NON REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.594 OF 2015
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (Crl.) NO. 108 OF 2015)
YUNUS ZIA .........APPELLANT
Vs.
STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR. ......RESPONDENTS
O R D E R
V.GOPALA GOWDA, J.
Leave granted.
This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 14.07.2014
passed in Criminal Petition No. 2859 of 2012 by the High Court of
Judicature of Karnataka at Bangalore, wherein the High Court has declined
to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (in short "CrPC"). The appellant has prayed to set aside the same and
quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him by the respondents,
urging various legal grounds.
Mr. L. Nageswar Rao, the learned senior counsel on behalf of the appellant
has submitted that the second respondent, Inspector of Police of the
Karnataka Lokayukta (in short "the Lokayukta"), has made allegations
against the appellant under Sections 120B and 420 of the IPC and under
Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in
short "the P.C. Act"). A case has been registered by the second respondent
and an FIR has been lodged against the appellant without following the due
procedure contemplated under Section 9 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984
(in short "the Lokayukta Act") which deals with the provisions relating to
complaints and investigations, where any person can make a complaint under
the Lokayukta Act, either to the Lokayukta or to the Upalokayukta. It
provides for making a complaint in the form of settlement supported by an
affidavit in such forms and in such manner as may be prescribed. The
relevant provisions of the Lokayukta Act read thus:
"9. Provisions relating to complaints and investigations-
(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, any person may make a complaint
under this Act to the Lokayukta or an Upalokayukta.
Provided that in case of a grievance, if the person aggrieved is dead or
for any reason, unable to act for himself, the complaint may be made or if
it is already made, may be prosecuted by his legal representatives or by
any other person who is authorized by him in writing in this behalf.
(2) Every complaint shall be made in the form of a statement supported by
an affidavit and in such forms and in such manner as may be prescribed.
(3)Where the Lokayukta or an Upalokayukta proposes, after making such
preliminary inquiry as he deemed fit to conduct any investigation under
this Act, he.-
(a) shall forward a copy of the complaint and in the case of an
investigation initiated suo-motu by him, the opinion recorded by him to
initiate the investigation under sub-section (1) or (2), as the case may
be, of section 7;
to the public servant and the Competent Authority concerned;
(b) shall afford to such public servant an opportunity to offer his
comments on such complaint or opinion recorded under sub-section (1) and
(2) of section 7 as the case may be;
(c) may make such order as to the safe custody of documents relevant to the
investigation, as he deems fit.
(4) Save as aforesaid, the procedure for conducting any such investigation
shall be such, and may be held either in public or in camera, as the
Lokayukta or the Upalokayukta, as the case may be, considers appropriate in
the circumstances of the case.
(5) The Lokayukta or the Upalokayukta may, in his discretion, refuse to
investigate or cease to investigate any complaint involving a grievance or
an allegation, if in his opinion,-
(a)the complaint is frivolous or vexatious or is not made in good faith;
(b)There are no sufficient grounds for investigating or, as the case may
be, for continuing the investigation; or
(c) Other remedies are available to the complainant and in the
circumstances of the case it would be more proper for the complainant to
avail such remedies.
(6) In any case where the Lokayukta or an Upalokayukta decides not to
entertain a complaint or to discontinue any investigation in respect of a
complaint he shall record his reasons therefore and communicate the same to
the complainant and the public servant concerned.
(7) The conduct of an investigation under this Act against a Public servant
in respect of any action shall not affect such action, or any power or duty
of any other public servant to take further action with respect to any
matter subject to the investigation."
Further, the learned senior counsel has relied upon Section 7 of the
Lokayukta Act, wherein on receipt of such complaint, either the Lokayukta
or the Upalokayukta can make such preliminary enquiry as he may deem fit to
conduct an investigation under the Act. He can initiate investigation under
Section 7(1) & (2) of the Lokayukta Act on the public servant and the
competent authority concerned as defined under Section 2(4)(a)to(d) of the
Lokayukta Act. The relevant provision of the Lokayukta Act reads thus:-
"7. Matters which may be investigated by the Lokayukta and an Upalokayukta.-
(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Lokayukta may investigate
any action which is taken by or with the general or specific approval of,-
(a) (i) the Chief Minister;
(ii) a Minister;
(iii)a member of the State Legislature;
(iv) the Chairman and Vice-Chairman (by whatever name called) or a
member of an authority, board, or a committee, a statutory or non-statutory
body or a corporation established by or under any law of the State
Legislature including a society, cooperative society or a Government
company within the meaning of section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956,
nominated by the State Government; in any case where a complaint involving
a grievance or an allegation is made in respect of such action.
