in the high court of karnataka at bengaluru dated this the 21st day of

1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2015
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANANDA
WRIT PETITION No.55160/2014 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
B.Y.RAGHAVENDRA
S/O B.S.YEDDYURAPPA, 41 YEARS
R/O. MALERAKERI, SHIKARIPURA TOWN
SHIKARIPURA TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.
ALSO AT: MYTHRI III STAGE
2ND BLOCK , 7TH CROSS, VINOBANAGAR EXTENSION
SHIVAMOGGA – 577 201.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SR.ADVOCATE FOR SRI
SATYAPRAKASH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
VINOD.B
S/O LATE OMMEN BABY, 49 YEARS
ADVOCATE, OFFICE & RESIDENCE AT:
BEENA VILLA, KUVEMPU ROAD
SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI M.S.SHYAM SUNDAR, ADVOCATE)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 482 CR.P.C.,
PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT XXI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE & PRINCIPAL SPECIAL JUDGE FOR CBI
CASES AT BANGALORE DOES NOT HAVE THE JURISDICTION
TO TRY THE COMPLAINT IN P.C.R NO.16/2014, VIDE
ANNEXURE-C & ETC.
2
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDER ON 09.01.2015, THIS DAY, N.ANANDA J., MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This writ petition was filed to quash the order dated
30.09.2014 made by the learned XXI Addl. City Civil &
Sessions Judge & Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases,
Bangalore (for short, ‘the learned Special Judge’), permitting
the complainant and his witnesses to give sworn statements.
During pendency of this petition, the learned Special Judge,
considering the averments of complaint and sworn statement
has issued summons to accused 1 to 4 for offences
punishable under sections 13(1)(d) & (e) r/w 13(2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act’). In
view of this development, the petitioner was permitted to
amend the reliefs. The petitioner has amended the writ
petition and sought for the following reliefs:(a)
Declare that XXI Additional City Civil & Sessions
Judge & Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases,
Bangalore does not have the jurisdiction to try the
3
complaint in P.C.R.No.16/2014 vide Annexure-C
filed by the respondent herein.
(b)
Declare that the proceedings initiated by XXI
Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge & Principal
Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bangalore under the
provisions of Section 19 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 in P.C.R.No.16/2014 are null
and void ab initio.
(c)
Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the
order dated 30.09.2014, passed by the learned XXI
Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge & Principal
Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bangalore (CCH-4) in
P.C.R.No.16/2014 produced at ANNEXURE-A; and
all further proceedings in pursuance thereof vide
ANNEXURE-B.
(d)
Issue such other writs, pass such other orders and
grant such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court
4
deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case
and in the ends of justice.
(e)
To
set
aside
order
dated
02.12.2014
in
P.C.R.No.16/2014 passed by the Court of XXI
Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge & Principal
Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bangalore vide
ANNEXURE-M.”
2.
I have heard Sri Ashok Haranahalli, learned senior
counsel for petitioner and Sri M.S.Shyam Sundar, learned
counsel for respondent.
3.
Sri Ashok Haranahalli, learned senior counsel for
petitioner has made following submissions:I.
The Court of learned Special Judge has not been
vested with powers to entertain the complaint filed
under section 200 Cr.P.C. The court of learned
Special Judge has been constituted to try the
offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act,
5
1988, in the cases instituted by the Delhi Special
Police Establishment (CBI).
II.
The Speaker of Lok Sabha has rejected the letter
seeking sanction for prosecution of petitioner (the
then Member of Parliament). Therefore, petitioner
cannot be prosecuted after completion of his term
as Member of Parliament.
III.
The averments of complaint accepted on their face
value do not constitute offences alleged against
petitioner.
IV.
The
respondent
against
petitioner
has
made
and
several
there
are
allegations
no
specific
averments in the complaint for amassing wealth
disproportionate to known sources of income with
reference to a check period.
V.
The respondent has initiated several proceedings
against petitioner and his family members in
6
various courts, including the Court of Special
Judge at Shimoga.
4.
Sri
M.S.Shyam
Sundar,
learned
counsel
for
respondent (complainant) has made following submissions:I.
In terms of notification dated 27.07.2013, the
Government of Karnataka
in exercise of
powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section
3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
appointed XXI Additional City Civil and
Sessions Judge as Principal Special Judge for
the cases instituted by the Delhi Special
Police
Establishment
in
respect
of
the
offences under the said act. It is a court of
original jurisdiction. The respondent had
initiated complaint against petitioner and
sought for reference of complaint under
section 156(3) Cr.P.C., to Delhi Special Police
Establishment. The learned Special Judge by
order dated 30.09.2014, rejected the prayer
7
of complainant for reference of complaint
under section 156(3) Cr.P.C., to CBI and
permitted the complainant to give his sworn
statement
and
sworn
statements
of
witnesses, if any. Therefore, the court of XXI
Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Principal
Special Judge for CBI Cases at Bangalore is
the
competent
court
to
entertain
the
complaint filed under section 200 Cr.P.C.,
against petitioner, who is alleged to have
committed
offences
punishable
under
sections 13(1)(d) & (e) r/w 13(2) of the Act.
