-;-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 25% DAY OF MAY 2009
BEFORE Q
THE HN'13LE MR.JUS'}'ICE SUBHASH..B . ADI Ifjj %
cmmzmu. PETITION "
BETWEEN: A' %% "
S. ivappa Bhaxamappa Satmer,
Aged about 63 years,
S/0. Bharamappa Sanner; '_ '_
Retired Joint Sirector of - .
Social Weliiane, Bangalore, ami7 V
Resident ofI{od village, -- " 1 «V
HiIBkCfl1IT81uk,3i'ié3'IC?'i D1str_i__.<:t...~' .. VPETITIONER
(By Sri. C.V. N2ig;esii;V 2'1':-,{i\.*.:-5}.)
AND:
The
Bureau of Invcstigatiolig.' .
Karnataka Lokayuktha, =
vidhang' Vagdhi, fiafilgalom. 'If Rmsmmmam'
' ._(t3y Réjepdra Vlééidy, Adv.)
" . .' Petition is filed undar Secfiezu 482 of Cr.P.C.
% pxaymg tg.~q:;,a;sh the F'.i.R. in L.A.C Cr.No.35/94 by the 9.1.
'bureau ryfixxvesfigafion, Karxxataka. Lokayuktha (On the file of
" S..}., Bangalom City.
Cmégdie the following:
" Pzitition coming 021 for Hcaaring this day, the Court
0 R D E R.
In this Criminal Petition. petitioner has sought for
q11aShing of the First infozmation Repott in
L-.A.C.Cr.N0.35/1994 fiied by the Peiice Inspector, Bureau cvf
C :3
'%"$_,\;i",:l-=-
-2-
investigation, Kamataka Lokayuktha submitted before the City
Civil and Sessions Judge, Specie} Court, Bangalore an
offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) read :_:13
sub-section (2) of the Prevention of Conupfioltr
referred to as 'the Act').
2. Lokayuktha Police eregistereri.. "3 V
No.35/1994 on 21" Maneh 199_éfr«:§;~ péunishable
under Section 13(1) reed 13(2) of the Act,
alleging that the petifioner..w.:sec1rseafiL» ass' &:»ég:f Investigation, Kamataka Lokayuktha to
said offence. In pursuance of the said
Vthe Police Inspector refistered the crime and
irrvesfigat:ion and submitted a report to the higher
intemlia observing that there is no material against
' _ '4"r};e"';)etitio31er -- accused to proceed with and alleged that the
proceedings require to be dropped. it appears that the
Addifional Director Genera} of Poiice ('A.D.G.P.' for short)
entrusted the matter for fresh investigation to one
Sr3I.S.V.Shash.idhar, Poiice inspector and he also his
final report on 313.199? interalia stating that, 'the
petitioner are not disproportionate to the
income. The A.D.G.P. observing 1
irregularities in the ixlvcstigatio-.I_1, as «'inoo'1i1r:Vof
the deiinquent animal, the péfifioner has 35: been
Considered by the a1't<'i'""efi"txusted the
investigation to another the petifioner
has filed quashiilfi of the
proceefiiiigs F-.1. R.
3: Counsel appearing for the
petifioner an: vitiated, as there
is no; provision-.eithér tinder the Code of Criminal Procedure or
«ofltlef of the Act conferring power on the
V.,._A.Gt;P.:"'to"di1*eot fit-sh investigation: or re--investigat:ion of the
matter investigated by an Invesfigating Gfioer
"V'~.__V'-»authofiseii under Section 1'? of the Act, and fresh or IE-
V 'V'.jlIi'?f3$'1j.gatiOl1 is in pursuance of any authorisation granted
hyvtioder Section 17 of the Act. Secondly he submitted that, the
crime was remstemd on 218' March 1994, but till this petition
was fiied on 9&1 July 2003, no charge sheet or final report was
submitted nor a report was submitted to the authority for
/'
I'
J
-4-
sanction under Section 19 of the Act. He submitted that, there
is no justifiabie explanation for the inordinate de1ny:.:"in not
complefing the investigation. He also 'under
Section 17 of the Act, no Police Officer b
Superintendent of Poiice or b it. At
any offence punishable underflae ptovtsions
read with Section 13(2) of the and V1_izeV"'in§ésngation'
is required to be done 1' 'ofieer ' ofi;aer"VE than the
Superintendent of Polisccyt must specify
the reason as tobe done by an
oficer the II proviso to
Sect;io::Vy'1'?ev "xeg2{td, he referred to the order
passedv:"'1:§)?' Section 17 of the Act and
submitted nowherenfie authority gives the reason as to
A' wh3;«.§«;hg't':nattet"i-s.Ventzusted to an inspector of Police in the
'p:1aeeVofSu}::ef§.ntendent of Police. He submitted that, when the
particular act to be done in a pa1'n'cniar
-V manizerftixeéttnutilority has no newer to deviate fiom the same.
