Judgment:
R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE26h DAY OF FEBRUARY2021BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P. KRISHNA BHAT WP Nos.63379-80/2016 (GM-RES) C/W WP Nos.58381-385/2016 (GM-RES), WP Nos.61291-302/2016 (GM-RES), WP No.65259/2016 (GM-RES), WP No.107657/2017 (GM-RES) WP Nos.63379-80 OF2016BETWEEN:
1. SRI.LAXMAN, S/O SRI JARANAPPA, AGED ABOUT42YEARS, ASSISTANT ENGINEER, PWD SUB-DIVISION, KOPPAL, KOPPAL DISTRCIT.583231.
2. SRI. M.N.PATIL, S/O.MALLAGANAGOUDA PATIL, AGED ABOUT61YEARS, RETIRED ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RWSS SUB-DIVISION, GANGAVATHI, R/AT:SINDAGI POST AND TALUK, VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT-586168. …PETITIONERS. (BY SRI.VIJAYKUMAR AND B.B.BAJANTRI AND PATTAR, ADVS.) AND1 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, 2 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, RURAL DEVELOPMENT & PANCHAYAT RAJ, DEPARTMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001.
2. THE REGISTRAR, KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560001.
3. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, KHANIJA BHAVAN, BANGALORE-560001.
4. THE POLICE INSPECTOR, ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, KOPPAL, KOPPAL DISTRICT-583231. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, HCGP FOR R-1. SRI ANIL KALE, ADV.FOR R-2 SRI SANTOSH MALAGOUDAR, ADV. FOR R-3 &4) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES226AND227OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION482OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS RELATING TO ISSUE OF THE
ORDERAND COMPLAINT DTD:3.10.2016 (ANNEXURE-A) OF THE R-1 AND THE FIR DTD:7.11.2016 IN CRIME NO.3/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KOPPAL AND QUASH THE
ORDERAND COMPLAINT DTD:03.10.2016 (ANNEXURE-A) OF THE R-1 AND THE FIR DTD:07.11.2016 IN CRIME NO.3/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KOPPAL DISTRICT VIDE ANNEXURE-B. 3 WP Nos.58381-385/2016 BETWEEN1. SRI S. RAVI PRASAD, S/O RAJANNA. S, AGED ABOUT57YEARS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD SUB DIVISION, R/AT22SRI LAXMINARASIMHANILAYA, V. N. RESIDENCY ROAD, CHIKKALASANDRA BANGALORE – 560061. 2 . SRI SELVA KUMAR S/O BALAKRISHNA T, AGED ABOUT47YEARS, JUNIOR ENGINEER C/O D NO D-4, KEB QUARTERS, BEHIND ESI HOSPITAL RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560010 3 . SRI ZAKIR HUSSAIN S/O B ABDUL LATEEF, AGED ABOUT57YEARS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MINOR IRRIGATION SUB DIVISION, KUSHTAGI, KOPPAL DISTRICT4. SRI H. VISHWANATH S/O SRI SADASHIVAPPA, AGED ABOUT52YEARS, ASSISTANT ENGINEER, M. I. SUB DIVISION, HALIYAL POST UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT5. SRI RAJSHEKAR KATTIMANI, S/O SRI MARIYAPPA KATTIMANI , AGED ABOUT42YEARS, WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINEER, 4 M I SUB DIVISION, KUSHTAGI KOPPAL DISTRICT. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560001 2 . THE REGISTRAR KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE – 560001. 3 . THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, KHANIJA BHAVAN, BANGALORE -560002. 4 . THE POLICE INSPECTOR ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, KOPPAL DISTRICT KOPPAL-583231. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI PRAVEEN K.UPPAR, HCGP FOR R-1) (SRI ANIL KALE, ADV. FOR R-2) (SRI SANTOSH MALAGOUDAR, ADV. FOR R-3 AND4 THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES226AND227OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION482OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS RELATING TO ISSUE OF THE
ORDERAND COMPLAINT DATED0310.2016 AT ANNEX-A OF R-1 AND THE FIR DATED0711.2016 IN CRIME NO.3/2016 ON THE FILE5OF THE PRL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, KOPPAL DISTRICT, VIDE ANNEX-B; QUASH THE
ORDERAND COMPLAINT DATED310.2016 AT ANNEX-A OF THE R-1 AND THE FIR DATED711.2016 IN CRIME NO.3/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, KOPPAL DISTRICT, VIDE ANNEX-B AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS THEREON. WP Nos.61291-302/2016 BETWEEN1. SRI P. VISHWANATH S/O SRI PARASAPPA AGED ABOUT55YEARS, WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINEER O/O. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PRE SUB-DIVISION,KOPPAL KOPPAL DISTRICT. 2 . SRI B. SHANKARAPPA S/O SRI SANNAPPA B. AGED ABOUT52YEARS, ASSISTANT ENGINEER PANCHAYATRAJ ENGINEERING SUB-DIVISION, KOPPAL, KOPPAL DISTRICT. 3 . SRI SHARANABASAPPA NAGALAPUR S/O SRI MAHADEVAPPA NAGALAPURA, AGED ABOUT55YEARS, ASSISTANT ENGINEER DIVISON-II, RURAL DRINKING WATER AND SANITATION SUB DIVISION, KOPPAL, KOPPAL DISTRICT. 4 . SRI ACHYUT RAO, S/O SRI SHESHAGIRI RAO, AGED ABOUT46YEARS, 6 ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PANCHAYATRAJ ENGINEERING SUB-DIVISION, KOPPAL, KOPPAL DISTRICT. 5 . SRI S. B. NAGOD, S/O SRI DODDAPPA NAGOD, AGED ABOUT55YEARS, WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINEER, O/O ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER RE SUB-DIVISION, KOPPAL, KOPPAL DISTRICT. 6 . SRI KALAKAYYA, S/O SRI VEERABADHRAYYA, AGED ABOUT58YEARS, WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINEER, TALUK PANCHAYAT, SHAHAPUR, YADAGIR DISTRICT7. SRI SHANKARGOWDA PATIL, S/O SRI DHARMAGOUDA, AGED ABOUT50YEARS, WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINEER PRE SUB-DIVISION, RON, GADAG DISTRICT. 8 . SRI M. ILIYAS S/O IBRAHIM SAB, AGED ABOUT54YEARS, WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINEER PRE SUB-DIVISION, YALBURGA, YALBURGA DISTRICT9. SRI VASANNA S/O SRI BHEMANNA GURLAHOSUR, AGED ABOUT47EARS WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINEER RWSS SUB-DIVISION, KUSTAGI KOPPAL DISTRICT. 