1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION No.5096 OF 2024 BETWEEN: MR. NARASIMHA MURTHY S/O LATE DASAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS RETIRED RANGE FOREST OFFICER TUMAKURU RANGE, TUMAKURU R/O NO.83, 2ND CROSS SAHYADRI BALAGA SIDESHWARA LAYOUT SIDEDAHALLI BENGALURU – 560 073. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI PARAMESHWAR N. HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY TUMAKURU LOKAYUKTHA POLICE REPRESENTED THOROUGH ITS SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU – 560 001. 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY 2 PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST (HEAD OF FOREST FORCE) 4TH FLOOR, ARANYA BHAVAN 13TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM BENGALURU – 560 012. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI LETHIF B., ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN SPL.C.NO.117/2022 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 13(1)(e) R/W SEC.13(2) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT AND PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT TUMAKURU. THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- CAV ORDER The petitioner, sole accused, is at the doors of this Court calling in question proceedings in Special Case No.117 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(e) and CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA 3 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short). 2. Heard Sri Parameshwar N. Hegde, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri Lethif B, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri B.N. Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Pubic Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.2. 3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:- The petitioner, at the relevant point in time, was working as Forest Officer in Tumkur Zone. A source report is drawn against the petitioner alleging amassing wealth disproportionate to his known sources of income on 28-11-2016. Pursuant to the said source report, a crime comes to be registered against the petitioner in Crime No.5 of 2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Act. Pursuant to the registration of crime, the investigation gets complete on 10-07-2018. Since investigation was complete and final report had to be placed before the concerned Court, the file was placed seeking sanction as obtaining 4 under Section 19 of the Act. On 17-01-2019 sanction to prosecute the petitioner was accorded. A year thereafter, the sanction that was accorded to prosecute the petitioner comes to be withdrawn. The petitioner then retires from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31-08-2020. On the ground that amendment to the Act would not require sanction to prosecute a retired employee, charge sheet comes to be filed before the concerned Court by the Lokayukta on 18-02-2022. The concerned Court takes cognizance, registers Special Case No.117 of 2022 and proceedings progressed. The petitioner then calls the said act in question before this Court on the score that the respondent Police could not have filed a charge sheet. