No Acts & Articles mentioned in this case
- 1 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25216
WP No. 22483 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 9086 of 2023
CRL.P No. 514 of 2024
WP No. 19512 of 2022
WP No. 19380 of 2023
WP No. 19662 of 2023
WP No. 20697 of 2023
WP No. 22626 of 2023
WP No. 27760 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2
ND
DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 22483 OF 2023 (GM-RES)
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9086 OF 2023,
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 514 OF 2024 ,
WRIT PETITION NO. 19512 OF 2022 (GM-RES),
WRIT PETITION NO. 19380 OF 2023 (GM-RES),
WRIT PETITION NO. 19662 OF 2023 (GM-RES),
WRIT PETITION NO. 20697 OF 2023 (GM-RES),
WRIT PETITION NO. 22626 OF 2023 (GM-RES),
WRIT PETITION NO. 27760 OF 2023 (GM-RES)
IN WRIT PETITION NO. 22483 OF 2023:
BETWEEN:
SRI. SATHISH S
S/O LATE SRINIVASAISH N
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
WORKING AS RFO, CHANNGIRI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE-577 213
PERMANENT R/AT NUMBER #137
DALORS COLONY,
NEAR ADHINATH JAIN TEMPLE,
KRUSHI NAGAR,
SHIVAMOGGA-577 204.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K.N. PHANINDRA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. CHANDRAKANTH R. PATEL, ADVOCATE)
R
- 2 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25216
WP No. 22483 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 9086 of 2023
CRL.P No. 514 of 2024
WP No. 19512 of 2022
WP No. 19380 of 2023
WP No. 19662 of 2023
WP No. 20697 of 2023
WP No. 22626 of 2023
WP No. 27760 of 2023
AND:
THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA POLICE INSPECTOR
LOKAYUKTA POLICE STATION,
DAVANAGERE-577 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR COMPLAINANT
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. VENKATESH S. ARABATTI, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH T HE
FIR DATED 15/08/2023 IN CRIME NO.14/2023 PENDING ON THE FILE
OF THE LEARNED DISTRICT AND SESSIONS AND SPECIAL CO URT,
DAVANEGERE FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION
13(1)(b) AND 13(2) OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT,
1988 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT (ANNEXURE-A) AND
CONSEQUENTLY, QUASH THE SOURCE INFORMATION REPORT
DATED 14/08/2023, PREPARED BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE
(ANNEXURE-B) AND ETC.
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9086 OF 2023:
BETWEEN:
SRI. VENKATESHAPPA N
S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
TALUKA PANCHAYAT,
BANGARPET, KOLAR DISTRICT,
R/O NO.1475, 6
TH
MAIN,
3
RD
CROSS, VIVEKANANDA NAGAR,
BANGARPET, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 114.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. BIPIN HEGDE, *ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. KARTHIK V., ADVOCATE)
*Page Nos.2, 10, 13, 17, 45, 47, 48, 49 and 54 are retyped and
replaced vide court order dated 24.07.2024
- 3 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25216
WP No. 22483 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 9086 of 2023
CRL.P No. 514 of 2024
WP No. 19512 of 2022
WP No. 19380 of 2023
WP No. 19662 of 2023
WP No. 20697 of 2023
WP No. 22626 of 2023
WP No. 27760 of 2023
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA,
KOLAR DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA,
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD,
M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.
REP. BY ITS SPL.P.P.
M.S. BUILDING.
2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA,
KOLAR DISTRICT,
KOLAR - 563101
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VENKATESH S. ARABATTI, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 O F
THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO QUASH TH E
FIR IN CR.NO.03/2023 DATED 21.04.2023 VIDE ANNEXURE -A
REGISTERED IN LOKAYUKTHA POLICE KOLAR DISTRICT, KOL AR
PENDING BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE KOLAR, OF THE OFFENCES P/U/S 13(1)(b) R/W 13( 2) OF
CORRUPTION ACT AND ETC.
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 514 OF 2024:
BETWEEN:
SHRI NAGESH A
S/O ANDANIGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
OCC: ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
MYSURU-570 005
R/AT NO.388, 2
ND
CROSS, A AND B BLOCK,
MUDA EMPLOYEES LAYOUT,
- 4 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25216
WP No. 22483 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 9086 of 2023
CRL.P No. 514 of 2024
WP No. 19512 of 2022
WP No. 19380 of 2023
WP No. 19662 of 2023
WP No. 20697 of 2023
WP No. 22626 of 2023
WP No. 27760 of 2023
RAMAKRISHNANAGARA, MYSURU
KARNATAKA-570 022.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SANDESH J. CHOUTA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. KARTHIK V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY LOKAYUKTA POLICE, MYSORE
REP. BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA
HIGH COURT BUILDING COMPLEX
BANGALORE-560 001.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. VENKATESH S. ARBATTI, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 O F
THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUA SH
THE SOURCE INFORMATION REPORT DATED 08.05.2023 AND FIR
IN CRIME NO.8/2023 DATED 30.05.2023 REGISTERED BY T HE
LOKAYUKTHA POLICE, MYSURU FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S
13(1)(b) R/W 13(2) OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT,
1988 PENDING BEFORE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SES SION
AND SPL.COURT, MYSORE.
IN WRIT PETITION NO. 19512 OF 2022:
BETWEEN:
BK. SHIVAKUMAR
S/O LATE A. KEMPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT NO.48, 3
RD
CROSS
3
RD
MAIN, KIRLOKSKAR COLONY
1
ST
STAGE, BASAVESHWARA NAGAR
BANGALORE-560 079.
…PETITIONER
- 5 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25216
WP No. 22483 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 9086 of 2023
CRL.P No. 514 of 2024
WP No. 19512 of 2022
WP No. 19380 of 2023
WP No. 19662 of 2023
WP No. 20697 of 2023
WP No. 22626 of 2023
WP No. 27760 of 2023
(BY SRI. P.P. HEGDE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
**SMT. ANUPARNA BORDOLOI , ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA
(FORMERLY ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU)
M.S. BUILDING
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU CITY-560 001
REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. VENKATESH S. ARBATTI, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF T HE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CODE OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE SOURC E
REPORT DATED 08.03.2022 SUBMITTED BY R1 AS THE SAME IS
ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND WITHOUT ANY AUTHORITY OF LAW
ANNEXURE-A; QUASH THE FIR DATED 15.03.2022 SUBMITTE D BY
R1 IN CRIME NO.21/2022 ON THE FILE OF XXXIII ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU FOR OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE U/S 13(1)(b) R/W 13(2) OF PREVENTION OF
CORRUPTION ACT AS THE SAME IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AN D
WITHOUT ANY AUTHORITY OF LAW ANNEXURE-B AND ETC.
IN WRIT PETITION NO.19380 OF 2023:
BETWEEN:
SRI. LAKSHMIPATHI
S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/AT NO.680/09, BRINDAAVAN LAYOUT,
BETTAHALLASUR POST, JALA HOBLI
BANGALORE NORTH,
BENGALURU-562 157.
…PETITIONER
** corrected vide chamber order dated 7.8.2024
- 6 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25216
WP No. 22483 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 9086 of 2023
CRL.P No. 514 of 2024
WP No. 19512 of 2022
WP No. 19380 of 2023
WP No. 19662 of 2023
WP No. 20697 of 2023
WP No. 22626 of 2023
WP No. 27760 of 2023
(BY SRI. SOMASHEKAR K.H., ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA,
REPT. BY ITS REGISTRAR
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560001.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. VENKATESH S. ARABATTI, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF T HE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CODE OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH, FIR IN CRIME NO.35/2 023,
DATED 16/08/2023, REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 13 (1)(b) AND 13(2) OF
PREVENTION AND CORRUPTION ACT 1988, AMENDED ACT 201 8,
AGAINST THE PETITIONER PER ANNEXURE-B, ON THE FILE OF
23
RD
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE BANGALORE AND ETC.
IN WRIT PETITION NO. 19662 OF 2023:
BETWEEN:
SRI. SHIVARAJU
S/O BASAVEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
(AS ALLEGED IN FIR TAHASILDAR GRADE-2)
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
M.S. BUILDING , BANGALORE)
PRESENTLY WORKING AS
TAHASILDAR
DEVANAHALLI TALUK OFFICE
DEVANAHALLI,
BANGALORE RURAL
- 7 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25216
WP No. 22483 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 9086 of 2023
CRL.P No. 514 of 2024
WP No. 19512 of 2022
WP No. 19380 of 2023
WP No. 19662 of 2023
WP No. 20697 of 2023
WP No. 22626 of 2023
WP No. 27760 of 2023
R/AT NO.A-503, OZONE APARTMENT,
KANNAMANGALA VILLAGE,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BANGALORE.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K.N. PHANINDRA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. VINAYAKA B. VISHNU BATTA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA POLICE
REPRESENTED BY ITS SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
CITY DIVISION
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA
M.S. BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. VENKATESH S. ARABATTI, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 16.08.2023 VIE ORDER
NO.KLA/INV/BCD/SP-2/8/2023 PASSED BY THE SUPERINTEN DENT
OF POLICE-2 ATTACHED TO RESPONDENT PRODUCED AT
ANNEXURE-A; QUASH THE FIR NO.36/2023 DATED 16.08.20 23 FOR
THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 13(1)(b) R/W 13(2) OF PC ACT
REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT PENDING IN THE FILE O F
XXIII ADDL CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE AT BANGALO RE
PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-B AND ETC.
IN WRIT PETITION NO. 20697 OF 2023:
BETWEEN:
SRI NAGARAJAPPA N J
S/O LATE N. JAYAPPA,
- 8 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25216
WP No. 22483 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 9086 of 2023
CRL.P No. 514 of 2024
WP No. 19512 of 2022
WP No. 19380 of 2023
WP No. 19662 of 2023
WP No. 20697 of 2023
WP No. 22626 of 2023
WP No. 27760 of 2023
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
WORKING AS TAHSILDAR,
GRADE - I, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK,
TALUK OFFICE, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201
PERMANENT R/AT #1216/1057, SITE NO.6,
13
TH
CROSS, CHANNKESHWANAGARA,
SHIKARIPURA TOWN,
SHIVAMOGGA - 577 427.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. CHANDRAKANTH R. PATEL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA
POLICE INSPECTOR,
LOKAYUKTA POLICE STATION,
DAVANAGERE - 577 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS N.H. ANJANAYA
S/O NEELAPPA.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. VENKATESH S. ARABATTI, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH T HE
FIR DATED 21/04/2023 IN CRIME NO.11/2023 FOR THE OF FENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 13(1)(b) AND 13(2) OF THE
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 REGISTERED BY TH E
RESPONDENT (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.