II.
The Photostat copy of letter dated 25.10.2013
relied upon by petitioner does not pertain to
the
letter
given
by
respondent,
seeking
sanction for prosecution of petitioner. In any
event, this photostat copy of letter dated
25.10.2013, cannot be held as the order of
rejection of sanction passed by the speaker of
8
Lok Sabha. Therefore, the contention of
petitioner
Member
that
of
when
petitioner
Parliament,
was
respondent
the
had
sought permission for sanction to prosecute
the petitioner and sanction was rejected by
the
Speaker
of
Lok
Sabha
respondent
has
filed
cannot
be
accepted.
III.
The
the
instant
complaint under section 200 Cr.P.C., for an
offence alleged to have been committed by
petitioner under section 13(e) of the Act,
within the jurisdiction of court of XXI Addl.
City Civil & Sessions Judge & Principal
Special Judge for CBI Cases at Bangalore.
IV.
The respondent had filed complaints against
petitioner
and
his
family
members
for
amassing wealth disproportionate to their
known sources of income in Shimoga District.
9
In
W.P.No.38135/2012
and
connected
matters dated 05.02.2013, this court has
held that complaint alleging that petitioner
and his family members had acquired assets
in
the
District
of
Shimoga
cannot
be
entertained by the learned Special Judge at
Bangalore and this court directed the Special
Court at Bangalore to return the complaint to
complainant
for
presentation
before
the
jurisdictional court in terms of section 201
Cr.P.C.,
V.
The Instant complaint is filed in relation to
amassing wealth disproportionate to known
sources of income by petitioner, within the
jurisdiction of court of Principal Special
Judge at Bangalore. Therefore, this cannot be
a ground to quash the impugned order.
10
VI.
The learned Special Judge on consideration
of the averments of complaint and sworn
statement
and
documents
produced
by
respondent-complainant formed an opinion
and issued process to accused under section
204 Cr.P.C. The averments of complaint and
sworn
statement
documentary
are
evidence,
supported
in
by
particular,
registered sale deeds stated in paragraph 13
of the impugned order dated 02.12.2014.
VII.
The learned Special Judge has passed a
detailed
order
to
issue
process
against
accused 1 to 4. Therefore, there are no
reasons to quash the impugned order.
5.
On consideration of notification dated 27.07.2013, I
find the Government of Karnataka has notified learned XXI
Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Principal Special Judge
for CBI Cases as the Principal Special Judge at Bangalore to
11
try the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988,
in
cases
instituted
by
Delhi
Special
Police
Establishment (CBI).
6.
The learned Special Judge by order dated 30.09.2014,
rejected the request of respondent to refer the complaint
under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation by CBI and
permitted the complainant to give sworn statement and
sworn statements of witnesses, if any. Therefore, the
submission of learned senior counsel for petitioner that
court below did not have jurisdiction to entertain the
complaint cannot be accepted.
7.
The respondent has prayed for referring the complaint
under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation by CBI or in
the alternative to take cognizance of offences and summon
the accused and try them in accordance with law. Therefore,
the court of learned XXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge &
Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases is competent to
12
entertain the complaint and try the complaint filed by
respondent. In the circumstances, the contention of learned
senior counsel for petitioner that court below did not have
jurisdiction to entertain the complaint cannot be accepted.
8.
Sri Ashok Haranahalli, learned senior counsel for
petitioner, relying on the decision of the Supreme Court,
reported in (2011) 7 SCC 167 (in the case of Chittaranjan
Das Vs. State of Orissa) would submit that respondent
herein had made an application to the Speaker of Lok
Sabha, seeking sanction to prosecute the petitioner. The said
application was rejected by the Speaker of Lok Sabha.
9.
The learned senior counsel for petitioner has relied on
photostat copy of letter dated 25.10.2013 stated to have
been written by the Lok Sabha Secretariat, which reads
thus:-
13
“LOK SABHA SECRETARIAT
Privileges & Ethics Branch
PARLIAMENT HOUSE
NEW DELHI-110 001
No.13/107/2013/P&E
From:
Ashok Sajwan,
Director
To:
Shri B.Vinod,
Advocate, Kuvempu Road,
Shivamogga-577201
Karnataka.
Subject:
25 October, 2013
Letter dated 10 September, 2013, from Shri
B.Vinod, Advocate, seeking sanction for
prosecution of Shri B.Y.Raghavendra, MP in
connection with mismatching information
regarding assets and liabilities furnished to the
returning officer while submitting affidavit and
the assets owned by him at the time of General
Elections in 2009.
