STATE OF KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA POLICE ..... APPELLANT
VERSUS
S. SUBBEGOWDA .... RESPONDENT
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1598 OF 2023
The appellant, State of Karnataka Lokayukta Police, filed an appeal against a judgment of the High Court of Karnataka. The High Court had allowed a petition and discharged the respondent (the original petitioner-accused) from the charges under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The discharge was granted on the ground that the sanction (Sanction - The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, requires that no court can take cognizance of an offense committed by a public servant without the previous sanction of the appropriate authority) accorded to prosecute the respondent-accused by the Government was illegal and without jurisdiction.
The respondent was an Executive Engineer in the Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board. A case was registered against him for the offense of amassing wealth disproportionate to his known sources of income. The Government of Karnataka accorded the sanction to prosecute him based on the investigation report.
The respondent filed multiple applications seeking discharge, raising objections regarding the validity of the sanction. However, during the trial, he submitted a memo stating that he would not press for the discharge applications and requested the court to proceed with framing the charges. The trial proceeded, and 17 witnesses were examined.
Later, the respondent filed another application seeking discharge on the same grounds, which was dismissed by the trial court. Subsequently, the respondent filed a criminal petition before the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC, which was allowed by the High Court, discharging the accused.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court should not have entertained the petition under Section 482 after the respondent had withdrawn his discharge application during the trial and allowed the trial to proceed. The Court also explained that Section 19(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act bars the reversal or alteration of findings, sentence, or orders passed by a Special Judge unless there is a failure of justice due to the invalidity of the sanction. The High Court did not record any opinion regarding a failure of justice. Therefore, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and directed the Special Judge to continue the trial from where it stopped. The respondent was allowed to raise the issue of sanction validity at the final stage of the trial if desired.
03.08.2023