Vt"fl«.::He~esuhnintteei that, the pnocwciings on the file of the Special
.' in pursuance of the FIR in law is not sustainable on the
't of delay, iaok of authority to investigate and further, the
A.D.G.P. directing the flesh or rewinvestigafion from one ofiflcer
to another Without having jurisciiotion. (
-5-
4. in support of his cotitention. he relied 03:1 a judgment of
this Court reported in 2002 CRI.L.J. 845 in the matter of
or KARNATAKA AND ETC, -93- BNARAYANA REo.e1#':xs-iiegéint
this Court has observed that, the authority to V'
be not less than the rank of Superiete'11d.ent-'_"oi' is it it
case if the investigation is to be dose
other than the Superintendent ifioiicei or tbeloxir L'
rank of Superintendent --._sa11etioii.iugv.i§authox"ity
must assign the reasons.
5. SI'iRa_i€i"£tiiT.t3§:[:.R6d:®;1ya aplaeaxixig for the
Lokayuktha 'k§..o~.G.P. being a higher
aut11o1'it§,2.V:i matter and investigation
is exitrustect of Section 17 of the Act to
the Inspeetorof ease if the higher authority finds that
'VV'th.ere'-its" 'i'11'"'tV11e investigafion. it has power to Ie~
either by himself or through any other
ofieeeand. Ittiis regard. the investigation was entrusted to
'another ~oޤr:er and investigation has been completed, however,
ottgtécount of the pendency of the proceedings before this
report has not been submitted. He also submitted
'V V it the éelay in completing the investigation is aiso explained
in an afiivzilavit filed by the A.D.G.P. on 13.12.2005.
I
-5-
6. Insofar as the requirement under Section 1? of the Act,
learrmd Counsel for the zespomient submitted that, t11:€"»order
passcd by the A.D.G.P. itsalf specificaily stat.s5s_"" Zvthée
investigation has to be done by Inspector of 59 V'
be understood that the i11vestigatio_-ii
only by inspector of Poiice andjtthereiéis t1QxI'6aS».(:)V)'L_; 1:(3'
authority granted to the Inspstiior of 'P.c.§1it:e_".'_: furthetf
submitted that, there is -"13g '1u".e'_ Offioeftn exerdse ofpower under Section 1 7
A 'V'~v£)_]:"£']4'i£'.V_'Pi'f3l}8T£t1'OII of Corruption Act, 1988 and if the
' Cfiicer submits his repert, whether the
.-._Sémc¥ioning authority has power ta rednazestigate
" _ the matter?
" «{2} Whether the investigation by :1 Poiice Officer is
in oorgfsmriiy with five pmvisiens ofSeci:'on 1 3*' of the
Preveniiasz of Corruption Act?
(3) Whether the delay is fata! to the trial?
(,1;
8. it is not in dispute that the crime was registered on 215*
March 1994. It is aleo not in dispute that, till this pefiflnhnetwas
filed on 9th July 2003, no final report was submitted;"'1i<§1fVV"i:3
any sanction fer gzvmsecntion under Section 19. 3 9
affidavit has been filed by the *[_cV)'n
13.12.2805
. The explanation offered AD, is”
matter was entmsted initially Poiiee
inspector and he submitfeda “f§hereéi’tier’ t.he matter
was entrusted to one he also submitted ‘
‘his report and; it’ Shankar was
entrusted to thereafter again it was
entrustefzlfev anéldihen to one Sri.V.P.M.Swamy
and thenvt-“:’aft”e;* to It is not in dispute that,
so far, no Ie.pe1€’has’v.been’enbmitted by the oflicer subsequently
‘ theV”i::r<s.eefigation by the A.[).G.P.
procedure is eontemplateé under the
Z _ pron*ieio1:§3 Act. Section 17 prohibits any investigation by
Voifieeziether than the oflieers specified therein. Insofar as
is concerned, a crime was registered for an ofienee
_p1§nishab1e under Section 13(1) clause (e) of the Act i.e.,
disproporéienate assets to the Itnnwn source of income, and in
case of investigation of crime filed under Section 13(1)[e). the
second proviso ta Section 17 requires a Police Officer not beiow
I',
_, rggw'
-1
-3-
the rank of Superintendent of Police. Looking at the order
passeei by the A.I).G.P. dated 19.3.1994, it does not specify as to
Why an inspector of Police has been entrusted with the
investigation in respect of a crime punishable under
13(1) clause (e) mad with Section 13(2) of the to
statute requires that the investigation;sh.ot1ld bettdtozig Po’Li§t:e” K
Ofiicer not below the rank of Supefitgteedetit Ao»f_’Po}I:ice.u
no reason to entrust the mvesfigafion Eotiee. VN ‘
doubt, in case the autistoxity _i oVIeefigafion is
reqllired to be done by can do so only by
giving specific reasons. by the A.D.(}.P.