Sir,
I am directed to refer to your request for grant of
sanction to prosecute Shri B.Y.Raghavendra and to state
that after considering the documents furnished by you along
with your letter above-mentioned, the Hon’ble Speaker has
found the case not fit to accord sanction for prosecution of
Shri B.Y.Raghvendra, MP, under section 13(1)(d)&(e) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/DIRECTOR
TEL: 23034920”
14
10.
As could be seen from the contents of letter, I find that
respondent herein had requested for grant of sanction to
prosecute petitioner and to furnished certain documents
seeking for prosecution in connection with mismatching
information regarding assets and liabilities furnished to the
Returning Officer, while submitting affidavit and the assets
owned by petitioner at the time of General Elections in 2009.
11.
As per the photostat copy of letter, the Speaker of Lok
Sabha has stated that he has found the case not fit to accord
sanction for prosecution of petitioner under section 13(1)(d)
& (e) of the Act and rejected the letter submitted by
respondent.
Under Chapter V of the Act, order of sanction for
prosecution or order of rejection of sanction for prosecution
shall be made after going through the records. The
sanctioning authority has to assign reasons either for
according sanction or rejecting sanction. The petitioner has
not
produced
certified
copy
of
order
passed
by
the
15
sanctioning authority, rejecting the request for grant of
sanction
to
prosecute
petitioner
for
amassing
wealth
disproportionate to known sources of income. At this stage,
the copy of letter dated 25.10.2013 relied upon by petitioner
cannot be construed as order of rejection of sanction passed
by the sanctioning authority (the then speaker of Lok
Sabha).
In a decision reported in (2011) 3 SCC 351 (in the case
of Harshendra Kumar D. Vs. Rebatilata Koley and Others),
the Supreme Court has held:“25. …. It is fairly settled now that while
exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section
482 or revisional jurisdiction under Section 397
of the Code in a case where complaint is sought
to be quashed, it is not proper for the High
Court to consider the defence of the accused or
embark upon an enquiry in respect of merits of
the accusations. However, in an appropriate
case, if on the face of the documents - which are
beyond suspicion or doubt - placed by accused,
the accusations against him cannot stand, it
16
would be travesty of justice if the accused is
relegated to trial and he is asked to prove his
defence before the trial court. In such a matter,
for promotion of justice or to prevent injustice or
abuse of process, the High Court may look into
the materials which have significant bearing on
the matter at prima facie stage.”
In the case on hand, the photostat copy of letter dated
25.10.2013 is not the certified copy of public document. At
this stage, it is not possible to hold that the contents of letter
dated 25.10.2013 are beyond suspicion or doubt.
Therefore, this is not a case where sanction to
prosecute the petitioner under the Prevention of Corruption
Act, was rejected by the Speaker of Lok Sabha during the
tenure of petitioner as the Member of Parliament.
12.
The instant complaint was filed on 04.06.2014, after
the petitioner ceased to be a Member of Parliament and was
not holding the position of a public servant. Therefore, the
contention of learned senior counsel for petitioner cannot be
17
accepted. What has been held in the decision of the Supreme
Court, reported in (2011) 7 SCC 167 (in the case of
Chittaranjan Das Vs. State of Orissa), is not applicable to
the facts of instant case.
13.
The learned Special Judge on consideration of sworn
statement and documents filed by complainant has formed
an opinion that there are reasons to believe that petitioner
had amassed wealth disproportionate to known sources of
income and there are sufficient grounds to proceed against
petitioner for offences punishable under sections 13(1)(d) &
(e) r/w 13(2) of the Act under section 204 Cr.P.C. Therefore,
there are no reasons to interfere with the impugned order.
14.
This court in W.P.No.38135/2012 and connected
matters dated 05.02.2013 has held that complaint filed
before the court of learned XXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions
Judge & Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases at Bangalore
is not maintainable in relation to offences alleged to have
been committed by petitioner within Shimoga District. This
court directed the learned Special Judge at Bangalore to
18
return the complaint to complainant for presentation before
the jurisdictional court in terms of section 201 Cr.P.C. In the
circumstances, the submission of learned senior counsel for
petitioner that respondent has filed several complaints
against petitioner and his family members and in the instant
complaint, he has suppressed the previous proceedings
cannot be accepted.
15.
In view of the above discussion, there are no reasons
to quash the complaint at Annexure-‘C’. I hold that there are
no reasons to quash the impugned order at Annexure-‘M’.
There are no reasons to set aside order, rejecting the request
of respondent to refer the matter to CBI. The court below had
jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed under section
200 Cr.P.C. There are no reasons to quash the order of
learned Special Judge, permitting the complainant to give
sworn statement. There are no reasons to quash the
impugned order at Annexure-‘M’, whereby the learned
Special Judge has issued summons to petitioner.
19
16.
In the result, I pass the following:ORDER
The writ petition is dismissed. It is made clear that the
observations made
expression
of
herein shall not
opinion
on
merits
of
be construed as
the
case
during
subsequent stages of the proceedings before the learned
Special Judge.
Sd/JUDGE
SNN