M RUNGANARASAIAH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges Section 14 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (L. A. Act of 1984 'for short), as ultra vires of the Constitution of India as lacking in Legislative Competence of the State Legislature and prays for quashing of the proceedings of the Karnataka Upa-Lokayukta dated 31-7-1986, by which the prosecution of the petitioner was directed which is deemed to be sanction granted by the appropriate authorities.

(2.) The facts in brief are as follows :- While the petitioner was working as Grading Demonstrator in the Office of the Chief Marketing Officer, Department of Marketing, Bangalore, a complaint was lodged by one Sri P. V. Naniah with the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Karnataka State Vigilance Commission on 13-9-1985 to the effect that the petitioner demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 400.00 for the purpose of favouring him in connection with his official work. Pursuant thereto, it is alleged that a trap was laid and the petitioner was apprehended while demanding and accepting illegal gratification from the complainant. The matter which was under investigation by the Karnataka State Vigilance Commission stood transferred to the Karnataka Lokayukta, and the Upa-Lokayukta by the impugned order directed prosecution of the petitioner which is deemed to be sanction granted by the appropriate authority. A charge sheet dated 18-8-1986 was filed against the petitioner for alleged offences punishable under Sections 161, IPC and 5(1)(c) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 ('P.C. Act of 1947' for short) in the Court of the Special Judge, Metropolitan Area, Bangalore and charges were framed. The attempts of the petitioner to have the matter referred to this Court on the question of validity of Section 14 of the L.A. Act, 1984 by seeking recourse to the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code having failed, the petitioner has filed this writ petition for the reliefs mentioned earlier.

(3.) Sri Srinivasachar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is not pressing the contention regarding the lack of Legislative Competency of the Karnataka State Legislature in enacting Section 48 of the L.A. Act. He confines the challenge to Section 14 as being arbitrary and discriminatory, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and as unreasonable. He elaborated the submission by contending that Section 14 prescribes a different procedure for granting sanction, from the procedure laid down by Section 6 of Prevention of Corruption Act, as it stood before its repeal and re-enactment by the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (P.C. Act of 1988' for short), while dealing with persons who are similarly situated, thus creating two procedures. He contends that the procedure for according sanction under Section 6 of P.C. Act of 1947 which was in force when the alleged offence was committed by the petitioner was more beneficial than the procedure prescribed under Section 14 of L.A. Act of 1984 and prescribing two procedures for grant of sanction against persons similarly situated, is arbitrary and discriminatory. The competent authority under the P.C. Act of 1947 could take into consideration the past official record and conduct of the employee while deciding whether to grant sanction for the prosecution of the employee, whereas the Lokayukta or Upa-Lokayukta will be guided only by the record of investigation, while considering whether to grant sanction or not under Section 14 of L.A. Act of 1984.