PUTTASWAMY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, a Senior Sub-Registrar in the Department of Registration and Stamps, Government of Karnataka, was discharging duties in the sub-registry of Bangalore North Taluk along with two other senior Sub-Registrars, during the year 2002. On a complaint of one Shivakumar, Advocate, who, presented for registration two documents on behalf of his clients G. Swami and Jayalakshmi, of yeshwantpur Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, on 23. 10. 2002, an F. I. R. was filed by the 3rd respondent - Inspector of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta alleging a demand for payment of illegal gratification by the Senior Sub-Registrars in the Sub-Registry, Bangalore North Taluk. On the very same day, the 3rd respondent laid a trap and the proceedings that followed, led to recovery of the bribe money of Rs. 3,000/- from one Muthurayappa, not an employee of the Sub-Registry but a private person who was in the office of the Sub-Registrar said to have come to collect a copy of the registered document on behalf of one S. A. Srinivasan. The complainant is said to have tape-recorded the conversation between himself and the petitioner, which, was taken possession of by the Investigation Officer and listed as article No. 10.

(2.) ALLEGING that the ingredients to establish an offence under Sections 7, 13 (l) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, more appropriately a demand by a public servant of illegal gratification having not been established, and the complainant having not named the petitioner public servant as having made the demand for bribe money, coupled with the fact that the conversation which had been tape recorded having not been placed before the sanctioning authority, the sanction order dated 29. 3. 2005 Annexure-"c" of the 1st respondent to prosecute the petitioner for the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, is contended to be invalid.

(3.) THE petitioner questioned the validity of the said Order in Criminal petition No. 1509 of 2005 but however, withdrew the same with liberty to file a Criminal Petition after the charge sheet was filed and recording the submission of the learned Counsel, the petition was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 12. 4. 2005. It is the further allegation of the petitioner that the 1st respondent revised the order dated 29. 3. 2005 by yet another order dated 29. 8. 2005 Annexure-"e" and hence, this writ petition to quash the sanction order.