Karnataka High Court quashes graft case against ex-MLC DS Veeraiah, cites lack of prior nod for prosecution

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has quashed proceedings against DS Veeraiah, former BJP MLC and Chairman of D Devaraj Urs Truck Terminal Limited (DDUTTL), in a case of alleged violation of contract for Rs 47 crore worth of works.

The court said the sanction obtained post facto under section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act cannot cure the threshold illegality of not having prior approval for investigation under section 17A.

On September 22, 2023, CN Shiva Prakash filed a complaint with the Wilson Garden police, alleging certain irregularities/illegalities in the tender process of piece work contracts pertaining to the repair and maintenance of terminals.

The allegation was that the tenders were awarded to the contractors without following the provisions of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements (KTPP) Act. The allegation was made against S Shankarappa, the then Managing Director of DDUTTL, and Veeraiah, the then Chairman.

Challenging the proceedings, it was argued on behalf of Veeraiah that though offences such as cheating, forgery, coming under the IPC, were mentioned, the offences alleged were factually under the PC Act. Hence, prior approval under section 17A of the PC Act from the competent authority was very much necessary before the commencement of the probe.

On the other hand, the police claimed that a sanction under section 19 of the PC Act had been granted, and hence, there is no requirement to seek approval under section 17A.

Justice M Nagaprasanna observed that registering a crime against unknown persons was a deliberate act on the part of the prosecution to get away from the rigour of section 17A of the PC Act. The court further noted that, realising the statutory requirement, approval under section 17A was sought at the hands of the competent authority, that too against S Shankarappa (accused number 1) and not against Veeraiah. While filing the chargesheet, offences under section 13(2) of the PC Act were included, the court said.

“Therefore, the prosecution is wanting to build its edifice on shifting sands. Sanction obtained post facto under Section 19 of the PC Act cannot cure the threshold illegality of not having prior approval under Section 17A of the PC Act. Therefore, the foundation being infirm, the structure cannot be sustained. Section 17A of the PC Act cuts at the root of the matter. The petition thus deserves to succeed,” Justice Nagaprasanna said, while quashing proceedings against Veeraiah.