- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2773 WP No. 12635 of 2022 C/W WP No. 11128 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA WRIT PETITION NO. 12635 OF 2022 (GM-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 11128 OF 2022 (GM-RES) IN WP NO. 12635/2022 BETWEEN: MR MAHADEVA S S/O LATE SHIVARUDRAPPA DEPUTY SECRETARY (RETIRED) DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.4, 'C' BLOCK, CASA ANSAL APARTMENT, J.P. NAGAR 3RD STAGE BENGALURU - 560 076 SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED …PETITIONER (BY SRI. L.M. CHIDANANDAYYA, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SPECIAL INVESTIGATION TEAM, KARNATAKA LOKYUKTHA (CITY) POLICE STATION, BENGALURU-560001 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. B.S. PRASAD, SPL.PP FOR RESPONDENT/LOK.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS WHICH ULTIMATELY RESULTED IN PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER Digitally signed by PRASHANTH N V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2773 WP No. 12635 of 2022 C/W WP No. 11128 of 2022 VIDE ANNX-A DTD 10.02.2021 BY THE XXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE FOR PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, BENGALURU (CCH-24) IN SPECIAL CASE NO.113/2021. AND ETC., IN WP NO. 11128/2022 BETWEEN: SRI R SURESH S/O LATE SRI A R RAMASWAMY IYENGAR, AGED 80 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.2, GREEN PARK, WHITEFIELD MAIN ROAD, WHITEFIELD, BANGALORE - 560 066 SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED …PETITIONER (BY SMT. LATHA S. SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SPECIAL INVESTIGATION TEAM, KARNATAKA LOKYUKTHA (CITY) POLICE STATION, BENGALURU-560001 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI B.S. PRASAD, SPL. PP FOR RESPONDENT/LOK.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS WHICH ULTIMATELY RESULTED IN PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER VIDE ANNX-A DTD 10.02.2021 BY THE XXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE FOR PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, BENGALURU IN SPECIAL CASE NO.113/2021. AND ETC., THESE WRIT PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2773 WP No. 12635 of 2022 C/W WP No. 11128 of 2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL ORDER The petitioner in W.P.No.11128 of 2022 being accused No.1 and the petitioner in W.P.No.12635 of 2022 being accused No.2 in Special Case No.113 of 2021 pending on the file of the learned XXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for Prevention of Corruption Act, Bengaluru (CCH-24), registered for the offence punishable under Section 409 read with Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC') and under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act (for short, 'the P.C. Act'), are seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them. 2. Heard Sri Lakamapurmath Chidanandayya and Smt. Latha S. Shetty, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.Nos.12365/2022 and 11128/2022 respectively and Sri B. S. Prasad, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent - Lokayuktha. Perused the materials on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that one Mr. B.R. Amar Singh has applied for grant of licence for - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2773 WP No. 12635 of 2022 C/W WP No. 11128 of 2022 carrying on mining in the schedule mineral i.e. Manganese and Iron ore during 1985. The application was forwarded to the Central Government. The Central Government granted approval for carrying on the mining activity. A Lease Deed was executed in the year 1985 along with the sketch. It is alleged that said Amar Singh has carried on mining activity beyond the licenced area shown in the sketch attached to the licence. 4. On 07.08.1999, Amar Singh sought for rectification of the plan attached to the Lease Deed. He had filed W.P.No.3571/2000 before this Court, seeking direction to the department concerned to consider his request for rectification of the area in which he was required to carry on the mining activities. The said petition was allowed vide order dated 11.02.2000 produced as per Annexure-C, directing respondent therein including the Director, Department of Mines and Geology, to consider the representation made by Amar Singh. It is thereafter, the petitioner as Deputy Secretary to the Government, put up an Office Note to be placed before the Minster concerned, who is the competent authority to accord permission. On the basis of the offence note, the Competent authority has permitted rectification of the plan. Accordingly, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2773 WP No. 12635 of 2022 C/W WP No. 11128 of 2022 Amar Singh carried on the mining activity. Now it is the contention of the respondent - Lokayuktha that, various illegalities have been committed in giving such permission and a Report in that regard has been submitted. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners being accused Nos.1 and 2 have acted as per the directions issued by this Court and accused No.2 has put up the Note, which was forwarded to the Minister concerned. But without getting the sanction as required under Section 19 of the P.C. Act, the final report came to be filed against these petitioners. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance on the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in State of Karnataka by Lokayukta Police V/s Dr. V. Chandrashekhar1, to contend that the Co-ordinate Bench has considered as to whether it is necessary to obtain sanction for prosecution of the respondent for offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of PC Act, in view of his retirement from service. Learned counsel submits that the 1 Crl.RP.No.790/2015 DD 09.02.2022 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2773 WP No. 12635 of 2022 C/W WP No. 11128 of 2022 Court has formed an opinion that Section 19 of the PC Act is brought by way of amendment by Act No.16 of 2018 and held that it is to be understood as if it came into effect from the date the PC Act was first given into effect i.e. from 09.09.1988. Therefore, the Court has formed an opinion that the respondent herein cannot be prosecuted without sanction and his retirement from service does not make any difference in the matter of obtaining sanction. Placing reliance on this decision, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the Court has