7 10 . SRI OMKAR MURTHY, S/O SRI VEERACHAR B. AGED ABOUT54YEARS WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINEER, PRE SUB-DIVISION, YELABURGA, KOPPAL DISTRICT11. SRI V. S. HALLI, S/O SADASHIVAPPA HALLI AGED ABOUT44YEARS, WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINNER PRE SUB-DIVISION, SINDAGI, VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT12. SRI THOTAGANTI B. C. S/O CHANNAPPA TOTAGANTI, AGED ABOUT60YEARS, RETIRED ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD SUB-DIVISION, KUSTAGI, R/AT HOUSING COLONY, NEAR MARUTHI TEMPLE MANTUR ROAD,MUDHOL, BAGALKOT DISTRICT. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI VIJAYKUMAR, B.B. BAJANTRI & J.A. PATTAR, ADVOCATES) AND1 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT VIKAS SOUDHA BANGALORE-560 001 2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ANTI CORRUPATION BUREAU, KHANIJA BHAVAN, BANGALORE,-560001.
3. THE POLICE INSPECTOR8ANTI CORRUPPTION BUREAU KOPPAL, KOPPAL DISTRICT-583234. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.PRAVEEN K.UPPAR, HCGP, FOR R1. SRI SANTOSH MALAGOUDAR, ADV.FOR R-2 & 3.) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES226AND227OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION482OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS RELATING TO ISSUE OF THE
ORDERAND COMPLAINT DTD:3.10.2016 [ANNEXURE-A]. OF THE R-1 AND THE FIR DTD:7.11.2016 IN CRIME NO.3/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, KOPPAL DISTRICT VIDE ANNEXURE-B QUASH THE
ORDERAND COMPLAINT DTD:3.10.2016 [ANNEXURE-A]. OF THE R-1 AND THE FIR DTD:7.11.2016 IN CRIME NO.3/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, KOPPAL DISTRICT VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS THEREON. WP No.65259/2016 BETWEEN SRI. R. SHARANAPPA GOUDA S/O LATE SHIVANAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT58YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MINOR IRRIGATION SUB-DIVISION YADIGIRI R/AT NO.NIJLINGAPPA COLONY, RAICHUR ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR, B.B. BAJANTRI & J.A.PATTAR, ADVS.) 9 AND1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALURU-560 001 2 . THE REGISTRAR KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BENGALURU-560 001 3 . THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, KHANIJA BHAVAN, BENGALURU-560001. 4 . THE POLICE INSPECTOR ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, KOPPAL, KOPPAL DISTRICT-584128. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI PRAVEEN K.UPPAR HCGP FOR R-1. SRI ANIL KALE, ADV.FORE R-2. SRI S.B.NADAGOUDAR, ADV. FOR R3 AND4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES226AND227OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION482OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDERAND COMPLAINT DTD:3.10.2016 AS PER ANNEXURE-A OF THE R-1 AND THE FIR DTD:7.11.2016 IN CRIME NO.3/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE, KOPPAL DISTRICT, VIDE ANNXURE-B AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS THEREON CALL FOR THE RECORDS10RELATING TO ISSUE OF THE
ORDERAND COMPLAINT DTD:3.10.2016 AS PER ANNEXURE-A OF THE R-1 AND THE FIR DTD:7.11.2016 IN CRIME NO.3/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE, KOPPAL DISTRICT, VIDE ANNEXURE-B GRANT AN INTERIM
ORDERTO STAY ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN PRUSUANT TO
ORDERAND COMPLAINT DTD:3.10.2016 ASPER ANNEXURE-A OF THE R-1 AND THE FIR DTD:7.11.2016 IN CRIME NO.3/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE, KOPPAL DISTRICT, VIDE ANNEXURE-B. WP No.107657/2017 BETWEEN YAMNAPPA HANAMAPPA IDDALAGI S/O HANMAPPA R IDDALAGI, AGE:
55. YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BAGALKOT TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, SUB-DIVISION-1, BAGALKOT-587202. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI S.S.YADRAMI, ADVOCATE) AND1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, RURAL DEVELOPMENT and PANCHAYATRAJ DEPARTMENT, VIKAS SOUDAH, BANGALORE-560001. 2 . THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA11REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560001. 3 . THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, KHANIJA BHAVAN, BANGALORE-560001. 4 . THE POLICE INSPECTOR, ANTI CURRUPTION BUREAU, KOPPAL-583231, KOPPAL DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, HCGP FOR R1) (SRI ANIL KALE, ADV. FOR R2) (SRI SANTOSH B MALAGOUDAR, ADV. FOR R-3 AND4 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES226AND227OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION482OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO i) CALL FOR THE RECORDS RELATING TO ISSUE OF THE ORDR COMPLAINT BEARING NO.Gra.Aa.Pa.35 INQ2015DATED:03.10.2016 (ANNEXURE-A) OF THE1T RESPONDENT AND FIR DATED:07.11.2016 IN CRIME NO.3/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, KOPPAL VIDE ANNEXURE-B. ii) TO QUASH THE
ORDER/COMPLAINT DATED:03.10.2016 AND THE FIR DATED:07.11.2016 IN CRIME NO.3/2016 (ANNEXURE-A AND B) ON THE FILE OF THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS THEREON. THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON2402.2021 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDERTHIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
12. COMMON
ORDERIn all these petitions, prayer is for calling for the records relating to the issue of the order/complaint bearing No.Gra.Aa.Pa.35 Enq 2015, Bengaluru, dated 3.10.2016 (Annexure- A) of respondent No.1 and FIR dated 7.11.2016 in Crime No.3/2016 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Koppal and quash the same.
