High Court Karnataka High Court

Y M Ramachandra Murthy vs State Of Karnataka on 3 March, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Y M Ramachandra Murthy vs State Of Karnataka on 3 March, 2010
Author: N.Ananda


1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DI’\’I’Eif) ‘I’I”iIS TI*”Ii’£ 03″” DAY OF MARCH 2010
BEFORE
TPIEC HONBLE MRJUSTICF. N. ANANIDA

CRIMINAL PE’I’ITION NII5592 or 2009

BETWEEN:

Y. M. RAMACHANDRA MURIiI»Iy,_

s/0. MUNISONNAPPA. ‘ ‘*
AGE: 56 YEARS. .. =
R/O. No.41 1, 7m MAIN, 2ND E51.0’CK.

HRBR LAYOUT. BANGIKLORPI-43.

(By spa. RAVI. B. NAIK,_ADvoc_AT-Isj}

AND

V BANGALOREWOE.

::5TA*I*E’ KAiRNA”l’A_I<ZA. .

OFFICE o;«”j*I?I;IE:_I;QI<AY'I;II.

M. I_B”LrII,I’;I_NCI, “¥3A_N GALORE£~O I .

SR1 D. SRINIVIISA.

” S.U.PERIN’FE3N1)’EN’1′ OF POLICE.

E?OI,IC,E–..WING. KARNATAKA.

_ I. L0.KAYIIIKjIIA. M. 8. BUILDING.

” . BAN<_3_A;I,'O'RI: DIVISION . BANGALORE.

A=IjD'I"1*I0NAI, DIRECTOR GEZNERAL OF I-'OLICEC..
~~I?0:.:,I(:E WING, KARNA'I'AKA,
LOKAYUKTHA, M. 5. BUILDING.

.. . REC-SPON D EE\3″I’S

~7(f:3y Sri. S. G. RAJENDRA REIDEJY. ADVOCATE}

I5I:’fi’ITI€)NI:I2″

4. The ieamed senior ctounscl for the petiléotter has

made the i’oIEr)\vi11g submissions:

The PI'{;’I,38I’lf’i(}f’t of Corm.pf.ion Act. _

contained Act. The invcstigal.io1’1 of (3ffenc.e:s”t.–irie1.ei”~.t.}1«r3 £\,ct 2.

are governed by S€(:1.iO1’1 E7 oi’ the (X91. whjeltlreads-.l.}tsis; .’

“17. Persons aut~hor*i(sed .to..i.nvest§gaté.’é~:4
Notwithstanding a)n.ytVlfiing’gcontained_in_f?the
Code ofvrfliriéminal E’roced.ure.,(‘i973 (2 of
1974), no police:oftlcerVVbe.l~oiN .tifj.e_r’_ani<,~
H ca_s"e'xotthéi'f)e»E–h.l.:Special Police
""" H at::E'stab.l,ls*hment;'Wof an Inspector of
V "=._Po|_lce;)
" _( ').['inV.tlte.(:::friret'ropolltan areas of Bombay.
* Madras and Ahmedabad and
" any other metropolitan area notified
such under subsection (1) of
Section 8 of Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974). of an
Assistant Commissioner of Police;

(c) Elsewhere. of a Deputy Superintendent
of Police or a police officer of eqaivalent

rank; ‘J
ix: . 51;?» ~ (3:

shall investigate any offence punishable
under this Act without the order of .

Metropolitan Magistrate or a Magistrate of
first class, as the case may be, or matte i”

arrest therefor withoutawarrant:

Provided that if a police :joi:.ioer*h_ot. o’eIot%.r[[*~r,r,,.
the rank of an’ _lnspe’Ctor’ of Podlice: is
authorised by the”State Gohve-r.nn’i~ecnt: it
behalf by general:r.orV:gspeci.a_l ordet;..he’g..may
afso investi’gaie_’a’r}y such’-roffelrrce without the
order of amHlvletropolitanuZlyli/té£3lSt.i’ate or a
Ma-gistrateiziof the case may

be, €7A§:r_’V_r!_1aite:’arre,st th-erfefor viriltwhout a warrant:

—- _1’35’.Pror.ry:id_ed-jftgrther’triat offence referred to
AVVin’–“r.:l-arise(etjof.__stib’–section (E) of Section 13

— %shallnotifie’~E.n§/testigated without the order of a
xl”–«..dp’oliVcev._ not below the rank of a

éueerintegrrdent of Police.”

‘;’i3_;V’l’::ee”‘Seamed counsel. I”€.f{i1’E’iI”1g to the pmvisions of

fI~ec’t.ions rid: Cr.P.C. would submit; that. in i.r1vestiga£.ion of

0ffe1’1Q€S.VL1V1’1der a special etaactrnent. provisions <"fOI1t£1i.I1€d in

sf3i3.géfaE er1a.Ct.mcnt shall ;)1'evai1 over by prr;)visit)r1s ('omiained

"in C–I'.P.(T..

T\’= –

The lezlmecl Se1’1i<.)r' em111sel rei'e1*rin;_§ 1.0 1.1m':
provisiorm of Kamataka. Lokayukla Act. 3984 would submit.
that the ufferlees uncier the said An. will l'1£§\-'€T so be

i1'1ves1.igatecl in t.erms of Section 7 of the said A(.'.E.