(b) any other public servant holding a post or office carrying either a
fixed pay, salary or remuneration of more than rupees twenty thousand per
month or a pay scale the minimum of which is more than rupees twenty
thousand, as may be revised from time to time in any case where a complaint
involving a grievance or an allegation is made in respect of such action or
such action can be or could have been, in the opinion of the Lokayukta,
recorded in writing, the subject of a grievance or an allegation.
(2) Subject to the provisions of the Act, an Upalokayukta may investigate
any action which is taken by or with the general or specific approval of,
any public servant not being the Chief Minister, Minister, Member of the
Legislature, Secretary or other public servant refereed to in sub-section
(1), in any case where a complaint involving a grievance or an allegation
is made in respect of such action or such action can be or could have been,
in the opinion of the Upalokayukta, recorded in writing. the subject of a
grievance or an allegation."
Section 8 of the Lokayukta Act further states that:-
"8. Matters not subject to investigation:-
(1) Except as hereinafter provided, the Lokayukta or an Upalokayukta shall
not conduct any investigation under this Act in the case of a complaint
involving a grievance in respect of any action, -
(a) if such action relates to any matter specified in the Second Schedule;
or
(b) if the complainant has or had, any remedy by way of appeal,
revision, review or other proceedings before any tribunal, Court officer
or other authority and has not availed of the same.
(2) The Lokayukta or an Upalokayukta shall not investigate, -
(a) any action in respect of which a formal and public enquiry has been
ordered with the prior concurrence of the Lokayukta or an Upalokayukta, as
the case may be;
(b) any action in respect of a matter which has been referred for inquiry,
under the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 with the prior concurrence of the
Lokayukta or an Upalokayukta, as the case may be;
(c) any complaint involving a grievance made after the expiry of a period
of six months from the date on which the action complained against become
known to the complainant; or
(d) any complaint involving an allegation made after the expiry of five
years from the date on which the action complained against is alleged to
have taken place:
Provided that he may entertain a complaint referred to in clauses (c) and
(d) if the complainant satisfies that he had sufficient cause for not
making the complaint within the period specified in those clauses.
(3) In the case of any complaint involving a grievance, nothing in this Act
shall be construed as empowering the Lokayukta or an Upalokayukta to
question any administrative action involving the exercise of a discretion
except where he is satisfied that the elements involved in the exercise of
the discretion are absent to such an extent that the discretion can prima
facie be regarded as having been improperly exercised."
The learned senior counsel for the appellant by placing strong reliance
upon the aforesaid provisions of the Lokayukta Act, has contended that it
is applicable in relation to the persons who were enumerated under Section
2 of the Lokayukta Act, which reads thus:-
"2. (1) xxx
(2) "Allegation" in relation to a public servant includes any affirmation
that such public servant-
(a) has abused his position as such public servant to obtain any gain or
favour to himself or to any other person or to cause undue harm or hardship
to any other person;
(b) was actuated in the discharge of his functions as such public servant
by personal interest or improper or corrupt motives;
(c) is guilty of corruption, favouritism, nepotism or lack of integrity in
his capacity as such public servant;
OR
(d) has failed to act in accordance with the norms of integrity and conduct
which ought to be followed by public servants of the class to which he
belongs:
(3) "Chief Minister" means the Chief Minister of Karnataka;
(4) "Competent Authority" in relation to a public servant means-
(a) in the case of Chief Minister or a member of the State Legislature,
the Governor acting in his discretion;
(b) in the case of a Minister or Secretary, the Chief Minister;
(c) in the case of a Government servant other than a Secretary, the
Government of Karnataka;
(d) in the case of any other public servant, such authority as may be
prescribed;
(5) "corruption" includes anything made punishable under Chapter IX of the
Indian Penal Code or under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947;
(6) "Government Servant" means a person who is a member of the Civil
Services of the State of Karnataka or who holds a civil post or is serving
in connection with the affairs of the State of Karnataka and includes any
such person whose services are temporarily placed at the disposal of the
Government of India, the Government of another State, a local authority or
any person whether incorporated or not, and also any person in the service
of the Central or another State Government or a local or other authority
whose services are temporarily placed at the disposal of the Government of
Karnataka."
