Sanction U/S 19 PC Act Can’t Cure Threshold Illegality Of Not Having Prior Approval U/S 17A: Karnataka High Court Quashes Case Against Ex-MLC
Former MLC D.S. Veeraiah filed a Writ Petition before the Karnataka High Court, challenging the registration of a crime for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 409, 420, 465, 468, and 471 of the IPC.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna, Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court has quashed a case against D.S. Veeraiah, former Member of Legislative Council (MLC) who was working as a Chairman of D. Devaraj Urs Truck Terminal Limited.
Veeraiah filed a Writ Petition before the Court, challenging the registration of a crime for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 409, 420, 465, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
A Single Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed, “The prior approval under Section 17A is admittedly not granted. Therefore, the prosecution is wanting to build its edifice on shifting sands. Sanction obtained post facto under Section 19 of the PC Act cannot cure the threshold illegality of not having prior approval under Section 17A of the PC Act. Therefore, the foundation being infirm the structure cannot be sustained. Section 17A of the PC Act, cuts at the root of the matter.”
Advocate Angad Kamath appeared on behalf of the Petitioner while Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Praveen Gowda and Advocate M.N. Munireddy appeared on behalf of the Respondents.
Factual Background
The Respondent, one C.N. Shiva Prakash, Managing Director of the Terminal registered a Complaint in 2023 before the Police Station that the Terminal is a Government enterprise engaged in the development and management of truck Terminal. 194th Board meeting of the Directors was held in 2021 and a total of 10 Directors and the then Chairman and the then Managing Director had participated in the said meeting and about 37 items and one additional agenda item were discussed and resolutions were passed in the meeting for each item in the agenda of the Terminal. In terms of the resolutions of the day, which also contained piece work contract for the purpose of repair and maintenance work of the Terminal, the process of tender was obviated, as tenders would need time to complete the process. The repairs and maintenance work to be carried out of all their Terminals was within the limit of ₹5/- lakhs on each terminal.
Therefore, approval of the Board was sought to submit the proposal seeking permission of the Government to carry out the works directly from the hands of qualified contractors. After deliberations in the meeting, a parcel-wise contract for emergency work was awarded to a Company for ₹10 crores. This was approved and long after the exit of the Petitioner and Accused No.1, the incoming Managing Director registered the Complaint. The Complaint contained that works close to ₹47.10 crores that were undertaken during the period of the Petitioner and Accused No.1 were found to be suspicious, as the works were awarded to the contractors without taking recourse to the provisions of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999. The registration of the complaint became a crime and this was challenged before the High Court.
Reasoning
The High Court in the above context of the case, remarked, “In the light of Section 17A creating a protective filter for vexatious and frivolous prosecution and complaints to pass muster to the rigors of Section 17A of the PC Act, I am of the considered view that it must be observed with complete strictness bearing in mind public interest, and protection available to such officers against whom offences are alleged, failing which many a time it would result in a vexatious prosecution.”
The Court said that in the light of the mandate of Section 17A, no camouflage proceedings can be permitted to get over the rigour of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) and, therefore, the very initiation of proceedings without obtaining prior approval under Section 17A, completing the investigation, filing the charge sheet are all acts that are contrary to law.
“It is not that the prosecution is not aware of the fact that prior approval under Section 17A is necessary or otherwise. It did seek approval during the investigation. Approval is not granted against the petitioner. But, nonetheless the prosecution filed a charge sheet and then sought sanction. Sanction is granted”, it added.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Writ Petition and quashed the case against the Petitioner.
Cause Title- D.S. Veeraiah v. State of Karnataka & Anr. [Neutral Citation: WRIT PETITION No. 31828 OF 2024 (GM-RES)]
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Angad Kamath and Harishkumar C.
Respondents: SPP Praveen Gowda and Advocate M.N. Munireddy.
