File photo of Karnataka High Court.
Credit: DH Photo
Under the Prevention of Corruption Act, there will be different standards for granting approvals to investigate and granting prosecution sanctions, and one cannot be equated with the other, the High Court of Karnataka has ruled.
Justice NS Sanjay Gowda said this while dismissing a petition filed by Shreeroopa, a deputy secretary at the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA).
The petitioner had challenged the state government’s permission dated August 19, 2023, to investigate a matter pertaining to the re-alignment and reallotment of sites at 5th Stage of Sir M Vishweshwaraiah Layout.
The allegation was that six sites measuring 40X60 were converted into 12 sites measuring 30X40 without the approval of the original allottees and also re-allotting them to some others after re-numbering.
The Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) had moved the request under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act. The petitioner contended that approval by the state government was without application of mind and cannot be sustained.
Section 17A, inserted by way of an amendment in 2018, prohibits the investigating officer from investigating/inquiring into an offence, which is relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by the public servant in the discharge of the official functions, unless the government accords approval.
Under Section 19 of the PC Act, the competent authority accords permission to prosecute the public servant after the investigation is completed.
The court said that under Section 17A, the competent authority is only required to examine and consider whether the opinion formed by the investigating officer that an investigation is warranted is justified or not.
The court also said that the grant of ‘sanction to prosecute’ under Section 19 and the ‘grant of approval to investigate’ under Section 17A are two very different concepts and would be governed by completely different parameters.
"The state government has, on consideration of the materials placed before it, prima facie found that there was adequate material which indicated that an attempt had been made by the petitioner and the then commissioner to cause loss to the government, and therefore, in order to ascertain the truth in the matter, it was necessary to accord approval to conduct an investigation.
"In my view, this indicates that the state has applied its mind to the request made by the Investigating Officer and has considered the matter rationally before according its approval to investigate the petitioner and another,” Justice Sanjay Gowda said.