After placing strong reliance upon the aforesaid provisions of the
Lokayukta Act, the learned senior counsel has submitted that the appellant
herein is neither a government servant nor is or was at any time holding
the post of Chief Minister, Member of Legislature and Chairman etc. as is
enumerated in the aforesaid Sections of the Lokayukta Act. Therefore, the
suo-moto complaint registered by the second respondent in the Police
Station of Lokayukta against the appellant is without jurisdiction and
therefore, the same is liable to be quashed. He has submitted that this
important aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned judge
of the High Court and he has declined to grant the prayer of the appellant
without examining the legal submissions urged before it. Therefore, he has
urged that the impugned order is vitiated in law and the same is liable to
be set aside by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction.
On the other hand, Mr. Basava Prabhu S. Patil, the learned senior counsel
on behalf of the respondents has rebutted the aforesaid legal contentions
urged on behalf of the appellant, stating that the Inspector of Police of
the Lokayukta has taken note of the news item published in the Newspaper on
28.12.2011 in 'Vijaya Karnataka' a Kannada daily, which was repeated on
3.1.2012 in 'Bangalore Mirror' and on 05.01.2012 in The Times of India,
English edition. The complaint against the appellant has not been lodged
either before the Lokayukta or Upa lokayukta but the same was registered
suo-moto at the Police Station attached to the Lokayukta and therefore, the
procedure provided under the provisions of the Lokayukta Act was not
required to be followed as contended by the learned senior counsel on
behalf of the appellant.
The learned senior counsel on behalf of the respondents has further
contended that the registration of the complaint by the second respondent
suo-moto on the basis of the Newspaper publication is permissible in law as
the same is in accordance with the judgments of this Court in the cases of
C. Rangaswamaiah & Ors. v. Karnataka Lokayukta & Ors.[1] and State Of
Karnataka v. Kempaiah[2]. These judgments have been adverted to by the
Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in the case of State of Karnataka,
by Chief Secretary and Ors. v. Basavaraj Guddappa Maliger[3]. In the
Kempaiah's case referred to supra, this Court affirmed the judgment of the
Division Bench of the High Court on the ground that the Upalokayukta had no
power to investigate into a crime allegedly committed by the public servant
under the provisions of the P.C.Act, however, this Court did not quash the
FIR. Further, this Court made it clear that the FIR registered against the
petitioner is not quashed and that it is open to the State to have the
offence investigated in accordance with law. Further, in the C.
Rangaswamaiah's case, this Court has held that the police wing on
deputation to the Lokayukta, if authorised under Section 17 of the P.C.Act
and Section 2(d) of the CrPC, is legally entitled to register a case and
investigate the matter and file a charge sheet in a competent court of law
under the provisions of the P.C.Act and the CrPC. The relevant paragraphs
of C. Rangaswamaiah (supra), read thus:
"21. The next question is whether when the State Government had sent the
police officers on deputation to the Lokayukta, it was permissible for the
Government to entrust them with additional duties under the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988?
22. The learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench are one, as
already stated, in accepting that the police officers of the State on
deputation continue to remain as public servants in the service of the
State Government, as long as they are not absorbed in the Lokayukta. This
legal position is absolutely unassailable because the State of Karnataka
has merely lent the services of these officers to the Lokayukta and the
officers continue to be employees of the State. In spite of the deputation
of these officers with the Lokayukta, the relationship of master and
servant between the State of Karnataka and these officers does not stand
terminated (State of Punjab v. Inder Singh).
23. There is no dispute that though these officers are on deputation, they
are otherwise of the requisite rank as contemplated by Section 17 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and that other formalities under that
Act are satisfied for entrustment of duties under the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988. Question is whether these police officers of the
State can be invested with powers of investigation under Section 17 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by the State under its statutory powers
traceable to the same section?"
Further, it has been contended by the learned senior counsel for the
respondents that the second respondent has registered the case on the basis
of the abovementioned report published in the Newspaper referred to supra,
after satisfying himself with the fact that the material information
published in the aforesaid newspapers are cognisable offences punishable
under Section 420 and 120B of the IPC, for which he can suo-moto register a
complaint in the Police Station attached to the Lokayukta. He has further
made the categorical submission that the case is neither registered against
the appellant on the complaints submitted to the Lokayukta or Upalokayukta,
in the prescribed form by the second respondent nor the due procedure
contemplated under Section 9(2) & (3) of the Act has been followed after
holding preliminary enquiry. Thus, he has made it very clear that the
initiation of the proceedings against the appellant is not under the
provisions of the Lokayukta Act but the same has been done in accordance
with the provisions of the CrPC and the second respondent who is attached
to the Police Station of Lokayukta can register the FIR and investigate the
case independently against the appellant as held by this Court in the cases
referred to supra. Therefore, the learned senior counsel for the
respondents has fairly submitted that if the appellant has got any
grievance or apprehension for registering and investigating the case
against him by the second respondent, then this Court may pass the
appropriate order to transfer the case to any police agency in the state.
