by both parties, and the court's analysis leading to the final decision.
|
