VEERANNA CHANDRASHEKARAYYA CHARANTIMATH Vs. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A Short question involved in this case is that whether a private complaint is maintainable under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act,1988, without valid sanction order not being filed along with the complaint.

(2.) BEFORE adverting to the particular point of law, it is just and necessary to have a cursory look at the factual matrix of this case. One Ashok Venkatrao Limbavalli -complainant has lodged a private complaint in P.C.No.03/2012 making allegation that, five accused persons out of them, the petitioner is the accused No.1. It is alleged that the accused -petitioner was an MLA, on the date of the commission of the offence and also sitting MLA as on the date of filing of the complaint. The main allegation is that, accused No.1 colluded with accused Nos. 2 to 5 in violating Act and Rules pertaining to the allotment of industrial sites at Bagalkot. In fact accused Nos. 1 and 3 to 5 have got allotment of sites in utter disregard Rules and Regulations. The main allegation against the accused No.1 is that, the accused No.1 being a sitting MLA, he used his influence by misusing his office as an MLA got 8 acres of land in favour of his own brother accused No.2 at Rs. 2 per yard. The complainant has specifically stated that the accused No.2 in collusion with accused Nos. 1, 3 and 5 in contravention of Bagalkot Development Allotment (allotment of industrial sites) got sanctioned 8 acres of land, an offence of misconduct committed by the public servant falling within the preview of Section 13(1)(d) punishable under Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It is also alleged that by misusing his position as an MLA, accused No.1 colluded with accused No.2 and created some false documents in order to grab the valuable property. At paragraph 26 it is specifically alleged that accused No.1 has committed overt act of misconduct so as to attract the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 13(1) (d) of Provision of Prevention of Corruption Act. Therefore, on the above said grounds a private was filed.

(3.) THE misconduct alleged against accused No.1 is nothing but misuse of office as an MLA and is a public servant. It is categorically held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that an MLA is a public servant, he can be prosecuted under Prevention of Corruption Act subject to certain riders.