He has placed reliance upon the cases referred to supra and has further
made it clear that transferring of the case registered by the second
respondent to any other police agency in the State of Karnataka shall not
be henceforth construed or understood as an act beyond the scope of
authority of the Lokayukta Police to register case/cases against such
persons and investigate the offences under the provisions of the CrPC or
under the P.C.Act.
We have heard both the learned senior counsel for the parties and perused
the reports published in the Newspapers on the dates mentioned above which
were taken into consideration suo-moto by the second respondent, wherein he
has registered the FIR after being satisfied with the material facts
published in the Newspapers that there is a cognisable offence to be
investigated by the police against the appellant. The same cannot be found
fault with either by the High Court or by this Court for the reason that
the second respondent, who is on deputation to the Lokayukta, is an
Inspector of Police attached to the State of Karnataka. Therefore, he has
got every power under Section 2(d) of the CrPC, to act suo-moto and take
cognisance of the offence/offences alleged to have been committed by the
appellant on the basis of the reports published against him, which
according to him warranted registration of an FIR and investigate the
matter against him in accordance with law.
The learned senior counsel on behalf of the respondents has rightly made
the categorical submission that there is no need for the registration of
the FIR under Section 9 of the Lokayukta Act, in relation to the matters to
be investigated under Section 8 of the Lokayukta Act. Therefore, in the
light of the above contentions urged on behalf of the parties and in view
of the law laid down by this Court under the Lokayukta Act and keeping in
mind the apprehension expressed by the learned senior counsel on behalf of
the appellant with regard to the investigation that may be carried out by
the Lokayukta Police, we are of the considered view that the learned Judge
of the High Court has rightly declined to exercise his inherent power to
quash the proceedings, which does not call for our interference in this
appeal.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be just
and proper for this Court to see that justice is meted out and the case is
fairly investigated by the Corps of Detectives (COD) of the State. The said
investigation shall be entrusted to an officer of the rank equivalent to
the Superintendent of Police in the COD.
For the foregoing reasons and the decisions of this Court referred to
supra, we direct the second respondent to transmit the FIR to the COD
Bangalore for further investigation in the matter. The COD represented by
the Director General of Police must entrust the same to the officer of the
rank of Superintendent of Police for conducting impartial investigation and
proceed with the matter in accordance with law.
We make it amply clear that the direction is given to second respondent to
transfer the case registered against the appellant to COD, keeping in view
the facts and circumstances of this particular case only and it shall not
be construed as precedent for any future case(s) before the Lokayukta or
the courts. In view of the judgments of this Court referred to supra, we
hold that the second respondent has the right to register a cognizable
offence against any person under the provisions of the IPC, CrPC and the
P.C. Act. The same shall be legal and valid.
The appeal is dismissed. The order dated 05.01.2015 granting stay of
further proceedings shall stand vacated.
..................................................................J.
[V. GOPALA GOWDA]
..................................................................J.
[C. NAGAPPAN]
New Delhi,
April 9, 2015
ITEM NO.1B-For JUDGMENT COURT NO.11 SECTION IIB
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Criminal Appeal No(s)........./2015 arising from SLP(Crl.) NO. 108/2015
YUNUS ZIA Appellant(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR. Respondent(s)
Date : 09/04/2015 This appeal was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. GOPALA GOWDA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. NAGAPPAN
For Appellant(s)
Mr. Vikash Singh,Adv.
For Respondent(s)
Mr. V. N. Raghupathy,Adv.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.Gopala Gowda pronounced the judgment of
the Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.Nagappan.
Leave granted.
The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed Non-Reportable
Judgment.
(VINOD KR.JHA) (MALA KUMARI SHARMA)
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
(Signed Non-Reportable Judgment is placed on the file)
-----------------------
[1] [2] (1998) 6 SCC 66
[3] [4] (1998) 6 SCC 103
[5] [6] ILR 2003 KARNATAKA 3589
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.594 OF 2015
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (Crl.) NO. 108 OF 2015)
YUNUS ZIA .........APPELLANT
Vs.
STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR. ......RESPONDENTS
O R D E R
V.GOPALA GOWDA, J.
Leave granted.
This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 14.07.2014
passed in Criminal Petition No. 2859 of 2012 by the High Court of
Judicature of Karnataka at Bangalore, wherein the High Court has declined
to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (in short "CrPC"). The appellant has prayed to set aside the same and
quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him by the respondents,
urging various legal grounds.
Mr. L. Nageswar Rao, the learned senior counsel on behalf of the appellant
has submitted that the second respondent, Inspector of Police of the
Karnataka Lokayukta (in short "the Lokayukta"), has made allegations
against the appellant under Sections 120B and 420 of the IPC and under
Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in
short "the P.C. Act"). A case has been registered by the second respondent
and an FIR has been lodged against the appellant without following the due
procedure contemplated under Section 9 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984
(in short "the Lokayukta Act") which deals with the provisions relating to
complaints and investigations, where any person can make a complaint under
the Lokayukta Act, either to the Lokayukta or to the Upalokayukta. It
provides for making a complaint in the form of settlement supported by an
affidavit in such forms and in such manner as may be prescribed. The
relevant provisions of the Lokayukta Act read thus:
"9. Provisions relating to complaints and investigations-
(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, any person may make a complaint
under this Act to the Lokayukta or an Upalokayukta.
Provided that in case of a grievance, if the person aggrieved is dead or
for any reason, unable to act for himself, the complaint may be made or if
it is already made, may be prosecuted by his legal representatives or by
any other person who is authorized by him in writing in this behalf.
(2) Every complaint shall be made in the form of a statement supported by
an affidavit and in such forms and in such manner as may be prescribed.
(3)Where the Lokayukta or an Upalokayukta proposes, after making such
preliminary inquiry as he deemed fit to conduct any investigation under
this Act, he.-
(a) shall forward a copy of the complaint and in the case of an
investigation initiated suo-motu by him, the opinion recorded by him to
initiate the investigation under sub-section (1) or (2), as the case may
be, of section 7;
to the public servant and the Competent Authority concerned;
(b) shall afford to such public servant an opportunity to offer his
comments on such complaint or opinion recorded under sub-section (1) and
(2) of section 7 as the case may be;
(c) may make such order as to the safe custody of documents relevant to the
investigation, as he deems fit.
(4) Save as aforesaid, the procedure for conducting any such investigation
shall be such, and may be held either in public or in camera, as the
Lokayukta or the Upalokayukta, as the case may be, considers appropriate in
the circumstances of the case.
(5) The Lokayukta or the Upalokayukta may, in his discretion, refuse to
investigate or cease to investigate any complaint involving a grievance or
an allegation, if in his opinion,-
(a)the complaint is frivolous or vexatious or is not made in good faith;
(b)There are no sufficient grounds for investigating or, as the case may
be, for continuing the investigation; or
(c) Other remedies are available to the complainant and in the
circumstances of the case it would be more proper for the complainant to
avail such remedies.
(6) In any case where the Lokayukta or an Upalokayukta decides not to
entertain a complaint or to discontinue any investigation in respect of a
complaint he shall record his reasons therefore and communicate the same to
the complainant and the public servant concerned.
(7) The conduct of an investigation under this Act against a Public servant
in respect of any action shall not affect such action, or any power or duty
of any other public servant to take further action with respect to any
matter subject to the investigation."
Further, the learned senior counsel has relied upon Section 7 of the
Lokayukta Act, wherein on receipt of such complaint, either the Lokayukta
or the Upalokayukta can make such preliminary enquiry as he may deem fit to
conduct an investigation under the Act. He can initiate investigation under
Section 7(1) & (2) of the Lokayukta Act on the public servant and the
competent authority concerned as defined under Section 2(4)(a)to(d) of the
Lokayukta Act. The relevant provision of the Lokayukta Act reads thus:-
"7. Matters which may be investigated by the Lokayukta and an Upalokayukta.-
(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Lokayukta may investigate
any action which is taken by or with the general or specific approval of,-
(a) (i) the Chief Minister;
(ii) a Minister;
(iii)a member of the State Legislature;
(iv) the Chairman and Vice-Chairman (by whatever name called) or a
member of an authority, board, or a committee, a statutory or non-statutory
body or a corporation established by or under any law of the State
Legislature including a society, cooperative society or a Government
company within the meaning of section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956,
nominated by the State Government; in any case where a complaint involving
a grievance or an allegation is made in respect of such action.
