IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 1674 DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2910 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L.NARAYANA SWAMY CRLIMINAL PETITION NO. 3097/2095, H.M. Chandrashekar, Aged about 67. S/o, Late H.M, Veeraiah, Retired Executive Sngineer, Public Works D R/at No.790/7 Mahalakshmi La Bangalore ~560 086. Petitioner (By Sri. Laxman 7. Mantagani, Advocate} And The State of Karne By the Belgaum Lokayuktha Police Station, Represented by the State Public Prosecutor. aka, Office'of the Advocate Ger High Court Building, Bangalore - 560 001 Respondent (By Sri.Jagadish Patil, Advocate} KThis Crl.P is filed uf$.482 Cr.P.C. by the advo the petitioner praying that this Hon'ble Court may be. p! to quash the order dated 11.04.2005 passed by the PrL.Sessions (Spl) Judge, Belgaum in Spl. Case. No. 16/2005 (P.C.A), dated 11.4.2005 taking cognizance and iss. summons against the accused for offence P/U/S.7, 13(1a} r/w. 13{b) of P.C. Act. This petition is coming or: for final hearing this day, the Court passed the following: ORDER Issuance of summotis to the petitioner by the order dated 11.4.2008 by. the Pri. Sessions (Special) Judge, Belgaum in Special Case No.7/1996 (Special Case No.16/2005) has been challenged by. the petitioner on the ground that the entire proceedings initiated under Prevention and Corruption Act has been dropped and, closed. Then, filing a charge sheet to the _ Court again is unwarranted against the petitioner under provision of law: The petitioner, while he was working as Executive, Engineer in the Public Works Department was caught when he was accepting the bribe and the case was registered in Special Case No.7/1996. The Karnataka Lokayuktha by its order dated 30.01.2001 held that the i“Disciplinary Authority" has failed to prove the charges alieged against the D.G.O Sri. H.M.Chandrashekar. In the light of the said order, the case registered against the petitioner came to b= dropped by the Disciplinary Autherity. Subsequently, the Karnataka Lokayuktha by its order dated 03.01.2063 written a letter to the Principal Secretary. to. the Government, PWD, M.S.Building, Bangalore about the fict of non-proving ‘the charges against the D.G.0. and further exoneration of D.G.O. was informed as per Annexure-B. By referring the letter dated 03.01.2003 by the Lokayuktha, the Government by its order dated 28 March, 2003 as per Annexure-C treated that the petitioner hes been exenerated and the charges leveled against him were dropped. The case, which was pending before the _ Special Sessions Judge, Belgaum in Special Case No.7/1996 wes dropped by the order dated 16% January, 2004 against the accused. However, the Pri. Sessions Judge has referred that ‘the prosecution is at liberty to proceed against the petitioner afreah ii they wish to do so.’A reference was made at Paragraph 19 of the order of the Pri. Sessions Judge that the sanction Kobtained by the Investigation Officer to prosecute the accused in the instant case was not a valid one. it seems that again’a request was made to the Government for a fresh senctién ‘to prosecute the petitioner. ‘The Government by its ordei dated 08.12.2004 as per Annexure-E-has rejected the, same without giving sanction to prosecution. In the light of the reference made previously and also Yor the reasons that the petitioner was exonerated and acquitted, the sanction for the prosecution was rejected, The Government by its order dated 22.02.2005 held that the petitioner was entitled for promotion which he was deprived. “Be it called notional promotion, but the promotion ‘was further given to the petitioner as per the Karnatake State Civil Services (Regulation of pay, promotion and pension) Act, 1978 with retrospective effect. The order dated 64.06.2005 was passed giving all benefits to the petitioner retrospectively after the enquiry was dropped. When the petitioner was sought to quash the issue of summons to A hinv2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted when the Government itself has negatived, for sanction, itis incompetent for the Lower Officers “of. the Government of Karnataka to file the charge sheet before the Special Court. As per annexure-H at paragraph 3-which has been referred to on the sanctioning letter dated 03.02.2005 of IGP, KLA, Bangalore under No.Lok/INV(G)/L.46/CR.20/94 BGM ‘dated 03.02.2005 the sanctioning order was iscued\by ‘the Police Inspector Lokayuktha P.S.Beigaum who is net _a competent person to issue the sanctioning order, Learned counsel further submitted that under Sectica19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, it is the Government which is a competent authority to issue the.sanctioning order. Hence, he submitted that the . charge sheet filed on the basis of the sanctioning order issued by the non-competent authority is illegal. Therefore, he submitted that proceeding is required to be set aside. It is also submitted. that now the petitioner is aged about 67 years and A he is having ailment3. The learned counsel for the respondent supported the prosecution and further submitted that the ‘criminal case cal pending before the Special Judge was dropped for the isc lapse that it is invalid sanction obtained by the. Investigation Officer. Hence he submitted that the prowess initiated by the Special Judge is just and proper and it does not suffer from infirmities. It is submitted by. tne learned counsel for the lokayuktha that the eariier proceedings referred to by the petitioner counsel was not final and ultimate and hence he submitted to dismiss the petitiots. ‘es. 4. © Heard both the part 5. No doubt the special case has been registered _ against the petitioner for a trap conducted by the lokayuktha in the year 1994 ‘out the same came to be not proved by Disciplinary Authority as per the order dated 30 January, 2001. The order passed by the Lokayuktha, exonerating the petitioner has been intimated to the Government as per letter dated 30.01.2003 at Annexure-B and on considering the letter :of the Lokayuktha the Government made an order Gated 28 March, 2003 holding that the initiation of proceedings against the petitioner was not proved and he is exonerated. On the discharge application filed by the accused in’ Special Case No.7/1996, the proceedings against the accused was aFopped by Special Judge by its order dated 16 January, 2004. The Government of Karnataka by its order dated 08.12.2004 in No.LE128 SEV 2004.has rejected the recpiest for fresh sanction to prosecute the petitioner. “The said rejection was made by not less than. the Ptincipal Secretary of PWD who is representing the Government and such being the case, the question of obtaining. fresh sanctioning order from the InspectorGeneral Police as per memorandum dated ..03.02.2005 is non existing under the law. Under Section 19 of the PC Act itis only the authority who has got power to remove an official who can issue sanctioning order. The petitioner is Gazetted clause-| officer for and for him the Government is the appointing authority and also removing authority. Hence, the sanctioning order should have been issued by the Government { \and as long as sanction has not issued by the sanctioning authority, case shall not proceed further, ‘The Special Case No.7/1996 as per Annexure-D has fotiid a natural and legal exit. Under these circumstances, | found that the issuance of summons to the petitioner and continuing the proceedings against the petitioner is non-est inlaw. Accordingly, the entire proceedings in Spl, Case Nv. 16/2065 before the Pri. Sessions (Spl) Judge, Belagaum is set aside. $a/- JUDGE sat