IN WRIT PETITION NO. 22626 OF 2023:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. K.T. SRINIVAS MURTHY
S/O K V THIMMEGOWDA
- 9 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25216
WP No. 22483 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 9086 of 2023
CRL.P No. 514 of 2024
WP No. 19512 of 2022
WP No. 19380 of 2023
WP No. 19662 of 2023
WP No. 20697 of 2023
WP No. 22626 of 2023
WP No. 27760 of 2023
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
OCCUPATION: SURVEY SUPERVISOR
R/AT NO.02, KASABA HOBLI S. KODIGEHALLI PALYA
KODIGEHALLI, C. KODIGENAHALLI
TUMAKURU, KARNATAKA -572213.
2. SMT. RAJESHWARI B H
W/O SRI K.T. SRINIVAS MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
R/AT NO.02, KASABA HOBLI
S. KODIGEHALLI PALYA
KODIGEHALLI, C. KODIGENAHALLI
TUMKURU, KARNATAKA-572 213.
3. PUSHPAKALA K T
W/O LATE PANDU L R
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
R/AT LAKSHMI NILAYA
6
TH
CROSS, NEAR CHURCH
SARASWATHIPURAM
TUMKURU, MARALUR TUMKURU
KARNATAKA-572 105.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SANDESH J. CHOUTA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. SAMPREETH V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE BY LOKAYUKTA POLICE
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, M.S. BUILDING
BANGALORE CITY POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC
PROSECSUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. VENKATESH S. ARABATTI, ADVOCATE)
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25216
WP No. 22483 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 9086 of 2023
CRL.P No. 514 of 2024
WP No. 19512 of 2022
WP No. 19380 of 2023
WP No. 19662 of 2023
WP No. 20697 of 2023
WP No. 22626 of 2023
WP No. 27760 of 2023
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF T HE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CODE OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS
PENDING ON THE FILE OF XXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND S ESSIONS
JUDGE FOR PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT AT BENGALURU
(CCH-24) QUASH AND SET ASIDE THE FIR IN CRIME NO.39 /2023
DTD 21.08.2023 REGISTERED BY THE R1 HERETO PRODUCED AS
ANNEXURE-A AND ALL SUBSEQUENT CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS
QUA THE PETITIONERS PENDING ON THE FILE OF XXIII AD DL.
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE FOR PREVENTION OF
CORRUPTION ACT AT BENGALURU (CCH-24) AS AGAINST THE
PETITIONERS FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 420, 468, 4 71 AND
120B OF IPC, 1860 AND SECTION 12, 13(1)(d) R/W SECTIN 13(2) OF
THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 AND ETC.
IN WRIT PETITION NO. 27760 OF 2023:
BETWEEN:
SRI. NATARAJA S
S/O SIDDAVEERAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
NO.380, BDA AVALAHALLI PARK, 8
TH
MAIN,
NEAR KUVEMPU AUDITORIUM BSK 3
RD
STAGE,
BANGALORE - 560 085.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. BIPIN HEGDE, *ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SAMPREETH V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE BY KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA
POLICE STATION, M.S. BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. VENKATESH S. ARABATTI, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND READ WITH SECT ION
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25216
WP No. 22483 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 9086 of 2023
CRL.P No. 514 of 2024
WP No. 19512 of 2022
WP No. 19380 of 2023
WP No. 19662 of 2023
WP No. 20697 of 2023
WP No. 22626 of 2023
WP No. 27760 of 2023
482 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 1973 PRAYING TO
QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME NO.38/2023 PENDING ON THE FILE OF
HONBLE 23
RD
ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE BENGALURU
REGISTERED BY TH RESPONDENT POLICE FOR THE OFFENSES
UNDER SECTION 13(1)(b) R/W SECTION 13(2) OF PREVENT ION OF
CORRUPTION ACT 1988 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR FURTHER DICTATION,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The challenge in all these petitions pertains to the
registration of the First Information Report (FIR) for offenses under
Sections 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 1988').
2. The petitioners fall under the definition of pu blic
servants as per Section 2(c) of the Act, 1988. First Information
Reports (FIRs) have been registered against them on allegations of
possessing assets disproportionate to their known sources of
income.
3. A police inspector from the respondent—Karnataka
Lokayukta—prepared a source report detailing the movable and
immovable assets owned by the petitioners, their spouses, and
other family members. This source report, along with covering
letters, was submitted to the Superintendent of Police, Lokayukta.
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25216
WP No. 22483 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 9086 of 2023
CRL.P No. 514 of 2024
WP No. 19512 of 2022
WP No. 19380 of 2023
WP No. 19662 of 2023
WP No. 20697 of 2023
WP No. 22626 of 2023
WP No. 27760 of 2023
4. The Superintendent of Police, invoking the Second
Proviso to Section 17 of the Act, 1988, authorized the police
inspectors / Dy. Superintendent of Police of the respective
Lokayukta Police Stations to investigate the case. Following this
authorization, FIRs were registered, and the investigation
commenced.
5. Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, Sri K.N. Phanindra,
Sri Sandesh J. Chouta and Sri P.P. Hegde, learned s enior
counsels argue as follows:
i) The orders issued by the Superintendent of Police
under the second proviso to Section 17 of the Act, 1988, which
authorize police inspectors / Dy. Superintendent of Police to
conduct investigations, are uniform in content except for the names
of the accused and the Superintendent of Police. These orders lack
any reasoning or evidence of thoughtful consideration regarding
the decision to investigate the case against the petitioners.
ii) The purpose of the second proviso is to prevent the
unwarranted harassment of public servants who perform their
duties under challenging conditions. The use of the term "without
order" implies a higher standard than mere requirements for
authorization, approval, consent, or sanction. Therefore, the orders
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25216
WP No. 22483 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 9086 of 2023
CRL.P No. 514 of 2024
WP No. 19512 of 2022
WP No. 19380 of 2023
WP No. 19662 of 2023
WP No. 20697 of 2023
WP No. 22626 of 2023
WP No. 27760 of 2023
issued by the Superintendent of Police do not meet the
requirements set forth in the second proviso. As a result, the
registration of the FIRs and the subsequent investigations are
invalidated.
7. In support, reliance is placed on the following
decisions:
a) State of Haryana -vs- Bhajan Lal - 1992 Supp (1) SCC
335.
b) CBI -vs- Hemendhra Reddy - AIR OnLine 2023 SC
468.
c) State of Karnataka -vs- B Narayana Reddy - 2001
SCC OnLine Kar 673.
d) Udaya Ravi -vs- State of Karnataka - WP
104906/2023.
e) K L Gangadharaiah -vs- The Karnataka Lokayukta
Police (WP No.11822/2023 DD 28.7.2023):
8. In a case involving disproportionate assets, conducting
a preliminary *enquiry is not only desirable but mandatory. This
preliminary *enquiry is crucial to assess the credibility and veracity
of the information received. It ensures that only genuine cases of
disproportionate assets proceed to a full investiga tion.
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25216
WP No. 22483 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 9086 of 2023
CRL.P No. 514 of 2024
WP No. 19512 of 2022
WP No. 19380 of 2023
WP No. 19662 of 2023
WP No. 20697 of 2023
WP No. 22626 of 2023
WP No. 27760 of 2023
Furthermore, it serves to protect the reputation of individuals from
unfounded accusations. In support, a reliance is placed on the
following decisions:
a) Charansingh v. The State of Maharashtra and others
((2021) 5 SCC 469)
b) Mr. Navneet Mohan N v. The Station Officer and
Another (W.P.No.43817/2018)
c) J. Gnanendra Kumar v. The Chief Secretary and
Another (W.P.No.8170/2022)
d) Balakrishna H.N v. The State of Karnataka
(W.P.No.15886/2022
e) Sri L. Satish Kumar v. The State of Karnataka
(W.P.No.6732/2023)
9. Additionally, Sri Sandesh J Chouta, learned Senior
Counsel, argued that there is a clear distinction between the
registration of a First Information Report (FIR) under Section 154 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC) and the subsequent
investigation under Section 156 of the Cr.PC. The restriction
imposed by the second proviso to Section 17 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 pertains to the conduct of the investigation
and not the registration of an FIR under Section 154. Upon
receiving information indicating that a public servant is in
possession of assets disproportionate to their known income, the
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25216
WP No. 22483 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 9086 of 2023
CRL.P No. 514 of 2024
WP No. 19512 of 2022
WP No. 19380 of 2023
WP No. 19662 of 2023
WP No. 20697 of 2023
WP No. 22626 of 2023
WP No. 27760 of 2023
police inspector is mandated to register the FIR immediately.
Subsequently, the inspector should submit the source report along
with the preliminary enquiry report and FIR to the concerned
Superintendent of Police. Therefore, the registration of the FIR post
authorization has resulted in vitiating the investigation. In support,
reliance is placed on the following decisions:
a) Kailash Vijayavargiya -vs- Rajalakshmi Chaudhari and
other - 2023 SCC OnOLine SC 569.
b) Lalitha Kumari -vs- State of UP - (2014) 2 SCC 1.
c) State of MP -vs- Ram Singh - (2000) 5 SCC 88.
d) Udaya Ravi -vs- State of Karnataka - WP
104906/2023.
e) N Satish Babu -vs- State of Karnataka - WP
3107/2024.
f) G M Shivakumar -vs- State of Karnataka - WP
17248/2022.
g) Sudhakar Reddy -vs- State of Karnataka - Crl.LP
No.13460/2023.
h) Circular dated 11.5.2023 issued by the Director
General of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta.
i) Ram Singh -vs- State of MP - (2000) 5 SCC 88.
10. Submission of the learned counsel for the respondent -
Lokayukta is as follows:-
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25216
WP No. 22483 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 9086 of 2023
CRL.P No. 514 of 2024
WP No. 19512 of 2022
WP No. 19380 of 2023
WP No. 19662 of 2023
WP No. 20697 of 2023
WP No. 22626 of 2023
WP No. 27760 of 2023
i) The mere fact that the orders contain text similar to
other orders issued under the second proviso to Section 17 of the
Act, 1988, does not, by itself, demonstrate a lack of consideration.