(b) any other public servant holding a post or office carrying either a
fixed pay, salary or remuneration of more than rupees twenty thousand per
month or a pay scale the minimum of which is more than rupees twenty
thousand, as may be revised from time to time in any case where a complaint
involving a grievance or an allegation is made in respect of such action or
such action can be or could have been, in the opinion of the Lokayukta,
recorded in writing, the subject of a grievance or an allegation.
(2) Subject to the provisions of the Act, an Upalokayukta may investigate
any action which is taken by or with the general or specific approval of,
any public servant not being the Chief Minister, Minister, Member of the
Legislature, Secretary or other public servant refereed to in sub-section
(1), in any case where a complaint involving a grievance or an allegation
is made in respect of such action or such action can be or could have been,
in the opinion of the Upalokayukta, recorded in writing. the subject of a
grievance or an allegation."
Section 8 of the Lokayukta Act further states that:-
"8. Matters not subject to investigation:-
(1) Except as hereinafter provided, the Lokayukta or an Upalokayukta shall
not conduct any investigation under this Act in the case of a complaint
involving a grievance in respect of any action, -
(a) if such action relates to any matter specified in the Second Schedule;
or
(b) if the complainant has or had, any remedy by way of appeal,
revision, review or other proceedings before any tribunal, Court officer
or other authority and has not availed of the same.
(2) The Lokayukta or an Upalokayukta shall not investigate, -
(a) any action in respect of which a formal and public enquiry has been
ordered with the prior concurrence of the Lokayukta or an Upalokayukta, as
the case may be;
(b) any action in respect of a matter which has been referred for inquiry,
under the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 with the prior concurrence of the
Lokayukta or an Upalokayukta, as the case may be;
(c) any complaint involving a grievance made after the expiry of a period
of six months from the date on which the action complained against become
known to the complainant; or
(d) any complaint involving an allegation made after the expiry of five
years from the date on which the action complained against is alleged to
have taken place:
Provided that he may entertain a complaint referred to in clauses (c) and
(d) if the complainant satisfies that he had sufficient cause for not
making the complaint within the period specified in those clauses.
(3) In the case of any complaint involving a grievance, nothing in this Act
shall be construed as empowering the Lokayukta or an Upalokayukta to
question any administrative action involving the exercise of a discretion
except where he is satisfied that the elements involved in the exercise of
the discretion are absent to such an extent that the discretion can prima
facie be regarded as having been improperly exercised."
The learned senior counsel for the appellant by placing strong reliance
upon the aforesaid provisions of the Lokayukta Act, has contended that it
is applicable in relation to the persons who were enumerated under Section
2 of the Lokayukta Act, which reads thus:-
"2. (1) xxx
(2) "Allegation" in relation to a public servant includes any affirmation
that such public servant-
(a) has abused his position as such public servant to obtain any gain or
favour to himself or to any other person or to cause undue harm or hardship
to any other person;
(b) was actuated in the discharge of his functions as such public servant
by personal interest or improper or corrupt motives;
(c) is guilty of corruption, favouritism, nepotism or lack of integrity in
his capacity as such public servant;
OR
(d) has failed to act in accordance with the norms of integrity and conduct
which ought to be followed by public servants of the class to which he
belongs:
(3) "Chief Minister" means the Chief Minister of Karnataka;
(4) "Competent Authority" in relation to a public servant means-
(a) in the case of Chief Minister or a member of the State Legislature,
the Governor acting in his discretion;
(b) in the case of a Minister or Secretary, the Chief Minister;
(c) in the case of a Government servant other than a Secretary, the
Government of Karnataka;
(d) in the case of any other public servant, such authority as may be
prescribed;
(5) "corruption" includes anything made punishable under Chapter IX of the
Indian Penal Code or under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947;
(6) "Government Servant" means a person who is a member of the Civil
Services of the State of Karnataka or who holds a civil post or is serving
in connection with the affairs of the State of Karnataka and includes any
such person whose services are temporarily placed at the disposal of the
Government of India, the Government of another State, a local authority or
any person whether incorporated or not, and also any person in the service
of the Central or another State Government or a local or other authority
whose services are temporarily placed at the disposal of the Government of
Karnataka."