2. The petitioners in these batch of writ petitions are accused Nos.21, 4, 1, 23, 5, 26, 27, 6, 7, 8, 11, 14, 18, 20, 30, 10, 12, 29, 3, 2 and 16 in Crime No.3/2016 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Koppal. They were working in different capacities in Panchayat Raj Engineering Division of Koppal District at various of points of time between 21.09.2013 and 2016.
3. As per the proceedings of Government of Karnataka bearing No.Gra.Aa.Pa.35 Enq 2015, Bengaluru, dated 3.10.2016, the complaint was lodged for various offences punishable under IPC as well as under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and based on the same, case in Crime No.3/2016 was registered by the Anti- 13 Corruption Bureau (ACB) Police Station, Koppal Taluk, Koppal District. The petitioners are aggrieved by complaint as well as registration of the case pursuant to the same by the ACB Police against them and several others.
4. The allegations in the complaint pertain to the fact that under Rural Drinking Water Supply Scheme, certain project work was required to be executed by the Panchayat Raj Engineering Division, Koppal during the period 21.9.2013 to 6.2.2014 and a total sum of Rs.23,41,86,474/- was paid and in the execution of the project and payment of money for the same, there were several irregularities and complaints were received. Along with the complaint, 46 registers, 13 measurement books, cash books and other documents were also furnished by the Government to the ACB. The offences registered were under Sections 13(1)(c)(d)(i)(ii)(iii),(2) and 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ‘PC Act’) and under Sections 406, 408, 409, 417, 420, 464, 471, 477, 477(A) and 120(B) of IPC.
5. In all these petitions, on account of the interim order of stay earlier granted, the investigation could not be proceeded with in the last 5 years. 14
6. Heard Sri. Vijaykumar, Sri. Shivaraj Patil and Sri. S.S. Yadrami, learned counsel for the petitioners. I have also heard Sri. Santosh B Malagoudar, learned standing counsel for the Investigating Agency and Sri. Anil Kale, learned counsel for respondent No.2-Lokayukta and also learned HCGP.
7. Learned counsel Sri. Vijaykumar appearing for the petitioners in WP Nos.63379-80/2016, WP Nos.58381-385/2016 and WP Nos.61291-302/2016 contended that the complaint lodged and the FIR registered on the same is without authority of law and therefore, it is liable to be quashed. He submits that the enquiry and investigation held by the Upa-lokayukta is contrary to the provisions of Section 9 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 and it suffers from non-application of mind and therefore, it is vitiated and he also submitted that there is no Notification issued under Section 2(s) of Cr.P.C. declaring the ACB, Koppal as Police Station. Therefore, the case registered by the ACB, Koppal in Crime No.3/2016 is illegal.
8. Learned counsel Sri. S.S. Yadrami, appearing for the petitioner in WP No.107657/2017, apart from above grounds 15 contended that accused No.16 had reported for duty in Koppal on 28.2.2014 and therefore, the case registered as against him is wholly misconceived. He also submitted that the period mentioned in the FIR in respect of commission of irregularities and bribery is between 21.9.2013 and 6.2.2014 and since the petitioner (Accused No.16) had reported for duty only on 28.2.2014, he could not be prosecuted for the irregularities which had taken place much before he reporting for duty at Koppal.
9. Sri. Shivaraj Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner (Accused No.2) in WP No.65259/2016 submitted that the complaint does not give the details of the irregularities which occurred in the various taluks of Koppal and therefore, for lack of details, the petitioner could not have been prosecuted.