The orders issued under this provision, which include details such
as the names of the accused, the nature of the offense, the
authority of the Superintendent of Police to delegate investigative
power to a junior officer, and the extent of the disproportionate
assets involved, clearly indicate thoughtful deliberation. Therefore,
the petitioners' claim that these orders were issued mechanically
and lack the necessary application of mind is unfounded.
ii) Sri Venkatesh Arabatti, learned counsel representing
the Lokayuktha further argued that the case of K. L .
Gangadharaiah, is not relevant to the present circumstances. The
cited decision was based on several typographical and other errors
found in the orders in that specific case, which is not the situation
here. Furthermore, the said decision is subject matter of challenge
before the Apex Court.
11. In support, reliance is placed on the following
decisions:-
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25216
WP No. 22483 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 9086 of 2023
CRL.P No. 514 of 2024
WP No. 19512 of 2022
WP No. 19380 of 2023
WP No. 19662 of 2023
WP No. 20697 of 2023
WP No. 22626 of 2023
WP No. 27760 of 2023
a) S K Paramesh -vs- State of Karnataka - CrlP
No.464/2013 (DD 23.5.2013).
b) State of M P –vs- Ram Singh - (2000) 5 SCC 88
c) Sri D M Padmanabha & ors. -vs- The State by
Karnatak Lokayuktha ( WP No.2413/2024) (DD 27.5.2024)
12. The conducting of a preliminary *enquiry before
registering an FIR is not a mandatory requirement. The necessity
of such an *enquiry depends on the specific facts and
circumstances of each case. The petitioners have no t
demonstrated how their rights were adversely affected by the
absence of a preliminary *enquiry prior to registration of the FIR.
When the information received indicates the commission of a
cognizable offense, an FIR can be registered without conducting a
preliminary *enquiry. In support, reliance is placed on the following
decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court:
a) CBI -vs- Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmi - (2021)
18 SCC 135.
b) State through DSP -vs- R Soundirarasu - (2023) 6
SCC 768.
13. Sri Venkatesh Arbatti, learned counsel, argues that an
FIR registered by a police inspector can only be done so after the
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25216
WP No. 22483 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 9086 of 2023
CRL.P No. 514 of 2024
WP No. 19512 of 2022
WP No. 19380 of 2023
WP No. 19662 of 2023
WP No. 20697 of 2023
WP No. 22626 of 2023
WP No. 27760 of 2023
inspector has been authorized to investigate the offense under the
second provision of Section 17. According to Section 157 of the
Cr.P.C., an Investigating Officer can register an FIR only if they are
empowered to do so under Section 156 of the Cr.P.C.
Consequently, the argument that the registration of the FIR must
precede the authorization to investigate lacks any substance.
14. The arguments presented by the learned counsel for
both parties have been duly considered.
15. The points that arise for consideration are as follows:
i) Whether the orders of the Superintendent of Police
passed under second proviso to Section 17 authorizing to
investigate against criminal misconduct of intentional illicit
enrichment during the period of office under Section 13(1)(b),
should be elaborate with clearly discernible reasons?
ii) Whether the conducting of preliminary enquiry is
mandatory before registering the FIRs or the petitioners have made
out any case for the desirability to conduct preliminary enquiry?
iii) Whether the registration of the FIRs must precede the
orders authorizing to investigate?
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25216
WP No. 22483 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 9086 of 2023
CRL.P No. 514 of 2024
WP No. 19512 of 2022
WP No. 19380 of 2023
WP No. 19662 of 2023
WP No. 20697 of 2023
WP No. 22626 of 2023
WP No. 27760 of 2023
Point No.(i):
16. Before addressing this point, it is pertinent to cite the
relevant provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and
the legal principles established by the Apex Court, as well as this
Court, with reference to the said provisions.
17. Section 17 is reproduced as hereunder -
CHAPTER IV - INVESTIGATION INTO CASES UNDER
THE ACT
17. Persons authorised to investigate.- Notwithstanding
anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (2 of 1974), no police officer below the rank,-
(a) in the case of the Delhi Special Police
Establishment, of an Inspector of police;
(b) in the metropolitan areas of Bombay, Calcutta,
Madras and Ahmedabad and in any other metropolitan
area notified as such under sub-section (1) of section 8
of the 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 equivalent rank,
Shall investigate any offence punishable under this Act
without the order of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25216
WP No. 22483 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 9086 of 2023
CRL.P No. 514 of 2024
WP No. 19512 of 2022
WP No. 19380 of 2023
WP No. 19662 of 2023
WP No. 20697 of 2023
WP No. 22626 of 2023
WP No. 27760 of 2023
Magistrate of the first class, as the case may be, or
make any arrest therefore without a warrant:
Provided that if a police officer not below the rank of an
Inspector of Police is authorised by the State
Government in this behalf by general or special order,
he may also investigate any such offense without the
order of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Magistrate of the
first class, as the case may be, or make arrest therefore
without a warrant:
Provided further that an offense referred to in [clause (b)
of sub-section (1)] of section 13 shall not be investigated
without the order of a police officer not below the rank of
a Superintendent of Police.
18. In the case of Bhajanlal (supra), the Apex Court, with
reference to Section 5-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1947—which corresponds to Section 17 of the Act, 1988— the
Apex Court ruled that the second proviso to Section 5-A is
mandatory, not merely directory. The Apex Court emphasized that
the investigation by the designated police officer is the rule, while
the investigation by an officer of a lower rank is an exception.
Moreover, the requirement to disclose the reasons for granting
permission for such an exception is a significant legal obligation.
This disclosure ensures transparency and accountability in the
investigative process, reinforcing the integrity of the legal
framework governing corruption investigations.
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25216
WP No. 22483 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 9086 of 2023
CRL.P No. 514 of 2024
WP No. 19512 of 2022
WP No. 19380 of 2023
WP No. 19662 of 2023
WP No. 20697 of 2023
WP No. 22626 of 2023
WP No. 27760 of 2023
19. In the case of State of MP v. Ramsingh (supra), the
Apex Court ruled that an order of the Superintendent of Police
(SP), even when in a proforma format, which indicates the name of
the accused, the FIR number
, the nature of the offense, and the
authority of the SP to permit a junior officer to investigate, along
with the timing between the registration of the FIR and the issuance
of the order, demonstrates the application of mind. Furthermore,
the Apex Court emphasized that procedural delays and legal
technicalities should not be allowed to defeat the objectives of the
Act. The overarching public interest and social purpose of the Act
must be considered while interpreting its various provisions and
deciding cases under it.
20. In the case of State of Karnataka v. B Narayana
Reddy (supra), the coordinate Bench of the Court, while referring
to the Bhajanlal and Ramsingh cases, held that reasons must be
provided for entrusting an investigation to a lower-ranking officer
when the Superintendent of Police issues an order under the
second proviso to Section 17 of the Act, 1988. In this case, the
learned Single Judge discharged the petitioner from the offense
punishable under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the
Act, concluding that the orders passed by the Superintendent of
Police were deficient in reasons for assigning the investigation to a
lower-ranking officer, specifically an Inspector of Police.
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25216
WP No. 22483 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 9086 of 2023
CRL.P No. 514 of 2024
WP No. 19512 of 2022
WP No. 19380 of 2023
WP No. 19662 of 2023
WP No. 20697 of 2023
WP No. 22626 of 2023
WP No. 27760 of 2023
21. Therefore, it is evident that the decision of the Apex
Court in Ramsingh’s case (supra) should be confined to the
specific facts of that case. The principle established in Bhajanlal’s
case remains authoritative: the requirement to provide reasons for
entrusting an investigation to a lower-ranking officer is imperative.
This ensures transparency and accountability in the investigative
process, aligning with the fundamental legal framework designed to
combat corruption.
22. The coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of S.K.
Parmesh v. State of Karnataka (in Crl P. No. 464/2013 : DD
23.05.2013) relying on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of
Ram Singh (supra) held that sufficient attention to detail is devoted
in entrusting the investigation to the police inspector although the
authorization order being a typed proforma.
23. In the case of D. M. Padmanabha and ors. v. The
State of Karnataka by Lokayuktha (WP No.2413/2024 : DD
27.5.2024), the coordinate Bench of this Court ruled that perusal of
the order of the Superintendent of Police would go to show that,
along with the source report, the material which was the basis for
the preparation of the source report was also made available and
upon verification of the same, being satisfied that there was a case
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25216
WP No. 22483 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 9086 of 2023
CRL.P No. 514 of 2024
WP No. 19512 of 2022
WP No. 19380 of 2023
WP No. 19662 of 2023
WP No. 20697 of 2023
WP No. 22626 of 2023
WP No. 27760 of 2023
made out for investigation for the alleged offenses, the SP of the
police proceeded to pass an order in exercise of the power under
Section 17 of the PC Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that there
was no application of mind by the SP of the Police before passing
an order under the second proviso of section 17 of the PC Act.
24. In the case of Babu Rao Chinchanasur v. State by
Lokayuktha 2013 SCC OnLine Kar 10386 : 2014 Cri LJ 3310, the
coordinate Bench of this Court has ruled as follows:
1) A Special Judge has to apply his mind to any complaint
under Section 200 of Cr.PC to make out whether the
complainant discloses any offense or not, and thereafter,
order an investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C.
Thus, the discretion given to the police officer to determine
the existence of any sufficient ground to enter on an
investigation is taken away by the issuance of order under
Section 156(3).
2) It further observed that with respect to the second proviso to
Section 17, the Superintendent of Police or an officer
superior to him is required to apply his mind to the
information and thereafter, come to an opinion that the
investigation on such allegations is necessary.
