Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 277 (KAR)

M. P. MUNIRATNAPPA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

2003-03-19

CHANDRASHEKARAIAH

body2003
CHANDRASHEKARAIAH, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner has challenged the order of the State Government dated 30. 7. 2002 according sanction for prosecution under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code. ( 2 ) THE petitioner is an officer in the State Accounts Department, government of Karnataka. While he was working on deputation in the Karnataka Housing Board as a Controller of Finance, on certain allegations a criminal complaint was lodged by the Karnataka housing Board with the jurisdictional police. Thereafter on certain investigations the Inspector General of Police submitted the report to the State Government seeking for grant of sanction for the purpose of prosecution under Section 197 of Cr. P. C. (hereinafter referred to as the Code ). On that Report, the Home Department passed an order according sanction for prosecution. The said order has been published in the name of the Governor as required under article 166 of the Constitution of India. This order is under challenge by the petitioner in this petition. ( 3 ) SRI B. B. Bajentri, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner is an officer in the Department of State accounts which was controlled by the Finance Department, the home Department has no jurisdiction or authority to accord sanction and therefore the impugned order which has been published in the name of the Governor on the basis of the order passed by the home Department is to be declared as illegal and void. ( 4 ) IN reply to the said submission the learned Government pleader submits that though the petitioner is working in the State accounts Department which comes under the Finance Department, the power to accord sanction under Section 197 of the Code has not been alloted to any Department under the Rules of Business framed by the Governor under Article 166 (2) and (3) of the constitution of India and therefore, it is only the Home Department which has the power to accord sanction, since the prosecution is by the State Police which come under Home Department. The learned Counsel appearing for both the parties admit that the power to sanction has not been specifically allocated to any Department under the Rules of Business. The alleged act of misappropriation if any is an offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code. In such cases, the prosecution is by the Police representing the State and no body else. The learned Counsel appearing for both the parties admit that the power to sanction has not been specifically allocated to any Department under the Rules of Business. The alleged act of misappropriation if any is an offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code. In such cases, the prosecution is by the Police representing the State and no body else. The State Police is a wing of the Home Department. If that is so, the Home Department is alone competent to accord sanction in the absence of allocating the power to accord sanction to any other Department under the Rules of Business. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the impugned sanction by the Home department and issuance of the order in the name of the Governor is valid in law. Hence, I find no substance in this Writ Petition. Accordingly, Writ Petition is rejected. --- *** --- .