- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23142 WP No. 8203 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 8203 OF 2026 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SRI GUNDINAKERI KRISHNAPPA S/O. LATE HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, WORKING AS SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL), O AND M CIRCLE, CESCOM, HASSAN -573 201. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIKRAM HULIGOL, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. ADITHYA R CHAKRAGIRI., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, INDHANA BHAVAN, SHESHADRIPURAM, BENGALURU 560 001 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION DEPARTMENT, PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU 560 001. …RESPONDENTS [BY SMT. RAKSHITHA D J., ADVOCATE FOR R1 (VK NOT FILED) SMT. AMARAVATHY, ADVOCATE FOR R2] Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23142 WP No. 8203 of 2026 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE RESPONDENTS NO. 1 IN SO FAR AS THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21/02/2026 (ANNEXURE - F) ISSUE WRIT OR ORDER QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21/02/2026 BEARING NO. KAVIPRANINI / B52/45939 /2023-24 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 1 (ANNEXURE - F), IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. C) PASS ANY OTHER ORDER WHICH THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT, INCLUDING THE COST OF THE WRIT PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The captioned writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India calling in question the legality and correctness of the order dated 21.02.2026 at Annexure–F, whereby sanction has been accorded under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short "the Act") to investigate the role of the petitioner. 2. The facts leading to the case are as under: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23142 WP No. 8203 of 2026 The petitioner entered into service as an Assistant Engineer on 16.12.1998 and, during the relevant period, worked as Executive Engineer, O & M Urban Division, HESCOM, between 18.02.2020 and 10.07.2023. He was subsequently promoted as Superintending Engineer in the year 2024. 3. A complaint came to be lodged by one Superintending Engineer alleging large-scale financial irregularities and dereliction of duty attributed to one Basavaraj C. Mallimath, a retired official. Based on the said complaint, FIR in Crime No.25/2024 came to be registered for offences punishable under Sections 408, 417, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 477A of IPC. The investigation was thereafter entrusted to CID, which is registered in Cr.No.11/2024. 4. During the course of investigation, the said Basavaraj Mallimath is stated to have made a statement implicating the present petitioner. Based on the said - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23142 WP No. 8203 of 2026 material, a requisition dated 16.09.2025 was sent seeking sanction to investigate the petitioner under Section 17A of the Act. After the demise of the said accused on 10.12.2025, a further communication dated 01.01.2026 was addressed seeking sanction. Ultimately, by the impugned order dated 21.02.2026, sanction has been accorded to investigate the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the impugned order reflects that “further investigation” is sought, thereby indicating that investigation had already commenced without sanction under Section 17A of the Act. He further submits that the petitioner is sought to be implicated solely on the basis of a confessional statement of a co-accused/store-keeper, which has no evidentiary value and there is no independent material attracting the ingredients of Section 13(1)(a) of the Act. Counsel further vehemently contended that sanction under Section 17A of the Act cannot be used - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23142 WP No. 8203 of 2026 as a post-facto device to legitimize an already illegal investigation. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would contend that sanction under Section 17A of the Act to investigate stands on a completely different footing from sanction under Section 19 of the Act, to prosecute. He further submits that at the stage of grant of sanction, the competent authority is only required to form a prima facie satisfaction; that the allegations pertain to a scam involving misappropriation of more than Rs.30 Crores, which necessitates a thorough investigation. While concluding his submissions contends that interference at a nascent stage would stultify the statutory scheme and frustrate a legitimate investigation. 7. In light of the rival contentions, the following points arise for consideration: (i) Whether the impugned order granting sanction under Section 17A of the Act suffers - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23142 WP No. 8203 of 2026 from any jurisdictional error warranting interference? (ii) Whether this Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, ought to interdict the investigation at the threshold? Finding on Point Nos.(i) and (ii) 8. Section 17A of the Act introduces a safeguard requiring prior approval before initiating investigation into acts relatable to discharge of official functions. The legislative intent is twofold: (a) to protect honest public servants from vexatious prosecution; and (b) to ensure that serious allegations of corruption are not stifled at inception. The distinction between sanction under Section 17A and Section 19 of the Act is no longer res integra. Sanction under Section 17A of the Act operates at a pre- investigation stage, whereas sanction under Section 19 of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23142 WP No. 8203 of 2026 the Act comes into play post-investigation, at the stage of cognizance. Therefore, the threshold of scrutiny at the stage of Section 17A of the Act is necessarily minimal and confined to prima facie satisfaction. 9. In the present case, the material placed before the sanctioning authority includes: i. Statements recorded during investigation, including that of the co-accused; ii. Official correspondence and letters indicating financial irregularities; iii. Allegations of misappropriation to the tune of Rs.30 Crores. It is trite that at this stage, the adequacy or sufficiency of material cannot be gone into. The authority is not expected to conduct a mini-trial. The argument that the material is insufficient or that the confessional statement - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23142 WP No. 8203 of 2026 lacks evidentiary value are all matters which fall within the domain of trial. 10. The petitioner’s contention that the use of the expression “further investigation” presupposes an illegal prior investigation, is noted only to be rejected. 11. The expression “further investigation” is often loosely employed in administrative correspondence and cannot be determinative of legality. What is relevant is whether investigation qua the petitioner has commenced in violation of Section 17A of the Act. 12. In the present case, the records indicate that upon emergence of material implicating the petitioner, the investigating agency has approached the competent authority seeking sanction. The subsequent communication, even if it employs the phrase “further investigation,” does not ipso facto establish that a full- fledged investigation was undertaken earlier in violation of - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23142 WP No. 8203 of 2026 law. At best, such a contention raises a disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction. 13. The power of judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, particularly in matters concerning investigation, is circumscribed. Interference is warranted only in cases of patent lack of jurisdiction; malafides; or manifest abuse of process. 14. None of these contingencies are made out in the present case. On the contrary, the magnitude of the alleged scam running into Rs. 30 Crores demands a thorough and unhindered investigation. 15. If this Court were to interdict the investigation at this stage, it would amount to prematurely scuttling a statutory process and shielding the allegations from scrutiny, which is impermissible. 16. The petitioner’s contention that implication is based solely on a confessional statement cannot be a ground to quash sanction. It is well settled that a - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23142 WP No. 8203 of 2026 confessional statement may be a starting point for investigation. Its evidentiary value is to be tested during trial. Investigation is not confined to admissible evidence alone. 17. The argument that there is “no material” is therefore untenable at this stage, particularly when the sanctioning authority has recorded satisfaction based on available records. 18. This Court is of the considered view that the impugned sanction order is passed within jurisdiction and in compliance with Section 17A of the Act. The sanctioning authority has applied its mind to the material placed before it. No case is made out for interference at the threshold. The allegations involving misappropriation of public funds of considerable magnitude necessitate a full- fledged investigation. Accordingly, Point Nos.(i) and (ii) are answered in the 'Negative'. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23142 WP No. 8203 of 2026 19. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition stands dismissed. (ii) The impugned order dated 21.02.2026 granting sanction under Section 17A of the Act. (iii) The investigating agency is at liberty to proceed with the investigation in accordance with law. (iv) It is made clear that all observations made herein are only for the purpose of examining the validity of sanction and shall not influence the investigation or trial on merits. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE ALB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55