- 24 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25216
WP No. 22483 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 9086 of 2023
CRL.P No. 514 of 2024
WP No. 19512 of 2022
WP No. 19380 of 2023
WP No. 19662 of 2023
WP No. 20697 of 2023
WP No. 22626 of 2023
WP No. 27760 of 2023
3) The second proviso to Section 17 of the Act is but an
additional safeguard and protection in relation to the
investigation of the offense referred to in Clause (e) of sub-
Section 1 of Section 13, and that when a complaint under
Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. alleging the said offence is made,
it shall be required to be referred to a police officer of the
rank of a rank not less than Superintendent of Police, who
shall on application of his mind and on satisfaction that an
investigation is necessary, direct an investigation into the
allegations in the complaint. Furthermore, it held that if this
mode were to not be adopted, it would defeat the statutory
protection enshrined in the second proviso to Section 17 of
the PC Act, 1988.
25. In the case of State through CBI v Hemendhra Reddy
AIR Online 2023,SC 468 the Apex Court has ruled that the second
proviso is in the nature of additional safeguard for the public
servant who are accused of the offence punishable under Section
13(1)(e) of the Act, 1988 against the investigation without the
knowledge and consent of a superior police officer not below the
rank of Superintendent of police. A superior police officer of the
rank of Superintendent of police is required to pass an order before
an investigation and before directing such investigation, is required
- 25 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25216
WP No. 22483 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 9086 of 2023
CRL.P No. 514 of 2024
WP No. 19512 of 2022
WP No. 19380 of 2023
WP No. 19662 of 2023
WP No. 20697 of 2023
WP No. 22626 of 2023
WP No. 27760 of 2023
to apply his mind to the information and come to an opinion that the
investigation on such allegations is necessary.
26. In the case of K.L. Gangadhariah v. Karnataka
Lokayukta (WP 1182/2023 DD 28.07.2023) a coordinate bench of
this Court had held that the action of Lokayuktha must inspire
confidence of the Court and that the duration of the check period
must either end with the date of registration of the crime or must
immediately precede the date of registration of crime. The source
information report must be scrutinized in its entirety, as a faulty
(meaning inaccurate herein) check period shall inevitably render
the source information report faulty. It is relevant to note that this
judgment is subject matter of challenge before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court.
27. I am in complete concurrence with the view taken by
the coordinate bench that where an order is issued under the
second proviso of section 17 of the Act, 1988 directed an
investigation without arriving at a logical reason as to why the
“clock of the check period in the source information report” came to
an abrupt halt 8 years prior to the date of presentation of the
source report and registration of the crime, it would constitute an
incurable transgression of a substantive right vested in the accused
public servant under the second proviso of Section 17 of the Act,
- 26 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25216
WP No. 22483 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 9086 of 2023
CRL.P No. 514 of 2024
WP No. 19512 of 2022
WP No. 19380 of 2023
WP No. 19662 of 2023
WP No. 20697 of 2023
WP No. 22626 of 2023
WP No. 27760 of 2023
1988. Interpreting the wordings used in the second proviso, the
Apex Court in the much earlier case of Inspector of Police v.
Surya Sankaram Karri 2006 7 SCC 172 had held the second
proviso of the Section 17 of the said Act to be of a mandatory
character and order under the said proviso had to be passed in
writing.
28. The proviso therefore, imposes a graver obligation on
the Superintendent of the Police to verify the contents of the source
information report and other relevant materials so as to arrive at a
prima facie conclusion that there exists sufficient ground to
investigate a case. An order based on the summary reading in a
routine manner, for a fleeting moment does not cut muster with the
legislative intent and object of preventing frivolous and speculative
investigation and irreparable harm caused to the reputation of
public servants by motivated, reckless and unsubstantiated
allegations of criminal misconduct. Thus, the order issued under
the second proviso must be made upon a comprehensive scrutiny
of the source information report.
29. In view of decisions of the Apex Court and of this Court
in cases alluded to above, the ratio enunciated is summarized as
follows:
- 27 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25216
WP No. 22483 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 9086 of 2023
CRL.P No. 514 of 2024
WP No. 19512 of 2022
WP No. 19380 of 2023
WP No. 19662 of 2023
WP No. 20697 of 2023
WP No. 22626 of 2023
WP No. 27760 of 2023
1) The second proviso is mandatory, not merely directory.
Investigation by the designated police officer is the Rule,
while the investigation by an officer of a lower rank is an
exception.
2) It is imperative that the reasons for granting permission
to a lower rank officer to conduct the investigation be
disclosed. The requirement ensures transparency and
accountability in the investigative process.
3) The order under second proviso must demonstrate the
application of mind even if it is in a proforma format.
4) The decision in Ram Singh case should be confined to
its specific facts, and the ratio enunciated in Bhajanlal
case remains authoritative.
5) The order under second proviso must disclose that the
material forming the basis of the source report was
verified and there was prima facie satisfaction that the
case is made out for investigation.
30. In light of the above precedents and findings
enunciated above, the true meaning of an order made under the
second proviso to the Section 17 of the Act, 1988 requires to be
considered.
- 28 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25216
WP No. 22483 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 9086 of 2023
CRL.P No. 514 of 2024
WP No. 19512 of 2022
WP No. 19380 of 2023
WP No. 19662 of 2023
WP No. 20697 of 2023
WP No. 22626 of 2023
WP No. 27760 of 2023
31. An order means a conclusive opinion supported by
reasons. A person affected by an order has an opportunity to
understand the reasons behind it and therefore, aligns with
principles of natural justice. Moreover, it ensures transparency,
accountability and fairness. Requiring reasons acts as a safeguard
against arbitrary or abusive use of investigative powers. It prevents
authorities from conducting investigations based solely on
speculation or personal bias, thereby protecting individuals from
unwarranted intrusion into their privacy or affairs.
32. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Steel
Authority of India Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer, Rourkela I Circle
and Ors. (2008) 9 SCC 407 referencing the observations made in
the case of Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar (2003) 11 SCC 519
held that reasons are the heartbeat of every conclusion as it
introduces clarity in the order. It further continued to underscore the
importance of reasons in an order as an objective expression of an
opinion that stands the tests of judicial review. Furthermore, it
evidences application of mind, and is in congruence with the time
honored principles of natural justice.
33. In the case of Assistant Commissioner, Commercial
Tax Department, Works Contract & Leasing, Kota v. M /s
Shukla & Brothers (2010) 4 SCC 785, where an appeal was
- 29 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25216
WP No. 22483 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 9086 of 2023
CRL.P No. 514 of 2024
WP No. 19512 of 2022
WP No. 19380 of 2023
WP No. 19662 of 2023
WP No. 20697 of 2023
WP No. 22626 of 2023
WP No. 27760 of 2023
preferred against the dismissal of a revision petition by the High
Court in a one line cryptic order, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
expounded the doctrine of 'audi alteram partem' into 3 essential
ingredients - firstly, a person against who an order is required to be
passed or whose rights are likely to be adversely affected must be
granted an opportunity of being heard; secondly, the concerned
authority should provide a fair and transparent procedure; and
lastly, the authority must apply its mind and dispose of the matter
by a reasoned order.
34. It further held that "reasons are the soul of orders", and
"non-recording of reasons could lead to dual infirmities; firstly, it
may cause prejudice to the affected party and secondly, more
particularly, hamper the proper administration of justice." It further
held that these principles were applicable not only to administrative
and executive actions but also to judicial pronouncements.
35. In Birla Corporation Ltd. v. Adventez Investments
and Holdings Ltd. and Ors (2019) 16 SCC 610, where the Apex
Court was arrested with the subject of issuance of process under
Section 204 of Cr.P.C., it observed that “to be summoned / to
appear before the criminal court as an accused is a serious matter
affecting one’s dignity and reputation in the society” and that a
- 30 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25216
WP No. 22483 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 9086 of 2023
CRL.P No. 514 of 2024
WP No. 19512 of 2022
WP No. 19380 of 2023
WP No. 19662 of 2023
WP No. 20697 of 2023
WP No. 22626 of 2023
WP No. 27760 of 2023
criminal case cannot be registered as a matter of course on a
complaint filed otherwise than on a police report, but on application
of mind as to whether the allegations in the complaint constitute
essential ingredients of the offense and whether there are sufficient
grounds for proceeding against the accused.
36. It further observed that the Magistrate before taking
cognizance must on application of mind, be prima facie satisfied on
scrutiny and assessment of the allegations in the complaint, the
statement of the complainant and other materials along with the
record of the case as to whether there exists sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused.
37. In the present cases, the orders passed under second
proviso to Section 17 are extracted as follows.
WP.NO.22483/2023:
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF
POLICE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, KOLAR
DIVISION, KOLAR.
I have gone through the source report submitted by
Smt. Renuka.A.V, P.I, KLA, Kolar, relating to her receipt
of credible information that Sri.N.Venkatesh, E.O,
Bangatpet Taluk panchayath, kolar district, has acquired
properties disproportionate to his known source of
income to the extent of Rs.1,09,52,291/- with extent of
- 31 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25216
WP No. 22483 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 9086 of 2023
CRL.P No. 514 of 2024
WP No. 19512 of 2022
WP No. 19380 of 2023
WP No. 19662 of 2023
WP No. 20697 of 2023
WP No. 22626 of 2023
WP No. 27760 of 2023
108% and thereby committed an offence U/s 13(1) (b)
R/W 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act-1988.
(Amendment-2018).
From the material placed before me and with the
application of my mind, I am satisfied that a prima facie
case is made out against Sri. N.Venkatesh, E.O,
Bangarpet Taluk panchayath, warranting a statutory
investigation for and offence U/s 13(1)(b)R/W 13(2) of
Prevention of Corruption Act-1988 (Amendment-2018).
ORDER NO.LOK/INV(G) KLR/SP/01/2023, DATED:21/04/2023.
Therefore by virtue of the powers vested in me under
the provisions of section 17(c) of the prevention of
corruption Act-1988, (Amendment-2018), I B.K.Umesh,
Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta, Kolar,
order that Sri.V. Suryanarayana Rao DySP, KLA, Kolar
to register a case under section 13(1)(b) r/w 13(2) of
Prevention of Corruption Act-1988(amendment-2018)
against AGO Sri. N.Venkatesh, E.O, Bangarpet Taluk
panchayath and to investigate the said case. I know Sri.
V. Suryanarayana Rao, Deputy Superintendent of police
and he is having the knowledge of investigation of the
cases registered under P.C act. And also he is having
previous experience of investigation of disproportionate
of asset cases.