10. Sri. Santosh B Malagoudar, learned standing counsel appearing for the Investigating Agency, per contra, took me through the complaint and submitted that the allegations pursuant to the irregularities did not pertain only for the period between 21.9.2013 and 6.2.2014 and project work was continued even thereafter and, further, payments were made subsequent to 6.2.2014 by fabricating measurement books and issuing cheques 16 etc. He, therefore, submitted that the petitioners, who joined even subsequent to 6.2.2014 for duty in Koppal were also culpable and details could be unearthed only during the investigation. He contended that the complaint lodged clearly makes out the ingredients of cognizable offences and therefore, there is no error or illegality in the investigating agency registering the case and proceeding with the investigation. He further submitted that once the FIR registered is based on materials which disclose the commission of cognizable offence, preliminary enquiry or investigation held by the Upa-lokayukta pales into insignificance and any error in the proceedings held by the Upa-lokayukta will have no bearing on the case which was registered against the petitioners/accused. He further submits that there is a proper government order directing the lodging of the complaint and pursuant to the same, complaint was lodged and case was registered.
11. Insofar as WP No.107657/2017 (accused No.16) is concerned, learned standing counsel Sri. Santosh B Malagoudar submitted that the allegations in the complaint do not merely pertain to the period between 21.09.2013 and 6.2.2014 as the 17 project work continued even after 6.2.2014 and the measurement books were manipulated and payments towards bills were made subsequently after accused No.16 reporting for duty at Koppal. He submitted that the detailed investigation is required to be held to unearth the truth.
12. He further submitted that in regard to contention of learned counsel Sri. Vijay Kumar that there was no notification declaring ACB Koppal as Police Station is concerned, such a specific plea has not been taken in the writ petition and therefore, such contention should not be entertained. He further submitted that by Notification dated 21.4.2016, the Government of Karnataka had issued notification in exercise of the power conferred under Section 17(c) of the PC Act authorizing all the Inspectors of Police of ACB to register cases and hold investigation and therefore, there is no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. He, therefore, submitted that the stay issued in these petitions should be vacated and petitions should be dismissed and the investigation should be allowed to be continued in the interest of justice. 18
13. In order to appreciate the various contentions urged on behalf of the petitioners and the Investigating Agency, it is necessary to extract the complaint. It reads as follows: PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ £ÀqÀªÀ½UÀ¼ÀÄ «µÀAiÀÄ: ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvÀ gÁeï EAd¤AiÀÄjAUÀ «¨Ás UÀ, PÉÆ¥Àà¼À E°è ¢£ÁAPÀ 21.09.2013 jAzÀ 06.02.2014 gÀ CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ°Àè ¥ÁªÀw¹gÀĪÀ 1503 ©¯ïUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀzÀj ©¯ïUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÁªÀw¹gÀĪÀ C¢üPÁj/£ËPÀgÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ºÀt ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀĪÀ UÀÄwÛUÉzÁgÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ Qæ«Ä£À¯ï ªÉÆPÀzÀݪÉÄ ºÀÆr vÀ¤SÉ £ÀqɸÀ®Ä ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¨sÀȵÁÖZÁgÀ ¤UÀæºÀ zÀ¼ÀPÉÌ ªÀ»¸ÀĪÀ §UÉÎ. NzÀ¯ÁVzÉ:
1. ªÀÄÄRå EAd¤AiÀÄgï, ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvï gÁeï EAd¤AiÀÄjAUï E¯ÁSÉ EªÀgÀ ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀASÉå. ªÀÄÄEA/¥ÀAgÁEA/¨ÉA/¹-11/vÀ¤SÉ/32/2013-14 ¢£ÁAPÀ 05.01.2015.
2. ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉñÀ ¸ÀASÉå:UÁæC¥À 35 EJ£ïPÀÆå 2015, ¢£ÁAPÀ 20.03.2015.
3. ªÀiÁ£Àå G¥À¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀ vÀ¤SÁ ªÀgÀ¢ ¸ÀASÉå comp/uplok/gi.b-1231/2015 ¢£ÁAPÀ 06.07.2016. ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£É: ªÉÄÃ¯É PÀæªÀÄ ¸ÀASÉå (1) gÀ°è NzÀ¯ÁzÀ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ eÉÆvÉ ªÀÄÄRå EAd¤AiÀÄgï, ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvï gÁeï E¯ÁSÉ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ gÀªÀgÀÄ C¢üÃPÀëPÀ EAd¤AiÀÄgï, ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvï gÁeï EAdÀ¤AiÀÄjAUï ªÀÈvÀÛ, ¨É¼ÀUÁ« EªÀgÀ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ®UÀwÛ¹ ²æà J¸ï.gÀ«¥Àæ¸Ázï, ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ PÁAiÀÄð¥Á®PÀ EAd¤AiÀÄgï EªÀgÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvï gÁeï EAd¤AiÀÄjAUï «¨sÁUÀ, PÉÆ¥Àà¼À E°è£À PÁAiÀÄð¥Á®PÀ EAd¤AiÀÄgï ºÀÄzÉÝAiÀÄ°è ¥Àæ¨sÁgÀzÀ°è ¢£ÁAPÀ 21.09.2013 jAzÀ 06.02.2014gÀ CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ°è PÉ®¸À ¤ªÀð»¹zÀÄÝ, F CªÀ¢üAiÄÀ °è ¥ÁªÀw¹zÀ 1503 ©¯ïUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀévÀAvÀæ ¸ÀA¸ÉܬÄAzÀ vÀ¤SÉ £ÀqɸÀĪÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ ¸ÀPÁðgÀPÉÌ ²¥sÁgÀ¸ÀÄì ªÀiÁrzÀÝ£ÀÄß C£ÀĸÀj¹, ¸ÀPÁÀðgÀªÀÅ ªÉÄÃ¯É NzÀ¯ÁzÀ (2) gÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ:20.03.2015 gÀ DzÉñÀzÀ°è F PÄÀ jvÀÄ «ªÀgÀªÁzÀ vÀ¤SÉ £ÀqɸÀ®Ä ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀ£ÀÄß PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ PÁAiÉÄÝ -1984gÀ PÀ®A72) gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ ªÀiÁ£Àå G¥À¯ÉÆÃPÀAiÀÄÄPÀÛjUÉ ªÀ»¸À¯ÁVvÀÄÛ. ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvï gÁeï EAd¤AiÀÄjAUï «¨sÁUÀ, PÉÆ¥Àà¼À E°è ¢£ÁAPÀ:21.09.2013 jAzÀ 06.02.2014 gÀªÀgÉV£À CªÀ¢AiÄÀ °è 19 J£ï.Dgï.r.qÀ§Æè.¦ AiÉÆÃd£ÉAiÀÄr PÉƼÀªÉ ¨Á« PÉÆgÉAiÀÄĪÀzÀÄ. CAUÀ£ÀªÁr/±Á¯Á PÀlÖqÀUÀ½UÉ ¤ÃgÀÄ ¸ÀgÀ§gÁdÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ EvÀgÉ PÁªÀÄUÁjUÀ½UÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ ¥ÁªÀw¹zÀ MlÄÖ 1503 ©¯ïUÀ¼À£ÀÄß C¼ÀvÉ ¥ÀĸÀÛPÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ EvÀgÉ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À §UÉÎ ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ PÀZÉÃjAiÀÄÄ ¥Àj²Ã°¹zÀÄÝ, ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è PÀAqÀħAzÀ CA±ÀUÀ¼À §UÉÎ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÉÄÃ¯É NzÀ¯ÁzÀ (3)gÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ 06.07.2016gÀ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ eÉÆvÉÉ ¥ÀÆgÀPÀ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼ÉÆA¢UÉ ¸ÀPÁðgÀPÉ ¸À°è¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ªÀiÁ£Àå G¥À ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀªÀgÀ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯ÁV, PÀÄrAiÀÄĪÀ ¤Ãj£À PÁªÀÄUÁjUÀ¼À°è ¥ÁªÀw¸À¯ÁVgÀĪÀ ªÉÆvÀÛzÀ°è UÀA©üÃgÀ ¸ÀégÀÆ¥ÀzÀ CPÀæªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ £ÀqÉ¢gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ºÀt zÀÄgÀÄ¥ÀAiÉÆÃUÀªÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ªÉÄïÉÆßÃlPÉÌ PÀAqÀħA¢gÀªÀÅzÀjAzÀ ¨sÀȵÁÖZÁgÀ ¤ªÀÄÆð®£Á PÁAiÉÄÝÀ ºÁUÀÆ ¨Ás gÀwÃAiÀÄ zÀAqÀ ¸ÀA»vÉAiÀÄr PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊUÉÆAqÀÄ «ªÀgÀªÁzÀ vÀ¤SÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £ÀqɸÀ®Ä CªÀ±ÀåªÉAzÀÄ ¸ÀPÁðgÀPÉÌ ²¥sÁgÀ¸ÀÄì ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¸ÀPÁðgÀªÀÅ ªÀiÁ£Àå H¥À¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀ vÀ¤SÁ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÁUÀÆ EvÀgÉ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¹zÀÄÝ, ©®ÄèUÀ¼À ¥ÁªÀwAiÀÄ°è F PɼÀPÀAqÀ CPÀæªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ PÀAqÀÄ §A¢gÀÄvÀÛªÉ:- 1. The bills relating to Multiple Village Schemes stated supra are passed without verification of work, from which prima facie inference can be drawn that the Bills were passed either without execution of work or verification of work.
2. Measurement Books in relation to works undertaken under Multiple Village Schemes are written after the Bills were passed, as is obvious from the contents of Measurement books and copies of CC Bills. The measurements are recorded at a stretch, without verification of work. The entries in the measurement book do not reflect verification of work and the measurements shown in the measurement books are apparently false. The officer incharge of work had recorded the measurement book on the basis of estimates without verification of work.
3. In none of the CC Bills, name of the scheme, details of work already executed, details of payments already made and the work for which the present Bills were 20 passed are forthcoming. The CC Bills do not bear the date of inspection of work by the officer in charge of work and verification of work by the jurisdictional Asst. Executive Engineer. The Incharge Executive Engineer, Panchayath Raj Engineering Division, Koppal, before passing the Bills, which runs to several crores of rupees had not bothered to verify the execution of works and record qualitative and quantitative satisfactory execution of works.
4. The above works (Multiple Village Scheme Works) were on-going works. The works were undertaken in several villages under Rajiv Gandhi Submission Water Supply Scheme. Some of the works were entrusted in the year 2008 and some works were entrusted in the year 2009 and 2010. The fact remains that the Bills were passed by the Incharge Executive Engineer, without verification of works.
5. The measurements were not taken at different stages to ensure measurements of trenches dug, length of pipes laid and quality of pipes.
6. The services of senior geologist was not availed in the execution of works. The measurement of water level, water yield, length of casing pipe are not stated.