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that investigation was conducted and concluded prior to the amendment to the Act. Sanction to prosecute the petitioner was accorded. After it being accorded, but before the charge sheet could be filed, it was withdrawn. It is an admitted fact that charge sheet was not filed before the concerned Court before withdrawal of sanction. Therefore, there was no sanction in the eye 5 of law. The petitioner retires on attaining the age of superannuation after the sanction for prosecution was withdrawn. The charge sheet then comes to be filed before the concerned Court on the ground that to a retired employee there need not be sanction. The learned counsel submits that the act of the respondents is wholly illegal, therefore, the proceedings must not be permitted to continue. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel Sri Lethif B., appearing for the 1st respondent/Lokayukta would vehemently contend that once the amendment is in place, there was no necessity of obtaining sanction against a retired employee. If he was serving employee it would have been a different circumstance. But, he would admit the fact that sanction had been granted and was withdrawn. During the subsistence of sanction for close to 13 months Lokayukta did not file the charge sheet, but he would seek to defend the action on the score that this aspect also can be gone into by the concerned Court in the proceedings. 6 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record. 7. The afore-narrated facts, link in the chain of events and dates are not in dispute. A source report is drawn against the petitioner on 28-11-2016, pursuant to which, a crime comes to be registered in Crime No.5 of 2016 for the offences punishable under Section 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Act. The police conduct investigation and kept the final report ready on 10-07-2018. Sixteen days thereafter, the amendment to the Act is brought in and the amended Act casts a new obligation on the prosecuting agency of securing sanction for prosecution even against a retired public servant. The petitioner continued in service after the amendment. He retires on attaining the age of superannuation on 31-08-2020. By then two events happen. On 17-01-2019 after the amendment, sanction was accorded to prosecute the petitioner. The order according sanction reads as follows: “ಆದಪಯುಕ ೕಲ ಂಡ ಆಾದೆೆ ಆಾತಾದ ೕ . ನರಂಹಮೂ ! ಈ #ಂ$ೆ ತುಮಕೂರು ವಲಯ ಅರ'ಾ()*ಾ+, ,ಾ- .ೆಂಗಳ1ರು ವಲಯ ಅರ'ಾ()*ಾ+2ಾ3 ಕತ!ವ( 7 4ವ!#ಸು ರುವ ಇವರನು7 ಸ8ಮ ಾ(2ಾಲಯದ-9 ಅ:;ೕಜೆೆ ಒಳಪಸಲು ಅವರನು7 >ೇ?ೆ@ಂದ ವAಾ Bಾಡುವ ಸ8ಮ ಾ)*ಾ+2ಾದ "ಪCಾನ ಮುಖ( ಅರಣ( ಸಂರ8'ಾ)*ಾ+ (ಅರಣ( ಪFೆ ಮುಖ(ಸGರು) .ೆಂಗಳ1ರು" ಆದ ಾನು ಕಾ!ಟಕ ಾಗ+ೕಕ >ೇ?ಾ 4ಯBಾವIಯ 4ಯಮ 95 (3) ನು7 ಓ*ೊಂಡಂKೆ, ಕಾ!ಟಕ ಾಗ+ೕಕ >ೇ?ಾ)ವ4ಅ) 4ಯಮ 1957ರ 4ಯಮ 7(1) ಮತು 9(3)ರ ಉಪಬಂಧಗಳನOಯ ಆಾತ >ಾವ!ಜ4ಕ ಅ)*ಾ+2ಾದ ೕ . ನರಂಹಮೂ ! ಈ #ಂ$ೆ ತುಮಕೂರು ವಲಯ ಅರ'ಾ()*ಾ+, ,ಾ- .ೆಂಗಳ1ರು ವಲಯ ಅರ'ಾ()*ಾ+ ಇವರನು7 ಇ$ೇ 4ಯಮದ 4ಯಮ 8(viii) ರಂKೆ >ೇ?ೆ@ಂದ ವAಾ Bಾಡುವ ಅ)*ಾರ ,ೊಂರುತ $ೆ. ಆದP+ಂದ ಭRಾSTಾರ ಪ ಬಂಧಕ *ಾ@$ೆ-1988ರ ಕಲಂ. 13(1)(ಇ) ರ ಪ*ಾರ ಆಾತ ಅ)*ಾ+ ೕ . ನರಂಹಮೂ !, ಈ #ಂ$ೆ ವಲಯ ಅರ'ಾ()*ಾ+, ತುಮಕೂರು ವಲಯ, ,ಾ- .ೆಂಗಳ1ರು ವಲಯ ಅರ'ಾ()*ಾ+ ಇವರನು7 ಅ:;ೕಜೆೆ ಒಳಪಸಲು ಮಂಜೂಾ 4ೕಡುವ ಅ)*ಾರವನು7 "ಪCಾನ ಮುಖ( ಅರಣ( ಸಂರ8'ಾ)*ಾ+ (ಅರಣ( ಪFೆ ಮುಖ(ಸGರು) .ೆಂಗಳ1ರು" ಆದ ಾನು ,ೊಂರುKೆ ೕೆ. ಪ>ಾ ವೆಯ-9 Uವ+ಸVಾದ *ಾರಣಗಳ #ೆ7Vೆಯ-9 ಭRಾSTಾರ ಪ ಬಂಧಕ *ಾ@$ೆ- 1988ರ ಕಲಂ. 19(1)(W)ರ ಪದತ ?ಾದ ಅ)*ಾರವನು7 ಚVಾ@ ಆಾತ ಅ)*ಾ+ಯನು7 >ೇ?ೆ@ಂದ ವAಾ Bಾಡುವ ಅ)*ಾರವYಳZ ಸ8ಮ ಾ)*ಾ+2ಾದ "ಪCಾನ ಮುಖ( ಅರಣ( ಸಂರ8'ಾ)*ಾ+ (ಅರಣ( ಪFೆ ಮುಖ(ಸGರು) .ೆಂಗಳ1ರು" ಆದ ಾನು ಭRಾSTಾರ ಪ ಬಂಧಕ *ಾ@$ೆ- 1988ರ ಕಲಂ. 13 (1) (ಇ)ರ AೊKೆಯ-9 ಓದVಾದ ಕಲಂ. 13 (2) ರ ಪ*ಾರ [ಾಹ! ಅಪಾಧ*ಾ 3 ೕ . ನರಂಹಮೂ ! ಈ #ಂ$ೆ ತುಮಕೂರು ವಲಯ ಅರ'ಾ()*ಾ+, ,ಾ- .