After placing strong reliance upon the aforesaid provisions of the
Lokayukta Act, the learned senior counsel has submitted that the appellant
herein is neither a government servant nor is or was at any time holding
the post of Chief Minister, Member of Legislature and Chairman etc. as is
enumerated in the aforesaid Sections of the Lokayukta Act. Therefore, the
suo-moto complaint registered by the second respondent in the Police
Station of Lokayukta against the appellant is without jurisdiction and
therefore, the same is liable to be quashed. He has submitted that this
important aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned judge
of the High Court and he has declined to grant the prayer of the appellant
without examining the legal submissions urged before it. Therefore, he has
urged that the impugned order is vitiated in law and the same is liable to
be set aside by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction.
On the other hand, Mr. Basava Prabhu S. Patil, the learned senior counsel
on behalf of the respondents has rebutted the aforesaid legal contentions
urged on behalf of the appellant, stating that the Inspector of Police of
the Lokayukta has taken note of the news item published in the Newspaper on
28.12.2011 in 'Vijaya Karnataka' a Kannada daily, which was repeated on
3.1.2012 in 'Bangalore Mirror' and on 05.01.2012 in The Times of India,
English edition. The complaint against the appellant has not been lodged
either before the Lokayukta or Upa lokayukta but the same was registered
suo-moto at the Police Station attached to the Lokayukta and therefore, the
procedure provided under the provisions of the Lokayukta Act was not
required to be followed as contended by the learned senior counsel on
behalf of the appellant.
The learned senior counsel on behalf of the respondents has further
contended that the registration of the complaint by the second respondent
suo-moto on the basis of the Newspaper publication is permissible in law as
the same is in accordance with the judgments of this Court in the cases of
C. Rangaswamaiah & Ors. v. Karnataka Lokayukta & Ors.[1] and State Of
Karnataka v. Kempaiah[2]. These judgments have been adverted to by the
Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in the case of State of Karnataka,
by Chief Secretary and Ors. v. Basavaraj Guddappa Maliger[3]. In the
Kempaiah's case referred to supra, this Court affirmed the judgment of the
Division Bench of the High Court on the ground that the Upalokayukta had no
power to investigate into a crime allegedly committed by the public servant
under the provisions of the P.C.Act, however, this Court did not quash the
FIR. Further, this Court made it clear that the FIR registered against the
petitioner is not quashed and that it is open to the State to have the
offence investigated in accordance with law. Further, in the C.
Rangaswamaiah's case, this Court has held that the police wing on
deputation to the Lokayukta, if authorised under Section 17 of the P.C.Act
and Section 2(d) of the CrPC, is legally entitled to register a case and
investigate the matter and file a charge sheet in a competent court of law
under the provisions of the P.C.Act and the CrPC. The relevant paragraphs
of C. Rangaswamaiah (supra), read thus:
"21. The next question is whether when the State Government had sent the
police officers on deputation to the Lokayukta, it was permissible for the
Government to entrust them with additional duties under the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988?
22. The learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench are one, as
already stated, in accepting that the police officers of the State on
deputation continue to remain as public servants in the service of the
State Government, as long as they are not absorbed in the Lokayukta. This
legal position is absolutely unassailable because the State of Karnataka
has merely lent the services of these officers to the Lokayukta and the
officers continue to be employees of the State. In spite of the deputation
of these officers with the Lokayukta, the relationship of master and
servant between the State of Karnataka and these officers does not stand
terminated (State of Punjab v. Inder Singh).
23. There is no dispute that though these officers are on deputation, they
are otherwise of the requisite rank as contemplated by Section 17 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and that other formalities under that
Act are satisfied for entrustment of duties under the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988. Question is whether these police officers of the
State can be invested with powers of investigation under Section 17 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by the State under its statutory powers
traceable to the same section?"
Further, it has been contended by the learned senior counsel for the
respondents that the second respondent has registered the case on the basis
of the abovementioned report published in the Newspaper referred to supra,
after satisfying himself with the fact that the material information
published in the aforesaid newspapers are cognisable offences punishable
under Section 420 and 120B of the IPC, for which he can suo-moto register a
complaint in the Police Station attached to the Lokayukta. He has further
made the categorical submission that the case is neither registered against
the appellant on the complaints submitted to the Lokayukta or Upalokayukta,
in the prescribed form by the second respondent nor the due procedure
contemplated under Section 9(2) & (3) of the Act has been followed after
holding preliminary enquiry. Thus, he has made it very clear that the
initiation of the proceedings against the appellant is not under the
provisions of the Lokayukta Act but the same has been done in accordance
with the provisions of the CrPC and the second respondent who is attached
to the Police Station of Lokayukta can register the FIR and investigate the
case independently against the appellant as held by this Court in the cases
referred to supra. Therefore, the learned senior counsel for the
respondents has fairly submitted that if the appellant has got any
grievance or apprehension for registering and investigating the case
against him by the second respondent, then this Court may pass the
appropriate order to transfer the case to any police agency in the state.
