Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 39 (KAR)

S. M. Raju v. Karnataka Lokayuktha

2014-01-09

A.S.BOPANNA

body2014
ORDER : A.S. Bopanna, J. 1. The petitioner is before this Court assailing the report dated 11.12.2003 at Annexure-A to the petition. The petitioner has also contended that the first respondent does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The brief facts are that in respect of certain allegations against the petitioner, a preliminary investigation was held by the first respondent and a report under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (for short the 'K.L. Act') was made. The complaint had been initiated by one Sri A.N. Rajanna, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta on 26.07.2003. Accordingly, a preliminary investigation was held and in the said proceedings before the first respondent, prior to the recommendation dated 11.12.2003 being made, the statements recorded on behalf of the witnesses was also taken into consideration. The details relating to the nature of allegations made, the manner in which the proceedings were held and the documents that were looked into is referred to in the report. 2. At the outset, what is necessary to be noticed is also that the said report was in respect of two officers named therein. In respect of Sri Shivalingamurthy, this Court has already considered the writ petition in W.P. No. 44842/2003 and the same has been disposed of on 23.02.2007 rejecting the contentions put forth in the writ petition. A copy of the order is filed before this Court. A perusal of the same would indicate, with regard to the manner in which the proceedings was held and the investigation being conducted by Sri A.N. Rajanna, Deputy Superintendent of Police, it has been adverted to in detail and no fault has been found. Hence, to the said extent, certainly when it is in respect of a common report, the same would be applicable to the instant facts as well. 3. Further, this Court in the said order had also taken note of the contention with regard to the manner in which the proceedings is to be held as contemplated under Section 9(3)of the K.L. Act and the contention in that regard with regard to lack of opportunity was also rejected. 3. Further, this Court in the said order had also taken note of the contention with regard to the manner in which the proceedings is to be held as contemplated under Section 9(3)of the K.L. Act and the contention in that regard with regard to lack of opportunity was also rejected. Notwithstanding the same, the learned counsel for the petitioner would presently contend that the manner of consideration made therein is not appropriate inasmuch as the grievance of the petitioner herein is that the principles of natural justice has not been complied by allowing cross-examination of the witnesses and therefore, the same has affected the case of the petitioner. 4. In that regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Prof. S.N. Hegde and Another v. The Lokayukta, Bangalore and Others (ILR 2004 KAR 3892) with specific reference to paragraph No. 87 after referring to earlier paragraphs. In that view, it is contended that when the witnesses are examined before the Lokayukta, an opportunity of cross-examination is to be provided. In the said case, this Court after making detailed consideration has stated in that regard is the contention. I have perused the judgment referred to by the learned counsel. This Court on taking note of the nature of the proceedings under Section 9 of the K.L. Act has also taken into consideration the manner in which the proceedings would be held before the Lokayukta, who would normally be a retired Supreme Court Judge or a Chief Justice of a High Court. 5. Having noticed that aspect of the matter, this Court no doubt has proceeded to state with regard to the principles of natural justice to be complied and the opportunity of cross-examination to be granted in the event of the witnesses being examined. The circumstance under which this Court had considered the said case and presently the manner in which the present report regarding which the petitioner has a grievance is not similar and that is also to be taken into consideration. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents, the present circumstance is where after taking note of the materials available on record, the first respondent has arrived at his conclusion by way of a report submitted to the Government for the purpose of further action to be taken in that regard. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents, the present circumstance is where after taking note of the materials available on record, the first respondent has arrived at his conclusion by way of a report submitted to the Government for the purpose of further action to be taken in that regard. The Government, on examination would thereafter come to a conclusion with regard to the further action that is required to be taken and in such proceedings, the petitioner in any event would have an opportunity of putting forth all his contentions even with regard to the correctness or otherwise of the conclusion reached therein or the materials that are taken into consideration by the first respondent for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion and the recommendation to be made to the Government. 6. Keeping this in perspective, it is also necessary to consider as to whether the grievance put forth by the petitioner with regard to the non-compliance of principles of natural justice could be accepted at all in the instant case is to be taken into consideration so as to come to a conclusion as to whether the report itself is not sustainable. The learned counsel for the petitioner no doubt has referred to the paragraphs No. 1.05 and 1.06 of the report to contend that the contents therein would indicate that witnesses were examined and documents were also marked, but no opportunity of cross-examination of the said witnesses has been granted. But, from paragraphs No. 4.05 and 4.06 of the report, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents, it is seen that the dispute not being raised regarding seizure mahazar etc., has been recorded. 7. Further, in order to consider as to whether at least the opportunity of adverting to the evidence that has been taken into consideration and the materials available has been granted to the petitioner, this Court had requested the learned counsel for the respondents to secure the records relating to the proceedings. The original file is made available to this Court. A perusal of the same would indicate that in the said proceedings as recorded, the statements of the witnesses who were examined as CW-1 to CW-11 and the documents that were marked was directed to be furnished to the petitioner to call for his reply. The original file is made available to this Court. A perusal of the same would indicate that in the said proceedings as recorded, the statements of the witnesses who were examined as CW-1 to CW-11 and the documents that were marked was directed to be furnished to the petitioner to call for his reply. A further recording in the file would disclose that pursuant to such directions of the Lokayukta, the statements recorded and also the documents noticed in the said proceedings has been made available to the petitioner. Further, on 10.03.2003, the petitioner in fact has appeared in person and submitted his comments. Subsequent thereto, the proceedings had been kept pending to secure the reply of the other officer namely Sri Shivamurthy, who was yet to furnish his reply. On obtaining the reply, the consideration was made and the recommendation has been made. 8. If these aspects are kept in view and even if the decision of this Court cited supra is taken into consideration, the manner in which the principles of natural justice was to be complied has been complied in the instant facts. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contends that an opportunity of cross-examination has not been provided and also notwithstanding the fact that I have already taken note of the fact that what is presently being assailed is the report, even in such circumstance, after the statements which had been recorded in the said proceedings was furnished, the petitioner had appeared in person and even at that stage, the petitioner did not make any further grievance with regard to any opportunity not being provided to him, but on the other hand has submitted his reply in response to the material and evidence that had been furnished to him and thereafter, the proceedings has been completed. 9. If these aspects of the matter are kept in view and also the nature of the opportunity that is required to be granted is taken into consideration, the materials relied on from the side of the complainant and the reply submitted by the officer concerned is what is required to be noticed by the respondents. 9. If these aspects of the matter are kept in view and also the nature of the opportunity that is required to be granted is taken into consideration, the materials relied on from the side of the complainant and the reply submitted by the officer concerned is what is required to be noticed by the respondents. Insofar as this Court considering as to whether such a report would call for interference would only be in a circumstance, if there is total non-application of mind to the facts and circumstance or the materials available on record that even a report on the face of it show absolutely no material. If in that background the report assailed herein is perused, it would indicate that the said statements of the witnesses that were recorded were relied on in the light of the reply that has been furnished by the petitioner and on application of the mind to both the versions, the first respondent has arrived at the conclusion that prime facie the allegations made against the petitioner would require further action in the matter and has recommended in the form as made to be submitted to the Government for the purpose of further action. Therefore, in such circumstance, when these aspects have been considered and a recommendation has been made and since the petitioner would have his opportunity in a regular proceedings and also keeping in view the fact that in respect of the other officer this Court has already arrived at a conclusion to dismiss the petition, I see no reason to interfere with the order dated 11.12.2003 impugned herein. Accordingly, the petition being devoid of merit stands dismissed.