ೆಂಗಳ1ರು ವಲಯ ಅರ'ಾ()*ಾ+ ಇವರನು7 ಸ8ಮ ಾ(2ಾಲಯದ-9 ಅ:;ೕಗೊIಸಲು ಮಂಜೂಾ 4ೕರುKೆ ೕೆ.” Even after according sanction, the Lokayukta did not file its charge sheet. The petitioner was to retire on 31-08-2020 on attaining the age of superannuation. The Government then withdraws the sanction that was granted earlier to prosecute the petitioner. The order withdrawing the sanction is as follows: “ಇವ+ೆ, ಅಪರ \ೕ-ೕ] ಮ,ಾ 4$ೇ!ಶಕರು, 8 ಭRಾSTಾರ 4ಗಹ ದಳ, ಖ4ಜ ಭವನ, .ೆಂಗಳ1ರು. Bಾನ(ೆ. Uಷಯ:- ೕ . ನರಂಹಮೂ !, #ಂನ ತುಮಕೂರು ವಲಯ ಅರ'ಾ()*ಾ+, ,ಾ- .ೆಂಗಳ1ರು ವಲಯ ಅರ'ಾ()*ಾ+ ಇವರ ೕ-ನ ಎ. .W $ಾI ಪಕರಣದ-9 ಅ:;ೕಜಾ ಮಂಜೂಾ 4ೕಡುವ ಬೆa. ಉVೆ9ೕಖ:- 1) ಈ ಕbೇ+ ಆ$ೇಶ ಸಂcೆ( : 127/2018-19, ಾಂಕ 17-01-2019. 2) ೕ. . ನರಂಹಮೂ !, ವಲಯ ಅರ'ಾ()*ಾ+, .ೆಂಗಳ1ರು ಇವರ ಮನU ಾಂಕ 22-01-2020. 3) ಈ ಕbೇ+ ಪತ ಸಮ ಸಂcೆ( ಾಂಕ 03-02-2020. 4) ಈ ಕbೇ+ ಪತ ಸಮ ಸಂcೆ( ಾಂಕ 20-02-2020. & & & ೕಲ ಂಡ Uಷಯ*ೆ ಸಂಬಂ)ದಂKೆ, ಉVೆ9ೕಖ (1)ರ ಆ$ೇಶದ-9 ಭRಾSTಾರ ಪ ಬಂಧಕ *ಾ@$ೆ-1988ರ ಕಲಂ 13 (1) (ಇ)ರ AೊKೆಯ-9 ಓದVಾದ ಕಲಂ 13 (2)ರ ಪ*ಾರ [ಾಹ! ಅಪಾಧ*ಾ 3 ೕ . ನರಂಹಮೂ !, ವಲಯ ಅರ'ಾ()*ಾ+ ಇವರನು7 ಸ8ಮ ಾ(2ಾಲಯದ-9 ಅ:;ೕಗೊIಸಲು ಮಂಜೂಾ 4ೕಡVಾ3ತು . ಉVೆ9ೕಖ (2)ರ ಸದ+ ಅ)*ಾ+ವರ ಮನUಯ-9 ಅವರ ಆ ಯ AೊKೆೆ ಅವರ >ೋದರ ಸಂಬಂ)ಯ ಆ ಯನು7 >ೇ+ ಭRಾSTಾರ 4ಗಹ ದಳದ ಅ)*ಾ+ಯವರು ಅ:;ೕಜೆ ಮಂಜೂಾ *ೋ+ರುವYದನು7 *ೈWಡುವಂKೆ *ೋ+ರುKಾ ೆ. ಈ ಸಂಬಂಧ ಕಡತಗಳನು7 ಪ+ೕ-$ಾಗ *ೆಲfಂದು UTಾರಗಳg ಸhಷSKೆ ಇಲ9$ೆ ಇರುವYದ+ಂದ ಈ ಬೆa ಸhiSಕರಣ 4ೕಡಲು ಸಂಬಂ)ದ ತ4cಾ)*ಾ+ಯನು7 *ೆಳಸ#$ಾರೊಂೆ ಚj!ಸಲು ಉVೆ9ೕkತ (4)ರ ಪತದ-9 *ೋರVಾ3ತು . ಈ ಸಂಬಂಧ ೕ ಉBಾಶಂಕl, ?ೈಎ]m, ಭRಾSTಾರ 4ಗಹ ದಳ, ತುಮಕೂರು ಇವರು ಾಂಕ 09-03-2020 ರಂದು ಈ *ೆಳಸ#$ಾರೊಂೆ ಚj! ರುKಾ ೆ. ಸದ+ ಚTೆ!ಯ ಸಮಯದ-9 ೕ . ನರಂಹಮೂ ! ರವರ ಆ ೆ ಅವರ >ೋದರರ ಸಂಬಂ)ಗಳ ಆ ಯನು7 >ೇ+ದುP. ಈ ಆ ಗೂ ೕ . ನರಂಹಮೂ !ಗೂ ಸಂಬಂಧUರುವ ಬೆa *ೆಲfಂದು ಸhಷSKೆ ಇಲ9ರುವYದು ಕಂಡುಬಂರುವYದ+ಂದ, ಈ ಬೆa ಪnರಕ $ಾಖVೆಗoೆ1ಂೆ 9 ಮKೊ p ಪ+ೕ- ತಮp ವರ ಸ-9ಸುವYದು ಸೂಕ ?ೆಂದು ೕBಾ!4ಸVಾ@ತು. ಆದP+ಂದ ಉVೆ9ೕkತ(1)ರ ಾಂಕ 17-01-2019ರ ಆ$ೇಶದ-9 ಅ:;ೕಗೊIಸಲು 4ೕಡVಾ3ದP ಮಂಜೂಾ ಆ$ೇಶವನು7 #ಂಪFೆಯVಾ3$ೆ. ೕVೆ Iದ UTಾರದ ಬೆa ಪYನ: ಪ+ೕ- ಪnರಕ $ಾಖVೆಗoೆ1ಂೆ UTಾರ'ಾ)*ಾ+ಯವರು ವರ ಸ-9ದ ನಂತರ ಅದನು7 ಪ+ೕ- ಅ:;ೕಗೊIಸಲು ಮಂಜೂಾ 4ೕಡVಾಗುವYದು. ತಮp UqಾO ಸ#/- ಪCಾನ ಮುಖ( ಅರಣ( ಸಂರ8'ಾ)*ಾ+ (ಅರಣ(ಪFೆ ಮುಖ(ಸGರು) 1) ಪ ಯನು7 \ೕ-ೕ] ಉಾ)ೕ8ರು, ಭRಾSTಾರ 4ಗಹ ದಳ, ತುಮಕೂರು ಇವ+ೆ Bಾ# ಾ3 ಕಳg#$ೆ. 2) ಪ ಯನು7 ಉಪ ಅರಣ( ಸಂರ8'ಾ)*ಾ+, .ೆಂಗಳ1ರು ನಗರ Urಾಗ, .ೆಂಗಳ1ರು ಇವ+ೆ Bಾ# ಾ3 ಕಳg#$ೆ. ಸ#/- ಪCಾನ ಮುಖ( ಅರಣ( ಸಂರ8'ಾ)*ಾ+ (ಅರಣ(ಪFೆ ಮುಖ(ಸGರು)” As observed hereinabove, Section 19 of the Act requires sanction even to prosecute a retired employee. This becomes clear from a clarification issued by the Haryana Government after receiving information from Government of India. It reads as follows: “To All the Administrative Secretaries to Govt. Haryana All the Heads of Departments of Haryana All the Managing Directors/Heads of Boards/Corporation of Haryana Government All the Divisional Commissioners in Haryana 10 All the Deputy Commissioners and Sub-Divisional officers (Civil) in Haryana All the Registrars of University in Haryana Subject:- Clarification regarding grant of Prosecution Sanction u/s Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in respect of retired officers/officials. Sir/Madam, I am directed to refer to the subject noted above and to say that the cases are being referred to the Government for seeking guidelines regarding issuance of prosecution sanction u/s 19 of PC Act, 1988 (as amended in the year 2018) in respect of retired public servant(s). The matter has been examined by the government and the legal opinion of the Advocate General has also been solicited in the matter regarding the clarification sought by the Commissioner of Police, Gurugram. The operating art of the legal opinion tendered by the office of advocate general is as under:- "In the present case in hand, though