He has placed reliance upon the cases referred to supra and has further
made it clear that transferring of the case registered by the second
respondent to any other police agency in the State of Karnataka shall not
be henceforth construed or understood as an act beyond the scope of
authority of the Lokayukta Police to register case/cases against such
persons and investigate the offences under the provisions of the CrPC or
under the P.C.Act.
We have heard both the learned senior counsel for the parties and perused
the reports published in the Newspapers on the dates mentioned above which
were taken into consideration suo-moto by the second respondent, wherein he
has registered the FIR after being satisfied with the material facts
published in the Newspapers that there is a cognisable offence to be
investigated by the police against the appellant. The same cannot be found
fault with either by the High Court or by this Court for the reason that
the second respondent, who is on deputation to the Lokayukta, is an
Inspector of Police attached to the State of Karnataka. Therefore, he has
got every power under Section 2(d) of the CrPC, to act suo-moto and take
cognisance of the offence/offences alleged to have been committed by the
appellant on the basis of the reports published against him, which
according to him warranted registration of an FIR and investigate the
matter against him in accordance with law.
The learned senior counsel on behalf of the respondents has rightly made
the categorical submission that there is no need for the registration of
the FIR under Section 9 of the Lokayukta Act, in relation to the matters to
be investigated under Section 8 of the Lokayukta Act. Therefore, in the
light of the above contentions urged on behalf of the parties and in view
of the law laid down by this Court under the Lokayukta Act and keeping in
mind the apprehension expressed by the learned senior counsel on behalf of
the appellant with regard to the investigation that may be carried out by
the Lokayukta Police, we are of the considered view that the learned Judge
of the High Court has rightly declined to exercise his inherent power to
quash the proceedings, which does not call for our interference in this
appeal.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be just
and proper for this Court to see that justice is meted out and the case is
fairly investigated by the Corps of Detectives (COD) of the State. The said
investigation shall be entrusted to an officer of the rank equivalent to
the Superintendent of Police in the COD.
For the foregoing reasons and the decisions of this Court referred to
supra, we direct the second respondent to transmit the FIR to the COD
Bangalore for further investigation in the matter. The COD represented by
the Director General of Police must entrust the same to the officer of the
rank of Superintendent of Police for conducting impartial investigation and
proceed with the matter in accordance with law.
We make it amply clear that the direction is given to second respondent to
transfer the case registered against the appellant to COD, keeping in view
the facts and circumstances of this particular case only and it shall not
be construed as precedent for any future case(s) before the Lokayukta or
the courts. In view of the judgments of this Court referred to supra, we
hold that the second respondent has the right to register a cognizable
offence against any person under the provisions of the IPC, CrPC and the
P.C. Act. The same shall be legal and valid.
The appeal is dismissed. The order dated 05.01.2015 granting stay of
further proceedings shall stand vacated.
..................................................................J.
[V. GOPALA GOWDA]
..................................................................J.
[C. NAGAPPAN]
New Delhi,
April 9, 2015
ITEM NO.1B-For JUDGMENT COURT NO.11 SECTION IIB
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Criminal Appeal No(s)........./2015 arising from SLP(Crl.) NO. 108/2015
YUNUS ZIA Appellant(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR. Respondent(s)
Date : 09/04/2015 This appeal was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. GOPALA GOWDA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. NAGAPPAN
For Appellant(s)
Mr. Vikash Singh,Adv.
For Respondent(s)
Mr. V. N. Raghupathy,Adv.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.Gopala Gowda pronounced the judgment of
the Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.Nagappan.
Leave granted.
The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed Non-Reportable
Judgment.
(VINOD KR.JHA) (MALA KUMARI SHARMA)
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
(Signed Non-Reportable Judgment is placed on the file)
-----------------------
[1] [2] (1998) 6 SCC 66
[3] [4] (1998) 6 SCC 103
[5] [6] ILR 2003 KARNATAKA 3589