7. The work completion certificates are obscure. In the work completion reports appended to CC Bills, we find the works were entrusted to different agencies and the work completion reports were given by different agencies.
8. The date on which the measurements were recorded and the entries in the measurement book are inconsistent.
9. There is no proper certificate regarding verification of satisfactory qualitative and quantitative execution of work by the officer in charge of work. 21
10.The jurisdictional Asst. Executive Engineer, apart from affixing his signature has not certified that he had ever verified the work and recorded qualitative and quantitative satisfactory execution of work. 11.The details of work appended to CC Bills are nothing but reiterations of estimates. The details of work appended to CC Bills and the contents of Measurement books are inconsistent and contradictory. Some of the measurement books which were in stores are recycled for the purpose of recording measurements after the Bills were passed. 12.In some of the bills, the date of entrustment of work, date of completion of work are shown on the same day and the Bills were passed on same day. 13.The measurements in relation to several works are stated to have been recorded on a single day, which is practically impossible. 14.The water yield level is not recorded in volumetric expressions. It is recorded as 1” or 2”. Recording of water yield in volumetric expression was very much essential to determine whether hand-pump had to be fixed or submersible motor had to be fixed to the bore well. 15.In all the CC Bills, seals are affixed to show that payments were made through cheques. This is contrary to the contents of cash book, where it is shown that payments were made through RTGS. 16.The cash book entries were not attested by the Incharge Executive Engineer. In the cash book, in relation to certain Bills, it is not shown whether the amounts were paid through RTGS or through cheques. In other words, there are misleading statements regarding mode of payment of Bill amount to the contractors. 22
17.In relation to majority of works, entrustment or work on piece work basis did not have the approval of Superintending Engineer. 18.The e-stamp papers used for piece work agreements are ante-dated. The seals of piece work agreement affixed on the obverse or e-stamp paper are incomplete. The signature of contractors are at variance. 19.PWD Forms No.64 are incomplete, bereft of details. Many of the forms do not bear the signature of so-called contractor. 20.The incharge Executive Engineer, on his own had sanctioned the work on piece work basis without following the procedure. 21.The works entrusted to several contractors on piece work basis runs into several lakhs of rupees. The works were split to entrust the same on piece work basis and to bring down the value of work within Rs.50,000/-. 22.In relation to many of the Bills, the piece work agreements were entered into on the previous day or on the day of passing of Bills. 23.Certain items of work such as fixing of submersible motors, panel boards, switch gears, which are purely electrical in nature are certified by civil engineers. 24.In certain Bills, nature of work is shown as sinking of bore well and fixing of motors. Whereas bills were passed only with regard to fixing of submersible motor pumps. It is not clear when the bore wells were sunk, whether there was sufficient yield of water to fix the submersible pumps and when these bore wells were sunk, whether they were left without any hand pump or submersible motors. 25.In relation to supply of water to the Anganwadi Buildings and school buildings, laying of pipes, fixing of motors and overhead tanks (Synthetic tanks), the Bills 23 were passed on the basis of photographs, without verification of work, even without recording in the measurement books. 26.In many of the Bills, signature of contractors in the CC Bills and piece work agreements are different. 27.The work completion report submitted in relation to certain bills are signed by persons other than the contractors, who have affixed signatures on the CC Bills. 28.The works were not inspected at different stages by the officer in charge of work. Even in relation to ongoing works, there was no periodical inspection of work. The Bills were passed by appending the replica of estimates to the CC Bills and thereafter, measurement books were written by reiterating the estimates. The measurements were recorded in the measurement books after the Bills were passed. 29.In the Schedule, details of work are furnished. In many Bills, the date of completion of work is left blank. 30.In some of the Bills, the nature of work is shown as sinking of Bore well, without mentioning the place of sinking of Bore well. 31.In relation to many bills, the contracting agency has not attested the Bills. 