7. The learned senior e0u1’1sel for the ;)c2i.i’:..ie.sr1’er. ‘_{al§i.1V1″;.}j&

me to 1.119 p1*ovi..=5i0ns of 13{l][e} of the Pf’€UeI1l.lV'(_’)VI.1u’é3g[”CfJi”!’ltpli():l_’ ”

AC1 . 1988 would submit. Lhat. the p1E9seeLi’L.i«Ql’1_<)f'1.h.e 'p_e1_,viv{'l'O1'1ei?
for an offence punishable ur1de_1' Se(.iu'0ri– ._13(l}(e3;

been preceded by an e11quir3f"'9«lV9r. salisfyi_ngA91.hai°9peli1.i0ner

was in possession of.éisselsrelisj9)i<r§pQi'1i()na£e "1"0"his known

source of income.

u “fliel .9Vle¢a;1’i1eCi..¢_’Se-riior c0ur1sel has relied cm a

jL1dg_;r:é1e11t.e’ft1fiisVe.ou19i- E-{§;$(;r:_ed in 1999 (4) Kar.L.J. 500 [M

l 1 &Mt1i’leS»–l1ar1″l’i[/S. Sl.Ciie”l{aI’I’1c1I_.aka and mflers].

‘«_”Tl_1e[;;.lea1″ned counsel for the Loliayuktha 1’elying on

a ‘j4i;dg_>,’–rV1:rA1.e’r’1is reported in 1996 Supreme Court Cases {Cri}

” [;S’ia1.e of Maharashtra 15/ Ishwar Pircy’1′. Kaipazri and-

“-oi’i1fers} would sslbmil. that it is not nec*essa1*y to alT()rd an

‘”loppo1’u1niE;y to delinquent: official to sat.i:3fy that assels held

by him are p1’0p0rti0n.att’-: to his known E-30t11’t’t.’ of i1]t'()l’E]E’.
before .registrat.i()n and investigation 01′ the cause z3r’:c1.5t1:,§h~.a11

c)pp()riunity must” be given dtmrtg 1I’i.’;1E.

10. The 1ea1’m:(.1 trotgnsek for IrO’1r{1-\.yL1k1’h&l C)’f’lA[~Vt.1″it:’ V

judgment reported in (1998) 6 Sugireniétat Cotim: :V’E_36 :[tC:.

Rangastuamaiaft and others ‘/ Kart:-aI.a5ca K’I’.,.()i(“:5.I’uV’t’)i’i-.!}(Vt’.Gt: andr,

others] wouid submit. that. theA()i.;t;f:§:»§?_rsVvg)I’ tlté who
are sent on cieputatiort as officers
of the State andti.-hvtsy i1’west’.igati.0n
in exercise.’0.t’§’–.t}pttf§f§5 the Act: HOWEVGII if
the $u(:h proposal for good
ree1s()1iis, insists on conferring the

extra \voi*1<._._' 'L{)k'c't5{LiV}i1£I.{T:é'§_.t'11 direct the d('.pLl1a[i()I1iS-its not to

take; up'~z1ny sutrth ' extra work.

;I’h..’V_t.i:é~a{t2restat.eci judgnmnt it is also held that once

t}i.§’)VLOk{;1)'[t”i”}.V<.'t7?:t does not object, to such €I'il.E"t1S1EI'1CI1t. of work'

L0kaj:tJR~t.21 shoukd not raise ob_jeeticm when the

d_€;it_«1t.:1tti()nsist.s are h.a}fway txhrottgh the extra work. But. in

any (:a_se the public s@:*vant.s aga:'nSt whom the iI1vtésl'igat.i():':

attmu A

going on under the Preven.!,1'on of Corruption. Act <.:am1ot

raise such ob;'ect.ion.

I 1. On goillg through the p1″()vis:+io1’1s of ‘.S_éC£;io: 1V1’§’m:Vi’c}i H
5 C1’.P.C.. I find than the provisEL,iss.. ‘E£».f)’L’_.(‘:i”€J.

enac:t.mer1t shaii prevail over ‘b}f”~~;)1*o\ri:féi<)_;15s .p()'r1t2ui~E::ViVe'('i' in t-4§-}(4u):VV

Cr.P.C.

12. Under sectioV_r1_ 22V Firez~5e:jr.’£’fL’;ii”g Corruption Act.
1988. the pro{ri?:;:j§«r3t;sa :§i.1″锑ma.{ie applicabie to {he

p1’octeedir1gs_s f:_L’iVI.3C1€1:”PJ’Gi)€Ii»{‘iO’Il of Corruption Act.

“l”11erc;io:”e. AtT}’;€r_e isfno .cfo«:.1_’iiic:t. bi-ztiween Seclions 4 <31 5 C1'.P.C
and Sétztion 1'7 of'I?reo'e~r3f.'i.o11~*'Qi' Corrup!.icm Ad. I988.

VI:'1-ox/Vi'(%x'V of H16? jucigme111' of 1:110 Supreme.' Court

Supreme Court Cases 66. {supra}

pE!'lif10-1'i"'C.f]aC'C.U'S€C1 cannot' be pem1iLt.ed to raise objection

re-g§a1'dingVi'"~hc jurisdict.io1'1 of Lokayuk1,a 1'7'()1ice to i1'1\resEiga1.e

AA into offences L1nde1* Section i.3[}){e] of the Prevention of

" "C_c)_r}*up£'io:1 Act.

;

F0 M “MA;/1»: ,