Further, I authorise Sri. V.Suryanarayana Rao,
Dy.SP, KLA, Kolar, under the Provisions of section 18 of
the P.C.Act-1988 to inspect the banker books in so for
as it relates to the accounts of the persons suspected to
be holding money on behalf the said. AGO
Sri.N.Venkatesh E.O, Bangar pet taluk panchayath, and
- 32 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25216
WP No. 22483 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 9086 of 2023
CRL.P No. 514 of 2024
WP No. 19512 of 2022
WP No. 19380 of 2023
WP No. 19662 of 2023
WP No. 20697 of 2023
WP No. 22626 of 2023
WP No. 27760 of 2023
take or cause to be taken certified copies of the relevant
entries there from and the bankers concerned shall be
bound to assist the Police Officer Sri.V.Suryanarayana
Rao, KLA Kolar in the powers under the said section of
law.
Given under my Signature and seal of this Office on
21/04/2023.
Crl.p.No.514/2024:
Source Report submitted by Sri.RAVIKUMAR.A, Police
Inspector, Karnataka Lokayukta, Mysuru P.S. Dated:
08.05.2023
I have gone through the source report submitted by Sri.
RAVIKUMAR.A, Police Inspector, Karnataka Lokayukta,
Mysuru. relating to his receipt of credible information
that Sri A.Nagesh, Assistant Executive Engineer,
Mysuru Urban Development Authority, Mysuru has
acquired properties disproportionate to his known
source of income to the extent of Rs. 1,38,50,000-00
and thereby committed an offence under section 13(1)
(b) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988,
(Amendment Act 2018)
From the material placed before me and with application
of my mind I am satisfied that a prima-facie case is
made out against Sri A.Nagesh, Assistant Executive
Engineer, Mysuru urban development authority, Mysuru
Warranting a statutory investigation for an offence under
section 13(1) (b) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption
Act 1988, (Amendment Act 2018)
- 33 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25216
WP No. 22483 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 9086 of 2023
CRL.P No. 514 of 2024
WP No. 19512 of 2022
WP No. 19380 of 2023
WP No. 19662 of 2023
WP No. 20697 of 2023
WP No. 22626 of 2023
WP No. 27760 of 2023
ORDER NO.KLA/MYS/SP/INV/MYSURU/03/2023, DATED 30.05.2023.
Therefore by virtue of the power vested in me under
provisions of section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption
Act 1988, (Amendment Act 2018) I, S. Sureshbabu,
Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta, Mysuru
Division, Mysuru order that Sri Malteesh S.K. Deputy
Superintendent of Police-2, Karnataka Lokayukta,
Mysuru Station Mysuru, to register a case under Section
13(1) (b) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988,
(Amendment Act 2018) against Sri A.Nagesh, Assistant
Executive Engineer, Mysuru Urban Development
Authority, Mysuru, and to investigate the said case. I
know Urban Desh S.K. Deputy Superintendent of
Police-2 and he is having the knowlegde of investigation
of the cases registered under P.C Act and also he is
having previous experience of investigation of
disproportionate Asset cases.
Further I authorise Sri Malteesh S.K. Deputy
Superintendent of Police-2, Karnataka Lokayukta,
Mysuru Station Mysuru, under the provision of the
section 18 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988,
(Amendment Act 2018) to inspect the bank accounts in
so for as it related to the accounts of the persons
suspected to be holding money on behalf of the said
A.Nagesh, Assistant Executive Engineer, Mysuru Urban
Development Authority, Mysuru and to take or cause to
be taken certified copies of the relevant statements of
bank accounts there from and the bankers concerned
shall be bound to assist the police officer Sri Malteesh
S.K. Deputy Superintendent of Police-2, Karnataka
Lokayukta, Mysuru Station Mysuru in the exercise of the
power under the said section of law.
- 34 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25216
WP No. 22483 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 9086 of 2023
CRL.P No. 514 of 2024
WP No. 19512 of 2022
WP No. 19380 of 2023
WP No. 19662 of 2023
WP No. 20697 of 2023
WP No. 22626 of 2023
WP No. 27760 of 2023
WP.no.19512/2022:
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF
POLICE,
ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, BANGALORE CITY
Sub: Possession of properties disproportionate to
known source of income by Sri Shivakumar B.K,
Additional Director, of commerce and Industry,
Department, Khanija bhavan Bengaluru.
Ref: Source Report submitted by Sri Nayaz Baig. Police
Inspector, Anti Corruption Bureau, Bangalore City P.S,
Dated 08-03-2022.
I have gone through the source report submitted by Sri
Nayaz Baig, Police Inspector, Anti Corruption Bureau,
Bangalore City P.S, relating to his receipt of credible
information that Sri Shivakumar.B K. Additional Director,
commerce and Industry Department, Khanija bhavan
Bengaluru has acquired properties disproportionate to
his known source of income to the extent of Rs.
3,42,76,000-00 and there by committed an offence
under section 13(1)(b) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of
Corruption Act 1988.
From the material placed before me and with application
of my mind I am satisfied that a prima-facie case is
made out Sri Shivakumar B.K, Additional Director,
commerce and Industry Department, Khanija bhavan
Bengaluru, Warranting a statutory investigation for an
offence under section 13(1)(b) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of
Corruption Act 1988.
- 35 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25216
WP No. 22483 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 9086 of 2023
CRL.P No. 514 of 2024
WP No. 19512 of 2022
WP No. 19380 of 2023
WP No. 19662 of 2023
WP No. 20697 of 2023
WP No. 22626 of 2023
WP No. 27760 of 2023
ORDER NO.ACB/INV/B.CITY/SP/16/2022, DATED 15.03.2022
Therefore by virtue of the powers vested in me under
provisions of Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption
Act 1988, I, Yatish chandra.G.H. IPS, Superintendent of
Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Bangalore City Divison,
Bangalore order that Sri K.Ravi Shankar, Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau,
Bangalore City Police Station, Bangalore to register a
case under Section 13(1)(b) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of
Corruption Act 1988 against Sri Shivakumar.B.K.
Additional Director, commerce and Industry Department,
Khanija bhavan Bengaluru and to investigate the said
case. I know Sri. K Ravi Shankar, Deputy
Superintendent of Police and he is having the
knowledge of Investigation of the cases registered
under P.C. Act and also he is having previous
experience of investigation of disproportionate Asset
cases.
Further I authorize Sri K.Ravi Shankar, Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau,
Bangalore City Police Station, Bangalore, under the
provisions of the section 18 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act 1988 to inspect the bank accounts in so
far as it relates to the accounts of the persons
suspected to be holding money on behalf of the said Sri
Shivakumar.B.K, Additional Director, commerce and
Industry Department, Khanija bhavan Bengaluru and to
take or cause to be taken certified copies of the relevant
statements of bank accounts there from and the
bankers concerned shall be bound to assist the police
officer Sri K. Ravi Shankar, Deputy Superintendent of
Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Bangalore City Police
- 36 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25216
WP No. 22483 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 9086 of 2023
CRL.P No. 514 of 2024
WP No. 19512 of 2022
WP No. 19380 of 2023
WP No. 19662 of 2023
WP No. 20697 of 2023
WP No. 22626 of 2023
WP No. 27760 of 2023
Station, Bangalore, in the exercise of the powers under
the said section of law.
Crl.p.No.9086/2023:
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, KOLAR
DIVISION, KOLAR.
Sub: Possession of property disproportionate to the
known Source of income by AGO Sri. N.Venkatesh,
E.O, Bangarpet Taluk panchayath, Kolar District. R/O of
Bangarpet Town.
Ref: 1)Source Report submitted by Smt. Renuka A.V,
PI, KLA Kolar, dated: 24/03/2023.
2) Lok/IGP/MEMO/SIR-08/2023 Dated: 20.04.2023
I have gone though the source report submitted by Smt
Renuka A.V, P.I. KLA, Kolar, relating to her receipt of
credible information that Sri. N. Venkatesh, E.O,
Bangatpet Taluk panchayath, kolar district, has acquired
properties disproportionate to his known source of
income to the extent of Rs.1,09,52,291/- with extent of
108 % and thereby committed an offence U/s 13(1) (b)
R/W 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act-1988.
(Amendment-2018).
From the material placed before me and with the
application of my mind, I am satisfied that a prima facie
case is made out against Sri. N.Venkatesh, E.O,
Bangarpet Taluk panchayath, warranting a statutory
investigation for an offence U/s 13(1)(b)R/w 13(2) of
Prevention of Corruption Act-1988 (Amendment-2018).
- 37 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25216
WP No. 22483 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 9086 of 2023
CRL.P No. 514 of 2024
WP No. 19512 of 2022
WP No. 19380 of 2023
WP No. 19662 of 2023
WP No. 20697 of 2023
WP No. 22626 of 2023
WP No. 27760 of 2023
ORDER NO.LOK/INV(G) KLR/SP/01/2023,
DATED:21/04/2023.
Therefore by virtue of the powers vested in me under
the provisions of section 17(c) of the prevention of
corruption Act-1988, (Amendment-2018), I B.K.Umesh,
Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta, Kolar,
order that Sri.V. Suryanarayana Rao DySP, KLA, Kolar
to register a case under section 13(1) (b) r/w 13(7) of
Prevention of Corruption Act-1988 (amendment-2018)
against AGO Sri. Venkatesh, E.O, Bangarpet Taluk
panchayath and to investigate the said case. I know Sri.
V Suryanarayana Rao, Deputy Superintendent of police
and he is having The knowledge of investigation of the
cases registered under P.C act. And also he is having
previous experience of investigation of disproportionate
of asset cases.
Further, I authorise Sri. V. Suryanarayana Rao, Dy SP,
KLA, Kolar, under the Provisions of section 18 of the
P.C.Act-1988 to inspect the banker books in so for as it
relates to the accounts of the persons suspected to be
holding money on behalf of the said. AGO
Sri.N.Venkatesh E.O, Bangar pet taluk panchayath, and
take or cause to be taken certified copies of the relevant
entries there from and the bankers concerned shall be
bound to assist the Police Officer Sri. V. Suryanarayana
Rao, KLA Kolar in the powers under the said section of
law.
Given under my Signature and seal of this Office on
21/04/2023.
- 38 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25216
WP No. 22483 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 9086 of 2023
CRL.P No. 514 of 2024
WP No. 19512 of 2022
WP No. 19380 of 2023
WP No. 19662 of 2023
WP No. 20697 of 2023
WP No. 22626 of 2023
WP No. 27760 of 2023
wp.no.19662/2023:
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF
POLICE-2 KARANATAKA LOKAYUKTA, BANGALORE
CITY.