produced in any reason Why
the matte: is. of Police for investigation
in respect of ” ‘t V
perfinent to note that, even in this
– though an aflsaavit is flied, there is no
jusfifiah “eie to Why an investigation was kept penéing
‘£003 i.e., neariy 9 years. No doubt, them is no
Vt V:4″‘.:I’i.tI{*1’«[g.;1’£’_i§&)IiVVVf0r filing the charge sheet, however, it does not mean
charge sheet eoulci be filed at any length of time i.e.,
T lapse of nearly 9 years and particulariy in respect of the
u V Cfiiilfi under Secfion 13(1)(e) of the Act relating to assets
,9-
dispmpertionate to the known sources of inccme of dezlinquent
oficial.
11. It is also perfinent to mots than tixcsuuighl.
inspector, who was now entrmstsd; ~1;bf: is ‘IV1(i,;tit’ 1
authoxtised to investigatt under Sccfion that
he has investigated the he has
interczlia stating that, there is twiagainst the
petitioner and ther:::aftsix\~–§.£;_}c0fif1§.::;g” afidavit filed by the
A.D.G.P., the mafia}; and
Sri. that. %ere is no
material fig and thee’: is accepted
by the: is not known, under What
aumorityi ” direct the other officer to
invasfigate thé: matttir Iweispect of the very crime against which
ififieéiigaibn wasimiixade and regort was submitted. In the
iinennial even if any investigation is made by a
Poke; Ovf_1’§\eei_i:’£’jIii~charge of the Police Station, he submits a report
“»:1:;1der Sszgftion 173c3f C13”. RC, to the iurisdictional Magistrate and
T”‘«iiAAi”$*,{:ici::f;’n1isdi<:t:i.ona} Magistrate is not satisfied with the regsort, he
.»V11_:f.§a:s; direct furtlizxer investigation, ii; is done at the instance of the
Court, but there is no provision under the Code Gf Criminal
Procedure 01' under the Act, aufhorising the higher authority in
dimct re~;€3:1vestigati03:1 oniy on the ground that he is not sanlsfied
-10-
with the report. Learned Counsel for Lokayuktha relied” on the
pm-visions of Sections 36 and 168 of Cr.P.Cl. 36
empowexs the Police Ofieer superior in rank to
charge of a police station may exercise
thmughout the local azee to which they
exercised by such officer W:£ti1i11.j.§}1e of
pmvision does not Ielate to e-1″ -. ‘1«fVe–‘ii1v<.e,;;'éj-itiighation oer
authoxising some other matter. it
only empowers the of the oflicer in»
charge of a 23¢ matter, as if he is
investigatirzgh' police station within the
limits Section 168 of Cr.P.(3.
to the ofieer imcharge of the
Poiice _Stai:ioii~» sulineit ‘so the police oficer inwclaarge of
~_the tétatiozze “S-ec:’iio11 168 Cz*.P.C. is in consonance with
: pmfzie;ie§ie.: of. Section 177 wherein the final investigation
has ‘1;V).eVs11b:1::itted by the Police Gfficer in-charge of the
‘,.Poliee siaeéfi. it is in this context. Section 168 Iequires the
V’ seborflinate to the oficer in-charge of the Police Station
‘ eebmit a report to the oflieer :in–charge of the said Felice
” “S§atie11 and it does not confer power an any other oficer to issue
dixeetiozx to re-«investigate the matter.
rggef-.6
– 11 –
12. These proceedings being under special enactzaent and
governed by the provisions of the Act, this Act requixes even
before the investigafion is made, a permission ,1?
of the Act and it mandates that a
investigate and if that provision ‘thvat_inVeefigati:dfiwf¢¢:«be3
done by a partzieuiar officer, them i::s4’v.1A1e–1easo.1p’1_”_ief
the requirement of law. tee
requirement of iaw unles3v_’there”‘is’*. poflfifevr’ veeted in hitn.
Apart from this, when been submitted
even to the there is 110 material
to proceed aga{:”~;s1f§:he and it is also oonfinned.
by further efiiéer’ is accepted by the
Supefinmndeet report having been filed
fiem 1994 it is unnecessary to keep this
n:§.a”‘c£e;f eyen.’ noticed many lapses in the
Acees.réi3:_1.g1j,*’_,:’ the Criminal Petition is allowed. The
” i31…Ai;.A.C.Cr.No.3E”>/1994 on the file of the City Civil
Judge, Special Court, Bangalore are quashed.
3/…
Inéqe
KNMj~