the FIR was registered in the year-2015 and the accused public servants have already retired, however, the challan is yet to be presented before the Ld. Trial Court, w.e.f 26.07.2018, the protection u/s 19 of the Act is available to a public servant after his retirement which was not available prior to the amendment. The date of commission of offence is not the deciding factor but it is the date of taking cognizance of the offence in question which decides the applicability of amended Section 19. Therefore, I am of the considered option that if cognizance is to be taken under the amendment provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 i.e. on or after 26.07.2018, qua a retired public servant, grant of prior sanction for prosecution is mandatory notwithstanding the offence having been committed on the earlier date. It is also pertinent to mention that the guidelines issued by the Central Vigilance Commission vide office Order No. 31/5/05 dated 12.05.2005 and Circular No. 08/05/15 dated 25.05.2015 must be followed in letter and spirit by the competent authority at the time of considering the case of sanction." 11 2. I am further directed to request you to consider the above advice tendered by the Advocate General, Haryana in respect of granting prosecution sanction under Section-19 of the PC, Act, 1988 (as amended in the year 2018). Yours faithfully Sd/- Under Secretary to Government Haryana Vigilance Department” Till this date no charge sheet is filed. The Lokayukta, on the score that crime was registered earlier to the amendment and investigation stood complete before the amendment, which did not require sanction for prosecuting a retired employee, files the charge sheet on 18-02-2022. 8. The defence of the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/Lokayukta is that earlier to the amendment there was no necessity to seek sanction against a retired employee and since all the investigation had been completed before the amendment, the Lokayukta was entitled to file the charge sheet. The said submission is, on the face of it, untenable. Mere completion of investigation against a Government servant cannot mean that charge sheet can be filed even without obtaining sanction. Sanction was accorded on 17-01-2019. Close to 13 months the Lokayukta 12 did not file the charge sheet. Sanction is withdrawn. The petitioner retires on attaining the age of superannuation. For an employee who retired prior to filing of the charge sheet, notwithstanding the fact that investigation was completed in a crime registered earlier, without prior sanction, the concerned Court could not have taken cognizance on the charge sheet so filed and subsequently registered a special case. Post the amendment, the Act itself requires sanction qua a retired employee as well. The judicial interpretation is, prior sanction is imperative even to retired employees. The Apex Court in STATE OF PUNJAB v. LABH SINGH1, has held as follows: “…. …. …. 