Sub: Possession of properties disproportionate to
known source of income by Sri Shivaraju 5/o
Basavegowda, Tahasildar Grade-2, Revene
Department, M.S Building, Bengaluru
Ref: Source Report submitted by Smt.Umadevi R,
DYSP, Kamataka Lokayuktha, Bangalore City P.S,
Dated 14.08.2023.
I have gone through the source report submitted by Smt
Umadevi. R. Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Karnataka Lokayukta, Bangalore City P.S. relating to
her receipt of credible information that Sri Shivaraju S/o
Basavegowda, Tahasildar Grade-2, Revenue
Department, M.S Building. Bengaluru has acquired
properties disproportionate to his known source of
income to the extent of Rs.2.95,55,000/- and thereby
committed an offence under section 13(1)(b) r/w 13(2)
of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988.
From the material placed before me and with application
of my mind I am satisfied that a prima-facie case is
made out against Sri Shivaraju S/o Basavegowda,
Tahasildar Grade-2. Revenue Department, M.S
Building. Bengaluru warranting a statutory investigation
for an offence under section 13(1)(b) r/w 13(2) of
Prevention of Corruption Act 1988.
- 39 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25216
WP No. 22483 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 9086 of 2023
CRL.P No. 514 of 2024
WP No. 19512 of 2022
WP No. 19380 of 2023
WP No. 19662 of 2023
WP No. 20697 of 2023
WP No. 22626 of 2023
WP No. 27760 of 2023
ORDER NO.KLA/INV/BCD/SP-2/08/2023, DATED 16.08.2023.
Therefore by virtue of the powers vested in me under
provisions of Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption
Act 1988. I, Ashok K.V., Superintendent of Police-2,
Karnataka Lokayukta. Bangalore City Division,
Bangalore order that Sri. Manjunath G Hugar, Police
Inspector-05, Karnataka Lokayukta, Bangalore City
Police Station, Bangalore to register a case under
Section 13(1)(b) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption
Act 1988 against Sri Shivaraju S/o Basavegowda.
Tahasildar Grade-2. Revene Department, M.S Building.
Bengaluru and to investigate the said case
Further I authorize Sri Manjunath G Hugar. Police
Inspector-05, Karnataka Lokayukta, Bangalore City
Police Station, Bangalore, under the provisions of the
section 18 of the Prevention of corruption Act 1988 to
inspect the bankers books in so far as it relates to the
accounts of the persons suspected to be holding money
on behalf of the said Sri Shivaraju S/o Basavegowda,
Thasildar Grade-2 Revenu Department, M.S Building,
Bengaluru and to take or cause to be taken certified
copies of the relevant entries there from and the
bankers concerned shall be bound to assist the police
officer Sri Manjunath G Hugar, Police Inspector- 05.
Karnataka Lokayukta, Bangalore City Police Station,
Bangalore in the exercise of the powers under the said
section of law.
- 40 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25216
WP No. 22483 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 9086 of 2023
CRL.P No. 514 of 2024
WP No. 19512 of 2022
WP No. 19380 of 2023
WP No. 19662 of 2023
WP No. 20697 of 2023
WP No. 22626 of 2023
WP No. 27760 of 2023
WP.No.20697/2023:
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF
POLICE
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA, DAVANAGERE.
Subject: Prossession of Properties Disproportionate to
the known sources of income by Sri N.J.Nagaraj,
Takashildar, Holalkere Taluk office, Chitradurga District.
Reference: Source Report submitted by Sri. Anjaneya.
N.H. Police Inspector. Lokayuktha Police Station,
Davanagere, No:Lok/DVG/PI-2/ SOURCE
REPORT/02/2023 Dtd.:01/04/2023
I have gone through the source report submitted by Sri.
Anjaneya.N.H, PI, Lokayuktha Police Station,
Davanagere, relating to his receipts of credible
information that one Sri N.J.Nagaraj, Tahashildar,
Holalkere Taluk office, Chitradurga District, has
acquired properties Disproportionate to his known
sources of income to the extent of Rs 1,27,49,000/- and
there by committed an offence under section 13(1)(b),
13(2) the prevention of corruption act-1988 (amendment
act-2018)
From the material placed before me and with application
of my mind I am satisfied that a Prima-facie case is
made out against Sri N.J.Nagaraj, Tahashildar,
Holalkere Taluk office, Chitradurga District, warranting a
statutory investigation for an offence under section
13(1)(b), 13(2) the prevention of corruption Act-1988
(amendment Act-2018). 1, Superintendent of Police
- 41 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25216
WP No. 22483 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 9086 of 2023
CRL.P No. 514 of 2024
WP No. 19512 of 2022
WP No. 19380 of 2023
WP No. 19662 of 2023
WP No. 20697 of 2023
WP No. 22626 of 2023
WP No. 27760 of 2023
Karnataka Lokayuktha, Davanagere have been
specially authorised to investigate cases under the
Prevention of Corruption Act-1988 (amendment Act-
2018).
ORDER NO: Lok//SP/DVG/02/2023, Date: 21.04.2023.
Therefore by virtue of the powers vested in me under
section 17 of the prevention of Corruption Act-1958
(amendment act-2018), 1, M.S.Koulapure,
Superintendent of Police, Karanakta Lokayuktha
Davanagere order that Sri. Rashtrapathi.IL.S, PI,
Lokayuktha Police Station, Davanagere, to register a
case under section 13(1)(b), 13(2) PC Act-1988
(Amendment act- 2018) against Sri N.J.Nagaraj,
Tahashildar, Holalkere Taluk office, Chitradurga District.
and to investigate the said case.
Further I authorize Sri. Anjaneya.N.H, PI, Loakayuktha
Police Station, Davanagere under the Prevention of
Corruption Act-1988 to inspect the Bankers books in so
for as relates to the accounts of persons suspected to
be holding money on behalf of the said Sri Sri
N.J.Nagaraj, Tahashildar, Holalkere Taluk office,
Chitradurga District, and to take or cause to be taken
certified copies of the relevant entries there from and to
freeze the bank accounts as per section 102 of Cr.P.C if
necessary, the bankers concerned shall be bound to
assist the Police Officer Sri. Rashtrapathi.H.S, PI,
Lokayuktha Police Station, Davanagere to exercise the
powers under the P.C Act-1988 (Amendment Act-2018)
- 42 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25216
WP No. 22483 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 9086 of 2023
CRL.P No. 514 of 2024
WP No. 19512 of 2022
WP No. 19380 of 2023
WP No. 19662 of 2023
WP No. 20697 of 2023
WP No. 22626 of 2023
WP No. 27760 of 2023
WP.No.22626/2023:
The Certified Copy of the Order dated 21.08.2023
passed by the Superintendent of Police under Second
proviso of the Section 17 PC Act, 1988:
Rest is in kannada untranslatable.
Wp.No. 27760/2023:
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, BANGALORE CITY
DIVISION
Sub: Possession of properties disproportionate to the
known sources of income by S. Nataraja, Revenue
inspector, Hoodi Ward No.54, Mahadevapura, B.B.M.P.,
Bengaluru.
Ref: Source report submitted by Shri Basavaraja. G.
Pulhari PI-10, KLA, Bengaluru City on 09.08.2023
With respect to the above cited subject and reference, it
is ascertained that S. Nataraja, Revenue inspector,
Hoodi Ward No.54, Mahadevapura, B.B.M.P.,
Bengaluru, has acquired properties disproportionate to
his known sources of income to the extent of Rs.
3,05,01,000.00/-i.e., 338.90% and thereby committed an
offence punishable under Sec. 13(1)(b) r/w 13(2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act-1988.
From the material placed before me and with the
application of my mind, I am satisfied that a prima facie
case has been made out against S.Nataraja, Revenue
inspector, Hoodi Ward No.54, Mahadevapura, B.B.M.P.,
- 43 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25216
WP No. 22483 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 9086 of 2023
CRL.P No. 514 of 2024
WP No. 19512 of 2022
WP No. 19380 of 2023
WP No. 19662 of 2023
WP No. 20697 of 2023
WP No. 22626 of 2023
WP No. 27760 of 2023
Bengaluru warranting a statutory investigation for an
offence punishable under Sec. 13(1)(b) r/w 13(2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act-1988.
Hence I pass the following Order.
ORDER NO. LOK/INV(G)/CITY/38/2023, DATED:16/08/2023
Therefore, by virtue of the powers vested in me under
the provisions of Sec. 17 of the Prevention of Corruption
Act 1988, I, Ashok.K.V., IPS., Superintendent of Police-
2, Karnataka Lokayukta, Bengaluru City hereby
authorize Sri Srikanth.S Police inspector-01 Karnataka
Lokayukta, Bengaluru City to register a case under Sec.
13(1)(b) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act-
1988 against S.Nataraja, Revenue inspector, Hoodi
Ward No.54, Mahadevapura, B.B.M.P., Bengaluru and
to investigate the said case.
Further, I authorize Sri Srikanth.S Police inspector-01
Karnataka Lokayukta, Bengaluru City under the
provisions of Sec. 18 of the Prevention of Corruption Act
-1988 to inspect the Banker Books in so far as it relates
to the accounts of the persons suspected to be holding
money on behalf of the accused and his family
members and benami persons and take or cause to be
taken certified copies of the relevant entries there from,
the bankers concerned shall be bound to assist the said
Police Officer in the exercise of the powers under the
said section of law.
38. In the present cases, all orders issued by the
Superintendent of Police under the second proviso are in a
- 44 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25216
WP No. 22483 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 9086 of 2023
CRL.P No. 514 of 2024
WP No. 19512 of 2022
WP No. 19380 of 2023
WP No. 19662 of 2023
WP No. 20697 of 2023
WP No. 22626 of 2023
WP No. 27760 of 2023
standardized, cyclostyled format. The only variations are the
names of the accused, the name of the Superintendent of Police,
and the amounts of the disproportionate assets. These orders
reveal that, in some instances, the Superintendent of Police has
not reviewed the source report. In other instances, the
Superintendent of Police has reviewed the source re port,
considered the materials presented, and has concluded thereafter
that a prima facie case warranted investigation.