formed an opinion that the amendment to Section 19 of PC Act is having retrospective effect. It is stated that, this decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court is challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the same is pending consideration. In view of this specific opinion formed by the Co-ordinate Bench, sanction is necessary, even though both these petitioners have retired from the service with effect from 31.08.2001 and 30.10.2000 respectively, the petitioners are seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent, opposing the petitions submitted that Section 409 read with - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2773 WP No. 12635 of 2022 C/W WP No. 11128 of 2022 Section 120(B) of IPC is invoked against the petitioners while filing the charge sheet. These petitioners being the Secretary and Deputy Secretary to the Department concerned in collusion with B.R. Amar Singh, referred to above, managed to put up the note recommending for rectification of the plan which was issued as part of the lease deed of the year 1985. Serious allegations are made against these petitioners. Therefore, the criminal proceedings against them cannot be quashed. 8. Learned counsel contended that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has already formed an opinion that the amendment to Section 19 of PC Act, is not having retrospective effect, which is applicable to the facts of the present case. Therefore, the petitions are liable to be dismissed. 9. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: "Whether the petitioners have made out any grounds to allow the petitions and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them?" - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2773 WP No. 12635 of 2022 C/W WP No. 11128 of 2022 My answer to the above point is in the 'Negative' for the following: REASONS 10. The petitioner in W.P.No.11128 of 2022 being accused No.1 was the Secretary and the petitioner in W.P.No.12635 of 2022 being accused No.2 was the Deputy Secretary to the department of Mines and Geology and both are public servants. It is alleged that one Amar Singh got the mining licence from the Central Government. A Lease Deed along with the sketch showing the area in which he is required to carry on the mining was entered into during 1985. It is alleged that said Amar Singh carried on the mining beyond the licensed area and later sought for rectification of the sketch / plan annexed to the lease deed vide his Application dated 07.08.1999. 11. The said Amar Singh had approached this Court by filing W.P.No.3571 of 2000, which came to be disposed off vide order dated 11.02.2000. This Court, while disposing of the writ petition directed respondent No. 2 i.e. the Director, Department of Mines and Geology, to take a decision on the representation said to have been submitted by the petitioner Amar Singh - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2773 WP No. 12635 of 2022 C/W WP No. 11128 of 2022 within 15 days from the date of receipt of the order. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have acted as per the directions issued by this Court in the said writ petition, cannot be accepted. The Co- ordinate Bench of this Court while disposing off the writ petition never directed either the Secretary or the Deputy Secretary of the department to accept the Representation dated 07.08.1999 and to make rectification of the plan or the sketch. The only direction that was given is to consider the representation, in accordance with law, in a time bound manner. 12. On the basis of the first information, a detailed investigation was undertaken and the final report came to be filed. A specific allegation is made against the petitioners, that they being the Public Servants, colluded with Amar Singh-the Licence Holder and recommended for unauthorised rectification of the area of mining to make wrongful gain for the license holder and also to make benefit out of the same. It is stated that the accused have committed the offences under Sections 379, 420, 468 and 471 read with Section 120B of IPC, under Sections 21 and 23 read with Section 4(1)4(1-A) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short, - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2773 WP No. 12635 of 2022 C/W WP No. 11128 of 2022 MMDR Act') and under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act. 13. On facts, admittedly the petitioners being the Secretary and the Deputy Secretary are responsible for putting up a Note, recommending for rectification of the sketch / plan, accepting the representation by Amar Singh. It is contented by the learned counsel for the petitioners that, such act of putting up a note, recommending for rectification of the plan was in discharge of the official duty by the petitioners and therefore the sanction under Section 19 of PC Act and under Section 197 of Cr.PC, are necessary. In the present case, no such sanction was accorded and therefore the criminal proceedings is to be quashed. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance on the decision of this Court in Dr. V. Chandrashekar (supra), where the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court held that the amendment brought to Section 19 of P.C. Act by Act No.16 of 2018 is to be understood, as if it came into effect from the date the P.C. Act was first given into effect i.e. from 09.09.1988 and that being the change in law, definitely the accused can - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2773 WP No. 12635 of 2022 C/W WP No. 11128 of 2022 contend that he cannot be prosecuted without sanction and his retirement from service does not make any difference in the matter of obtaining sanction. 15. Learned counsel for the respondent places reliance on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court reported in C.S. Puttaraju V/s State of Karnataka and others2, wherein the Co-ordinate Bench has taken a specific view that, taking note that the amendment by way of substitution would come into force as the Central Government would appoint, which is 26.07.2018, it would be appropriate to construe that the substitution would be effective prospectively. In the present case, the offence in question is said to have been committed during the year 2000. Thereafter, the petitioners have retired from the service on superannuation. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, referring to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Govardhan M. V/s State of Karnataka3, where it is held that every statute or statutory rule is prospective in nature unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have a retrospective effect. Therefore, held that the amendment by 2 Crl.P.No.5305 of 2021 D.D.31.01.2022 3 2013 (1) KLJ 437 - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2773 WP No. 12635 of 2022 C/W WP No. 11128 of 2022 way of substitution would come into force with effect from 26.07.2018 as appointed by the Central Government. 16. In Dr. V. Chandrashekar (supra), the Co-ordinate Bench held that the amendment brought to Section 19 of P.C Act is to be understood, as if it came into effect from the date of P.C Act was first given effect to i.e. from 09.09.1988. Admittedly, this decision of the Co-ordinate Bench is challenged by the respondent herein before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the same is pending consideration. The decision in C.S. Puttaraju (supra) is based on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court. Therefore, I am not inclined to accept the legal position highlighted by the Co-ordinate Bench in Dr. V. Chandrashekar (supra). 17. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the decision of Indra Devi V/s State of Rajasthan and another4, to contend that Section 197 of Cr.PC was enacted with an intention to protect an innocent public servant from unnecessary harassment by arraigning him as an accused of an offence committed while acting or 4 2021 (8) SCC 768 - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2773 WP No. 12635 of 2022 C/W WP No. 11128 of 2022 purporting to act in discharge of his official duties. There cannot be any second opinion about the same. The Apex Court in para 10 has made it very clear that the shield cannot protect corrupt officers and the provisions must be construed in such a manner as to advance the cause of honesty, justice and good governance as held by it in Subramanian Swamy V/s Manmohan Singh5. It is also held that indulgence of officers in cheating, fabrication of records or misappropriation cannot be said to be in discharge of their official duty. However, it is made clear that, such sanction is necessary if the offence alleged against the public servant is committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty. It is held that the yardstick to be followed is to form a prima facie view whether the act or omission for which the accused was charged had a reasonable connection with the discharge of his duties by referring to its earlier decision in State of Maharashtra V/s Budhikota Subbarao6. 18. The position of law is thus made very clear that, if the public servant was acting in discharge of his duty, he is entitled for the statutory protection. But if he is acting beyond 5 2012 (3) SCC 64 6 1993 (3) SCC 339 - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2773 WP No. 12635 of 2022 C/W WP No. 11128 of 2022 discharge of his official duty, and if he is alleged to have indulged in fabrication of records, misappropriation etc, he is not entitled for such protection. 19. In the present case, a specific and very serious allegations are made against the petitioners. They being the Secretary and the Deputy Secretary to the Department, who are required to advise the appropriate authority in taking a decision on the representation given by Amar Singh, have recommended for rectification of the plan / sketch in collusion with said Amar Singh in identifying a different land altogether to enable him to carry on the mining activities, even though as per the original lease deed and the sketch, he was not authorized to carry on the mining activity beyond the limits. Even though the learned counsel for the petitioners tried to convince the Court that the act of petitioners as Secretary and Deputy Secretary by putting up the Office Note recommending the rectification, is while discharging their official duty or it falls under their colour of duty, prima-facie, the prosecution has made out a case that the petitioners in collusion with Amar Singh and other co-accused managed to put up the note without getting approval from the Central Government, as - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2773 WP No. 12635 of 2022 C/W WP No. 11128 of 2022 required under law. There was absolutely no reason for bypassing the statutory procedure by the petitioners before recommending for rectification of the sketch. 20. Simply because, the appropriate authority to approve rectification of the sketch is the Minister concerned, the petitioners cannot take shelter on the ground that, the said authority is not arrayed as an accused. When specific and very serious allegations are made against the petitioners, the same cannot be ignored at this stage on technical grounds that no sanction was accorded till today by the Government even though it was sought for long back. The Court cannot shut its eyes to the conduct of the petitioners and the manner in which the requisition for sanction sought by the respondent are being treated without responding to the same by the Government, which will lead to a situation where the unscrupulous officers / public servants in collusion with one another and also with the private parties may recommend or pass an order themselves, which will cause irreparable loss to the public property and also to the public ex-chequer without any accountability. 21. When such serious allegations are made, the petitioners are required to face trial. Of-course the burden is on - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2773 WP No. 12635 of 2022 C/W WP No. 11128 of 2022 the prosecution to prove its contention regarding commission of various offences including the offence under Sections 409 and 120-B of IPC. At this stage, it cannot be expected that the petitioners being the Secretary and the Deputy Secretary will commit a blunder in collusion with the other accused by leaving a clue of commission of the offence regarding criminal conspiracy and criminal breach of trust and also for having committed criminal misconduct punishable under Section 13(2) of P.C Act. Therefore, I am of the opinion that there are prima- facie materials to constitute the offence as alleged and the petitioners are not entitled for any relief. 22. In view of the above, I answer the above point in both the cases in the 'negative' and proceed to pass the following: ORDER The Writ Petitions are dismissed. SD/- (M G UMA) JUDGE MKM, PNV CT:VS : List No.: 2 Sl No.: 8