M MAHESHAN Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TWO questions that arise for consideration in this writ petition can at the very outset be stated thus :-

(2.) APPEARING for the petitioner, Mr. Gurumath argued that the Bureau of Investigation of the Lok Ayuktha was constituted to assist the Lokayuktha in the discharge of their functions and was not therefore empowered to entertain any complaint directly or conduct any investigation into any such complaint except in accordance with the directions, which the Lokayuktha or the Up-Lokayuktha may consider proper to issue. The Lokayuktha has, contended the learned Counsel issued no such orders directing an investigation into the allegation made against the petitioner, so that an investigating Agency like the Bureau of Investigation meant only to assist the Lokayuktha could not independently entertain the complaint or initiate any investigation into the same. It was contended that Police Officers, deputed to assist the Lokayuktha ceased to be the Police Officers in the wider sense of the said expression and could not arrogate to themselves the authority to register cases or initiate investigation into offences relating to a public servant. Their functions, powers and duties, it was argued, were limited to assisting Lokayuktha and the Up-Lokayuktha in the discharge of their duties under the Act. Relying upon Section 15 (4) of the Lokayuktha Act, Sri Gurumath argued that the very purpose of conferring disciplinary and administrative control over the Officers and Employees appointed to assist the Lokayuktha and the Up-Lokayuktha would stand defeated if these Officers or any one of them were to claim or exercise powers and jurisdiction independent of the powers functions and duties of the Lokayuktha under the Act. The Scheme of the Act, it was strenuously urged, did not permit a dual control over the Officers appointed to assist the Lokayuktha in accordance with the Rules framed under Sections 15 and 23 of the Act. Inasmuch as the Bureau of Investigation was claiming a status independent and outside the purview of the Lokayuktha Act, for purposes of registration of cases and investigation into the same, it was committing not only an illegality but an act of impropriety seriously jeopardising the independence and prestige of the Institution that was created under the Act to serve a laudable object of rooting out corruption from public life while at the same time saving public functionaries from the menace of false and frivolous accusations against them.

(3.) SRI. Vijaya Shankar, learned Advocate General, on the other hand, argued that the Officers sent to the Lokayuktha on deputation were Police Officers, who continued to be so even when they served as members of the Lokayuktha staff under Section 15. Their status, argued Mr. Shankar, did not suffer any change just because they had been sent out of the present Police Department particularly when the nature of their duties on the posts they were deputed to also remained similar to the ones that were discharged by them earlier as Police Officers. He relied upon notification dated 26th of May, 1986 issued by the State Government in exercise of its powers under Section 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, whereby Offices of the Lokayuktha through the State have been declared as Police Stations in respect of the jurisdiction mentioned against each one of them. He also relied upon notifications dated 2nd of Nov. 1992 and 22nd of Dec. 1992, whereunder the Government have in exercise of their power under proviso to Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 authorised all Inspectors of Police in the Office of the Karnataka Lokayuktha to conduct investigations under the overall control and supervision of the Director or Bureau of Investigation. He contented that the declaration of the Offices of the Officers of the Police Departmenta working with the Lokayuktha as Police Stations and the authorisation issued by the Government under the notification mentioned above clearly signified that the Police Officers sent to work with the Lokayuktha on deputation did not cease to be Police Officers and could therefore not only register cases where a cognizable offence was reported but also take up investigation into the same independent of any direction that the Lokayuktha or the Up-Lokayuktha may have been competent to issue under the provisions of the Act. Relying upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in C. M. Prasad v. State of Karnataka (1984) 1 Kant LJ 29, it was argued that the position as it existed under the erstwhile Vigilance Commissioner's Organisation had continued even after the passing of the Lokayuktha Act and the establishment of the Institution of Lokayuktha under the same. Heavy reliance was placed upon the observations made in the said decision in support of the submission that Police Officers and the Staff of the Lokayuktha continue to enjoy the status and exercise the powers available to them under the Code of Criminal Procedure.