39. However, the orders do not indicate whether the
information that formed the basis of the source report was
reviewed. Furthermore, no reasons are provided for forming the
opinion that a prima facie case exists, necessitating a statutory
investigation against the petitioners. As a result, the orders
authorizing police inspectors to conduct investigations are not in
compliance with the second proviso to Section 17. They also fail to
align with the legal principles established by the Supreme Court
and this Court concerning the provision. Consequently, the
registration of the First Information Reports (FIRs) is invalidated.
Point No.(ii):
40. The conducting of the preliminary enquiry in the
corruption case was considered by the Apex Court in the cases of
- 45 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25216
WP No. 22483 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 9086 of 2023
CRL.P No. 514 of 2024
WP No. 19512 of 2022
WP No. 19380 of 2023
WP No. 19662 of 2023
WP No. 20697 of 2023
WP No. 22626 of 2023
WP No. 27760 of 2023
Lalitha Kumari v. Govt of U.P. 2013 14 SCR 713, P. Sirajuddin
Etc. v. State of Madras 1971 AIR SC 520, Charan Singh v. State
of Maharashtra (2021) 5 SCC 469, and it was ruled that an
enquiry at a pre-FIR stage is held to be permissible but not only
permissible but desirable, more particularly in cases where the
allegations are of misconduct of corrupt practice acquiring asset
disproportionate to his known source of income. However, It was
clarified in the case of CBI v. H T Vijayalakshmi (supra) that the
preliminary *enquiry cannot be demanded by the accused as a
matter of right, but is desirable if the information received does not
disclose a cognizable offense but indicates the necessity for
enquiry, a preliminary enquiry may be conducted to ascertain
whether cognizable offense is disclosed or not. It was also
observed that as to what type and in which cases the preliminary
*enquiry is to be conducted will depend upon the facts and
circumstances of the cases. Referencing the case of State of
Telangana v. Manajipet alias Mangipet Sarveshwar Re ddy
(2019) SCC OnLine SC 1559, the Apex Court in the case of
Vijayalakshmi upheld the ratio that the object of the preliminary
enquiry was to not vest the right to a preliminary enquiry in the
accused but to ensure there is no abuse of the process of law in
order to target public servants. Moreover, the Apex Court has
periodically held referencing the ACB, CBI and the Lokayuktha
Manuals that “even when a preliminary enquiry is initiated, it has to
- 46 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25216
WP No. 22483 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 9086 of 2023
CRL.P No. 514 of 2024
WP No. 19512 of 2022
WP No. 19380 of 2023
WP No. 19662 of 2023
WP No. 20697 of 2023
WP No. 22626 of 2023
WP No. 27760 of 2023
stop as soon as the officer ascertains that enough the material has
been collected which discloses the commission of a cognizable
offense.”
41. In the instant cases, on perusal of the source
information reports produced, although properties standing in the
name of the public servant or the family members are purchased
out of loans borrowed from Banks/financial institutions etc., the
same is not reflected in the source report.
42. Furthermore, the assets standing in the names of the
parents, spouses, major children, married sisters and brothers, who
are employed, are also erroneously included in the source report
without mentioning the dates of acquisition thereof.
43. The source report must reveal the date and nature of
acquisition of assets and not merely state the assets standing in
the name of the public servant, his spouse, children and relatives.
The valuation of the immovable properties is imaginary and not
based on any objective assessment with reference to their market
value at the time of their acquisition.
44. The source report should reveal the petitioner’s income
from actual salary drawn during the period of the check period. For
- 47 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25216
WP No. 22483 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 9086 of 2023
CRL.P No. 514 of 2024
WP No. 19512 of 2022
WP No. 19380 of 2023
WP No. 19662 of 2023
WP No. 20697 of 2023
WP No. 22626 of 2023
WP No. 27760 of 2023
instance, in WP No.19512/2022, the petitioner was appointed as an
Assistant Director, Department Industries and Comme rce,
Government of Karnataka on 4.5.1994 and at present he is working
as Additional Director. The income of the petitioner from the date
of joining into service till date is taken as Rs.30,00,000/- as against
Rs.1,79,79,000/-. Although, the net salary of the petitioner as on
February, 2022 is taken as Rs.1,71,427/- and gross salary at
Rs.1,09,600/- For thirty years in service, the income of the
petitioner has been inaccurately calculated to a m ere
Rs.30,00,000/-.
45. Conducting a
preliminary *enquiry is advisable
under the following circumstances:
1. When movable or immovable properties are
registered in the name of the spouse, major children, or any
other family members of the accused, it is imperative to
verify whether these acquisitions align with their respective
legitimate earnings from professions or employment.
2. When properties have been acquired by spouses,
children, or other family members through inheritance or as
gifts from individuals who are not public servants, a
- 48 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25216
WP No. 22483 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 9086 of 2023
CRL.P No. 514 of 2024
WP No. 19512 of 2022
WP No. 19380 of 2023
WP No. 19662 of 2023
WP No. 20697 of 2023
WP No. 22626 of 2023
WP No. 27760 of 2023
thorough *enquiry is necessary to confirm the legitimacy of
such transfers and their compliance with legal provisions.
3. In cases where there is a significant miscalculation
or discrepancy in the reported income of the public servant
during the specified check period, a detailed examination is
required to accurately determine the actual income earned
during that period, ensuring a fair assessment.
4. When alleged assets are registered in the names of
unrelated strangers or entities, it is crucial to investigate any
potential hidden connections or proxies acting on behalf of
the public servant.
5. Verification of the timing of asset acquisitions is
essential, especially concerning assets listed in the source
information report acquired before the commencement or
after the expiry of the check period, ensuring they fall within
the relevant scrutiny period.
6. When the source report lacks specific details such
as the specified check period, items marked as 'Nil' during
the check period, or non-consideration of loans in the
income column, a preliminary *enquiry is essential to clarify
- 49 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25216
WP No. 22483 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 9086 of 2023
CRL.P No. 514 of 2024
WP No. 19512 of 2022
WP No. 19380 of 2023
WP No. 19662 of 2023
WP No. 20697 of 2023
WP No. 22626 of 2023
WP No. 27760 of 2023
and obtain precise information regarding the period under
investigation and the specific assets involved.
46. By conducting a preliminary *enquiry under these
circumstances, investigators can ensure that any further actions
are based on well-founded suspicions and accurate information,
thereby upholding the principles of fairness and justice.
47. However, it may be pertinent to add that the above
guidelines are merely illustrative of circumstances in which a
preliminary *enquiry may be conducted and and that it may not be
possible for Courts of Law to envisage and define precisely the
exhaustive gamut of circumstances in which such an enquiry must
be conducted. It is incumbent upon the investigators to conduct
due verification and scrutiny of the record of the case and the
materials submitted therewith, prior to the setting the criminal law
into motion.
48. In view of the facts of the instant cases, the petitioners
have objectively made out a case for the desirability of conducting
a preliminary enquiry.
- 50 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25216
WP No. 22483 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 9086 of 2023
CRL.P No. 514 of 2024
WP No. 19512 of 2022
WP No. 19380 of 2023
WP No. 19662 of 2023
WP No. 20697 of 2023
WP No. 22626 of 2023
WP No. 27760 of 2023
Point No.(iii):
49. Section 17 is a non-obstante clause and states that
notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal
Procedure, no police officer below the rank specified in clauses (a)
to (c) shall investigate any offense punishable under this Act
without the order of the jurisdictional Magistrate.
50. The first proviso states that an officer not below the
rank of police inspector, who is authorized by the State
Government, may also investigate any such offense without the
order of the jurisdictional Magistrate.
51. The second proviso states that in respect of an offense
referred to in clause (b) of sub-Section (1) of Section 13, the police
inspector shall not investigate without the order of a police officer
not below the rank of a Superintendent of Police.
52. A reading of the above provisions indicates that there
is no bar on registering the FIR by the investigating police officer
without obtaining an order of authorization to investigate. In other
words, the additional safeguard inherent in the second proviso of
Section 17 is attracted only when the stage of investigation is
reached. Therefore, the question before us is whether an FIR may
- 51 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25216
WP No. 22483 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 9086 of 2023
CRL.P No. 514 of 2024
WP No. 19512 of 2022
WP No. 19380 of 2023
WP No. 19662 of 2023
WP No. 20697 of 2023
WP No. 22626 of 2023
WP No. 27760 of 2023
be registered for alleged offenses punishable under the Act of 1988
before obtaining an order of authorization under the second proviso
of Section 17 of the Act, with reference to the provisions contained
in Sections 154, 156, and 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
53. Therefore, what is to be considered is whether the
procedural safeguards outlined in Section 17 apply strictly to the
investigation phase, thereby allowing the registration of an FIR to
proceed independently of the need for prior authorization. The
relationship between the provisions of the Act of 1988 and the
Code of Criminal Procedure must be examined to determine if the
initiation of an FIR can precede the investigative authorization
stipulated by the second proviso of Section 17.
54. Section 154 of Cr.P.C. places an obligation on a police
officer in charge of a police station to record or cause to, the
substance of every information relating to the commission of a
cognizable office.
55. Section 156 of Cr.P.C. grants plenary powers to the
police officer in-charge of a police station to investigate any
cognizable case within the limits of such station, without the order
of the jurisdictional Magistrate. The Section employs the word
‘may,’ indicating the according of discretion to the concerned police
- 52 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25216
WP No. 22483 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 9086 of 2023
CRL.P No. 514 of 2024
WP No. 19512 of 2022
WP No. 19380 of 2023
WP No. 19662 of 2023
WP No. 20697 of 2023
WP No. 22626 of 2023
WP No. 27760 of 2023
officer so as to examine from the ascertained facts and
circumstances of the case, as to whether there exists sufficient
ground to enter on an investigation.
56. Section 157 of the Code provides for where it appears
to the investigating officer that there is no sufficient ground to enter
on an investigation, the said officer may in the exercise of his
discretion choose not to investigate the case, with reasons to be
recorded in the report to be sent to the jurisdictional Magistrate.
Furthermore, in the interest of transparency and accountability, the
Code also compels the said officer to forthwith notify the informant
of the fact that he will not investigate the case.