9. In the present case the public servants in question had retired on 13-12-1999 and 30-4-2000. The sanction to prosecute them was rejected subsequent to their retirement i.e. first on 13- 9-2000 and later on 24-9-2003. The public servants having retired from service there was no occasion to consider grant of sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act. The law on the point is quite clear that sanction to prosecute the public servant for the offences under the PC Act is not required if the public servant had already retired on the date of cognizance by the court. In S.A. Venkataraman v. State [S.A. Venkataraman v. State, AIR 1958 SC 107: 1958 Cri LJ 254: 1958 SCR 1040] while construing Section 6(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 which provision is in parimateria with Section 19(1) of the PC Act, this Court held that no sanction was necessary in the case of a person who had ceased to be the 1 (2014) 16 SCC 807 13 public servant at the time the court was asked to take cognizance. The view taken in S.A. Venkataraman [S.A. Venkataraman v. State, AIR 1958 SC 107 : 1958 Cri LJ 254 : 1958 SCR 1040] was adopted by this Court in C.R. Bansi v. State of Maharashtra [C.R. Bansi v. State of Maharashtra, (1970) 3 SCC 537 : 1971 SCC (Cri) 143] and in Kalicharan Mahapatra v. State of Orissa [Kalicharan Mahapatra v. State of Orissa, (1998) 6 SCC 411 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 1455] and by the Constitution Bench of this Court in K. Veeraswami v. Union of India [K. Veeraswami v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 655 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 734] . The High Court was not therefore justified in setting aside the order passed by the Special Judge insofar as charge under the PC Act was concerned. … … … 11. In the circumstances, in our view the order under appeal passed by the High Court is correct insofar as charges under IPC are concerned but must be set aside as regards charge under the PC Act is concerned. 12. Before we part, we must record that we do not approve the stand taken by the appellant in the petition. The prosecution cannot keep waiting till a public servant retires and then choose to file charge-sheet against him after his retirement, thereby setting at naught the protection available to him under Section 19 of the PC Act. The appeal, thus, stands allowed partly. No order as to costs.” (Emphasis supplied) The Apex Court in the aforesaid case while dealing with the unamended Section 19 of the Act, where sanction was not required for prosecution of retired public servants, observes strongly against the practice of the prosecution/state in choosing to file the charge sheet after the retirement of the public servant to set at naught the 14 protection available to the public servant under the unamended Section 19 of the Act. 9. In that light, the Lokayukta having failed to file the charge sheet during the subsistence of sanction, it could not have filed the charge sheet putting its clock back to the pre-amendment, taking cue from the said pre-amendment that no sanction was required to prosecute a retired public servant. All the acts of the Lokayukta are thus contrary to law. Without sanction, the Court could not have taken cognizance since, it is an admitted fact in the case at hand that there was no sanction under Section 19 of the Act subsisting to prosecute the petitioner, as on the date the Court took cognizance. Therefore, the petition deserves to succeed. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: O R D E R (i) Criminal petition is allowed. 15 (ii) Proceedings in Special Case No.117 of 2022 pending before the VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumkur stand quashed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE Bkp CT:MJ