57. Sri Sandesh J Chouta, learned senior counsel argued
that the Supreme Court in the Kailash Vijayvargiya case clearly
distinguished between the responsibilities of the police to register
an FIR and to investigate it, treating them as separate functions
under the law. In the Lalita Kumari case, the Court underscored the
mandatory nature of Section 154(1) of the Criminal Procedure
Code (Cr.P.C.). This section mandates that the police must register
an FIR whenever they receive information about the commission of
a cognizable offense, with no discretion to ignore or delay this
process.
- 53 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25216
WP No. 22483 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 9086 of 2023
CRL.P No. 514 of 2024
WP No. 19512 of 2022
WP No. 19380 of 2023
WP No. 19662 of 2023
WP No. 20697 of 2023
WP No. 22626 of 2023
WP No. 27760 of 2023
58. The rationale behind this mandate is to prevent any
information about such offenses from being ignored, which could
otherwise protect the accused unjustly. By removing police
discretion in this matter, the law aims to curb arbitrary actions by
the police and protect the liberty of individuals. This mandatory
registration serves as a crucial right for those seeking justice,
ensuring timely investigations and preventing any potential
manipulation in criminal proceedings.
59. The Apex Court has ruled that "Section 157 requires
more stringent criteria than Section 154 of the Cr.PC," giving the
investigating officer discretion to determine whether there is
sufficient ground to begin an investigation. Additionally, the Court
emphasized that "the Magistrate is involved at all stages of the
investigation process."
60. Moreover, in the case of Shivashankara Murthy
(Crl.P No.10109/2024 : DD 25.4.2024), a coordinate Bench of this
Court referenced a Circular dated 11.05.2023 issued by the
Director General of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta. The Bench stated
that an FIR must be registered first, and then the Superintendent of
Police must authorize the investigation under Section 17 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
- 54 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25216
WP No. 22483 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 9086 of 2023
CRL.P No. 514 of 2024
WP No. 19512 of 2022
WP No. 19380 of 2023
WP No. 19662 of 2023
WP No. 20697 of 2023
WP No. 22626 of 2023
WP No. 27760 of 2023
61. In the case of G. M. Shivakumar (supra), an FIR was
immediately registered following the presentation of the source
report. Subsequently, upon the issuance of the order under the
second proviso of Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988, a coordinate bench of this Court quashed the order of
cognizance taken by the Trial Court, despite the prior exoneration
of the accused in the departmental *enquiry.
62. The Court remarked that the Superintendent of
Police's directive to register an FIR immediately upon receiving the
source report, based solely on suspicions of asset accumulation
allegedly disproportionate to known sources of income, clearly
demonstrated a lack of verification of the contents of the source
report. The Court further held that such circumstan ces
unequivocally necessitate the conduct of an *enquiry to verify the
allegations before proceeding with the registration of an FIR.
63. A similar issue was considered by the High Court of
Bombay in the case of Ram Rijhumal Kriplani v. The State, 1957
SCC Online Bom 54. This case examined Section 5A of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, which corresponds to Section
17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The court made a
distinction between the stages of filing the first information report
- 55 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25216
WP No. 22483 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 9086 of 2023
CRL.P No. 514 of 2024
WP No. 19512 of 2022
WP No. 19380 of 2023
WP No. 19662 of 2023
WP No. 20697 of 2023
WP No. 22626 of 2023
WP No. 27760 of 2023
(FIR), conducting an investigation, and taking cognizance of the
offense.
64. The Court held that the provisions of Section 5A of the
1947 Act only apply once the investigation stage is reached. These
provisions do not apply at the stage of filing the FIR. The Court
noted that the stage of registering the FIR comes before the stage
of investigation and that the FIR is the basis upon which the
investigation under Chapter XIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure
(Cr.P.C.) begins. It further noted that an FIR represents the
informant's initial case.
65. The Court further explained that an investigation into
the facts and circumstances of a case can only start once the FIR
has been filed and the officer in charge of the police station has
sent a report of the suspected offense to the jurisdictional
Magistrate. Therefore, the provisions of Section 5A of the 1947 Act
(corresponding to Section 17 of the 1988 Act) do not affect or
override the provisions related to filing of an FIR for cognizable
offenses under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C., which has universal
application.
66. Furthermore, this Court in the case of Babu Rao
Chinchansur (supra) has duly recognised the distinction between
- 56 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25216
WP No. 22483 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 9086 of 2023
CRL.P No. 514 of 2024
WP No. 19512 of 2022
WP No. 19380 of 2023
WP No. 19662 of 2023
WP No. 20697 of 2023
WP No. 22626 of 2023
WP No. 27760 of 2023
the two stages, wherein the Court ultimately concluded that whilst a
private complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C against an
offense punishable under Section 13(1)(e) of the Act, 1988 was
maintainable, however, sanction under Section 19 of the Act, 1988
was a condition precedent to entertain the said complaint.
67. The established legal principles enunciated by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Courts can be summarized as
follows:
1) Registration of FIR vs. Authorization of Investigation:
Second Proviso to Section 17 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 mandates that for offenses under the
Act, no investigation can proceed without authorization
from a Superintendent of Police. However, this
authorization requirement applies at the stage of
investigation and not to the initial registration of an FIR.
2) Mandatory FIR Registration: Section 154 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (CrPC) mandates that police must
register an FIR upon receiving information about a
cognizable offense, with no discretion to delay or ignore
unless the information is non-cognizable.
- 57 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25216
WP No. 22483 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 9086 of 2023
CRL.P No. 514 of 2024
WP No. 19512 of 2022
WP No. 19380 of 2023
WP No. 19662 of 2023
WP No. 20697 of 2023
WP No. 22626 of 2023
WP No. 27760 of 2023
3) Discretion in Investigation: Section 156 of CrPC grants
discretion to the police officer in charge of a police station
to investigate any cognizable offense based on the facts
and circumstances known to them.
4) Judicial Interpretation: The Apex Court and the High
Court/s have clarified that the requirement for investigation
authorization under Section 17 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act comes into play only after the FIR is
registered. The initial step of FIR registration is not
contingent upon obtaining prior investigation authorization.
5) Separation of Powers: The judiciary has upheld the
distinction between FIR registration and the subsequent
investigation stage, emphasizing that the mandatory
registration of FIRs is aimed at preventing any information
about offenses from being overlooked or delayed.
68. In essence, while Section 17 imposes strict procedural
safeguards for the investigation stage of offenses under the
Prevention of Corruption Act, it does not hinder the police from
registering an FIR promptly upon receipt of information about such
offenses.
- 58 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25216
WP No. 22483 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 9086 of 2023
CRL.P No. 514 of 2024
WP No. 19512 of 2022
WP No. 19380 of 2023
WP No. 19662 of 2023
WP No. 20697 of 2023
WP No. 22626 of 2023
WP No. 27760 of 2023
69. Based on the principles established in decisions by the
Apex Court and High Courts, when an FIR is mandator ily
registered for an alleged offense under Section 13(1)(b) of the PC
Act, 1988, the police officer must submit the report to the
Magistrate under Section 157 of the Cr.P.C. Additionally, the police
officer should forward it to the Superintendent of Police along with
the source information report and other materials that form the
basis for preparing a credible source report. This is to request an
order of investigation under the second proviso of Section 17 of the
Act. The right to register an FIR stands independently and is not
affected by any statutory bar, specifically in cases involving
offenses described in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 13
under the 1988 Act.
70. In these cases, the authorization granted to investigate
preceded the registration of FIRs and is thus, impermissible and is
nullified.
71. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) The petitions are allowed.
- 59 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25216
WP No. 22483 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 9086 of 2023
CRL.P No. 514 of 2024
WP No. 19512 of 2022
WP No. 19380 of 2023
WP No. 19662 of 2023
WP No. 20697 of 2023
WP No. 22626 of 2023
WP No. 27760 of 2023
IN WRIT PETITION NO. 22483 OF 2023:
The impugned proceedings In Crime No.14/2023 pending on
the file of the learned District and Sessions and Special Court,
Davanegere stands quashed.
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9086 OF 2023:
The impugned proceedings in Cr.No.03/2023 dated
21.04.2023 vide Annexure-A registered in Lokayuktha Police Kolar
District, Kolar pending on file of the Principal District and Sessions
Judge, Kolar, stands quashed.
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 514 OF 2024:
The impugned proceedings in Crime No.8/2023 registered by
the Lokayuktha Police, Mysuru, pending on the file of the III Addl.
District and Sessions and Spl. Court, Mysore, stands quashed.
IN WRIT PETITION NO. 19512 OF 2022:
The impugned proceedings in Crime No.21/2022 pending on
the file of XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru, stands quashed.
- 60 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25216
WP No. 22483 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 9086 of 2023
CRL.P No. 514 of 2024
WP No. 19512 of 2022
WP No. 19380 of 2023
WP No. 19662 of 2023
WP No. 20697 of 2023
WP No. 22626 of 2023
WP No. 27760 of 2023
IN WRIT PETITION NO.19380 OF 2023:
The impugned proceedings in Crime No.35/2023 pending on
the file of 23
rd
City Civil and Sessions Judge Bangalore stands
quashed.
IN WRIT PETITION NO.19662 OF 2023:
The impugned proceeding in Crime No.36/2023 registered by
the respondent pending in the file of XXIII Addl. City Civil and
Session Judge at Bangalore produced -B stands quashed.
IN WRIT PETITION NO. 20697 OF 2023:
The impugned proceedings in Crime No.11/2023 registered
by the respondent (Annexure-A) stands quashed.
IN WRIT PETITION NO. 22626 OF 2023:
The impugned proceedings in Crime No.39/2023 registered
by the respondent No.1 pending on the file of XXIII Addl. City Civil
and Sessions Judge for prevention of Corruption Act at Bengaluru
(CCH-24) stands quashed.
- 61 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25216
WP No. 22483 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 9086 of 2023
CRL.P No. 514 of 2024
WP No. 19512 of 2022
WP No. 19380 of 2023
WP No. 19662 of 2023
WP No. 20697 of 2023
WP No. 22626 of 2023
WP No. 27760 of 2023
IN WRIT PETITION NO. 27760 OF 2023:
The impugned proceedings in Crime No.38/2023 pending
on the file of 23
rd
Addl. City Civil and Session Judge Bengaluru
registered by the respondent police stands quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
bkm
Legal Notes
Add a Note....