32.In none of the Bills, there was supporting certificate to show that the work shown in CC Bill was not covered under the previous schemes. None of the following instructions in respect of NRDWP schemes was followed. 33.Measurement books do not bear the attestation of the officer in charge of work and also jurisdictional Asst. Executive Engineer. 34.In relation to some of the works covered under the CC Bills passed by the Incharge Executive Engineer, the Superintending 24 Engineer has been kept in dark. There was no periodical submission of statement of either execution of work or payment to the contractor, to the Superintending Engineer, Panchayath Raj Engineering Circle, Bellary. 35.A sum of Rs.24.00 Lakhs was paid to M/s. Siridi Sai Technical Consultants, Raichur towards consultancy charges and preparation of estimates. The work of outsourcing does not have the approval of Superintending Engineer. The so-called reports-estimates submitted by M/s. Sirdi Sai Technical Consultants are not available in the office (as noticed during the spot inspection on 10/06/2016). 36.The agreement entered into between the Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj Engineering Division, Koppal with M/s. Sirdi Sai Technical Consultants is not dated. The date is left blank and stated to have been executed somewhere in the month of October, 2013. The agreement does not contain the essential terms. 37.There was no need for outsourcing of reports and estimates, more particularly, the Zilla Panchayath Engineers have technical expertise in regard to sinking of bore well and laying of pipelines, etc. 38.In the measurement book in relation to payment of consultancy charges to M/s. Sirdi Sai Technical Consultants, Raichur, at the first instance, name of AIPS, Nidagundi, near Almatti Dam, Vijayapura was written as Consultant and thereafter, it was scored off and name of M/s. Sirdi Sai Technical Consultants was written. 39.The CC Bills do not bear the RTGS Account numbers to show that the amounts were transferred through RTGS. Even in the cash book, the account numbers of contractors are not mentioned to show that the amounts were paid through RTGS. 25
40.There was no periodical approval from the Head of the Department for transferring the amount through RTGS. 41.In none of the CC bills, it is shown that the amount was transferred to the contractor through RTGS. A seal is affixed stating the amount is paid through Cheque. Even the cheque numbers is no stated in CC Bill. The seals affixed on the CC Bills are totally obscure. 42.The Incharge Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj Engineering Division, Koppal and the Audit Officer have affixed their signatures. But the date is not found below their signatures. The date of passing of Bill is not forthcoming in any of the Bills. 43.In RTGS Authorization of payment to the contractors under NRDWP, voucher Numbers are written in ink subsequent to the payment, presumably after the Bills were taken up for examination. 44.In many cases, the RTGS Authorizations are consolidated. 45.The authorization for RTGS payments do not bear the dates. 46.In some of the Bills, signatures of contractor are different from the signatures of piece worker in agreement and PWD Forms No.64. 47.In RTGS Authorizations, the Bills passed on different dates are consolidated. 48.The incharge Executive Engineer and also the Audit Officer have operated the RTGS Account, as if they were operating their personal account. 49.The Manager of Bank, (Syndicate Bank, Koppal Branch) where the account was held by the Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj Engineering Division, Koppal has not indicated the date on which the amount was transferred to the account of the contractor. 26
50.In some of the RTGS Authorizations, Bill numbers are overwritten without there being any attestation. ªÉÄÃ¯É £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹gÀĪÀ ¥ÀæªÀÄÄR CPÀæªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ²æà J¸ï.gÀ«¥Àæ¸Ázï, »A¢£À ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ PÁAiÀÄð¥Á®PÀ EAd¤ÃAiÀÄgï, ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvï gÁeï EAd¤AiÀÄjAUï G¥À«¨sÁUÀ, UÀAUÁªÀw EªÀgÀÄ PÆÉ ¥Àà¼À ¥ÀA.gÁ.EA «¨sÁUÀzÀ PÁAiÀÄð¥Á®PÀ EAd¤AiÀÄgï ºÀÄzÉÝAiÀÄ°è C¢üPÀ ¥Àæ¨sÁgÀzÀ°è ¢£ÁAPÀ 21.09.2013 jAzÀ 06.02.2014 gÀ ªÀgÉV£À CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ°è £ÀqÉ¢gÀÄvÀÛªÉ. F CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ°è MlÄÖ 1503 ©¯ïUÀ¼À°è MlÄÖ 23,41,86,474/- UÀ¼À£ÀÄß UÀÄwÛUÉzÁgÀjUÉ ¥ÁªÀw¹zÀÄÝ, ¸ÀzÀj ©¯ï UÀ¼À°è C£ÀĪÀiÁ£À¸ÀàzÀªÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀÄ §A¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ©¯ïUÀ¼À°è C¥ÀÆtðªÁzÀ ªÀiÁ»wAiÀÄ£ÀÄß C¼ÀªÀr¹gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß w¢ÝzÀAvÉ PÀAqÀħA¢gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ SÉÆmÉÖ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸Àȶ¹gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀºÀ ªÉįÉÆßÃlPÉÌ PÀAqÀÄ §A¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¥Àæ²ßvÀ ©¯ïUÀ¼À ¥ÁªÀwAiÀÄ°è «¨sÁUÀzÀ PÁAiÀÄð¥Á®PÀ EAd¤AiÀÄgï G¥À«¨sÁUÀzÀ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ PÁAiÀÄð¥Á®PÀ EAd¤AiÀÄgï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ±ÁSÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀºÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹gÀĪÀ CPÀæªÀÄUÀ½UÉ ºÉÆuÉUÁgÀgÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀħgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¥ÁªÀw¹gÀĪÀ ©¯ïUÀ¼ÀÄ £ÀPÀ°AiÀÄAvÉ PÀAqÀħA¢gÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ ¥ÁªÀw ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ J£À߯ÁzÀ UÀÄwÛUÉzÁgÀgÀÄ ¸ÀºÀ F ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è ºÉÆuÉUÁgÀgÁVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. MmÁÖgÉ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀ C¢üPÁj/É£ËPÀgÀgÀÄ UÀÄwÛUÉzÁgÀgÉÆA¢UÉ ±Á«ÄïÁV, ¸ÀPÁðgÀPÉÌ §ÈºÀvï ¥ÀæªÀiÁtzÀ DyðPÀ ªÀAZÀ£É J¸ÀVgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ, F jÃw Qæ«Ä£À¯ï ¸ÀégÀÆ¥ÀzÀ zÀÄ£ÀðqÀvÉ J¸ÀUÀĪÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀPÉÌ «±Áé¸À zÉÆæúÀªÉ¸ÀVgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀºÀ PÀAqÀÄ §A¢gÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ PÉÆ¥Àà¼À ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvï gÁeï EAd¤AiÀÄjAUï «¨sÁUÀzÀ »A¢£À ¥Àæ¨sÁj PÁAiÀÄð¥Á®PÀ EAd¤AiÀÄgï DzÀ ²æà Dgï. gÀ«¥Àæ¸ÁzÀ, AiÀÄ®§ÄUÁð, PÉÆ¥Àà¼À, UÀAUÁªÀw, ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÀĵÀÖV G¥À «¨sÁUÀUÀ¼À ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ PÁAiÀÄð¥Á®PÀ EAd¤AiÀÄgï, ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ EAd¤AiÀÄgÀUÀ¼À/±ÁSÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼À «gÀÄzÀÞ ¨sÀȵÁÖZÁgÀ ¤ªÄÀ Æð®£Á PÁAiÀÄzÉ-1988 gÀ C£ÀĸÁgÀ Qæ«Ä£À¯ï ªÉÆPÀzÀݪÉÄAiÀÄ£ÀÄß zÁR°¹ ¥Àæ²ßvÀ 1503 ©¯ïUÀ¼À §UÉÎ ¸ÀA¥ÀÆtð vÀ¤SÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £ÀqɸÀ®Ä ¸ÀPÁðgÀªÀÅ ¤zsÀðj¹gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. DzÀÝjAzÀ F DzÉñÀ. ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉñÀ ¸ÀASÉå UÁæC¥À EJ£ïPÀÆå 2015, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ, ¢£ÁAPÀ 03.10.2016 ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ°è «ªÀj¸ÀĪÀ PÁgÀtUÀ¼À »£É߯ÉAiÀÄ°è, ¸ÀPÁðgÀªÀÅ ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvï gÁeï EAd£ÀAiÀÄjAUï «¨sÁUÀ, PÉÆ¥Àà¼À E°è ¢£ÁAPÀ 21.09.2013 jAz 06.02.2014gÀªÀgÉUÉ UÁæ«ÄÃt PÀÄrAiÀÄĪÀ ¤ÃgÀÄ 27 ¸ÀgÀ§gÁdÄ AiÉÆÃd£ÉAiÀÄr ¥ÁªÀw¹zÀ gÀÆ.23,41,86,474/- ªÉÆvÀÛzÀ MlÄÖ 1503 ©¯ïUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÁªÀw¸À®Ä PÁgÀtgÁzÀ F PɼÀPÀAqÀ C¢üPÁj/À£ËPÀgÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ Criminal Breach of Trust, Forgery of Public Records, Fabrication of Documents, Falsification of Documents, Accounts and Criminal ConspiracyUÁV ªÀÄÄAvÁzÀ C¥ÀgÁ¢üPÀ zÀÄ£ÀðqÀvÉUÀ¼À PÀÄjvÀAvÉ Qæ«Ä£À¯ï vÀ¤SÉ £ÀqɸÀ®Ä ¨sÀȵÁÖZÁgÀ ¤ªÀÄÆð®£Á PÁAiÉÄÝ 1988gÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀÀ£ÀÄß ¨sÀȵÁÖZÁgÀ ¤UÀæºÀ zÀ¼ÀPÉÌ ªÀ»¹ DzÉò¹zÉ:- 1. ²æà gÀ«¥Àæ¸Ázï, »A¢£À ¥Àæ¨sÁj PÁAiÀÄð¥Á®PÀ EAd¤ÃAiÀÄgï, ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvï gÁeï EAd¤AiÀÄjAUï «¨sÁUÀ, PÉÆ¥Àà¼À.
2. ²æà ±ÀgÀt¥ÀàUËqÀ »A¢£À ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ PÁAiÀÄð¥Á®PÀ EAd¤ÃAiÀÄgï, ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvï gÁeï EAd¤AiÀÄjAUï G¥À«¨Ás UÀ, PÉÆ¥Àà¼À.
3. ²æà ©.¹. vÉÆÃlUÀAmÉ, »A¢£À ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ PÁAiÀÄð¥Á®PÀ EAd¤ÃAiÀÄgï, ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvï gÁeï EAd¤AiÀÄjAUï G¥À«¨Ás UÀ, AiÀÄ®§ÄUÁð.
4. ²æà JA.J£ï. ¥Ánïï, »A¢£À ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ PÁAiÀÄð¥Á®PÀ EAd¤ÃAiÀÄgï, ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvï gÁeï EAd¤AiÀÄjAUï G¥À«¨sÁUÀ, UÀAUÁªÀw ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvï.
5. ²æà eÁQÃgï, ºÀĸÉãï, »A¢£À ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ PÁAiÀÄð¥Á®PÀ EAd¤ÃAiÀÄgï, ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvï gÁeï EAd¤AiÀÄjAUï G¥À«¨Ás UÀ, PÀĵÀÖV ªÀÄvÀÄÛ AiÀÄ®§ÄUÁð.
6. ²æà ¦. «±Àé£ÁxÀ, ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ EAd¤ÃAiÀÄgï, ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvï gÁeï EAd¤AiÀÄjAUï G¥À«¨sÁUÀ, PÉÆ¥Àà¼À.
7. ²æà ±ÀAPÀæ¥Àà, »A¢£À ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ EAd¤ÃAiÀÄgï, ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvï gÁeï EAd¤AiÀÄjAUï G¥À«¨sÁUÀ, PÉÆ¥Àà¼À.
8. ²æà ±ÀgÀt§¸À¥Àà, £ÁUÀ¯Á¥ÀÄgÀ, »A¢£À ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ EAd¤ÃAiÀÄgï, ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvï gÁeï EAd¤AiÀÄjAUï G¥À«¨sÁUÀ, PÉÆ¥Àà¼À.
9. ²æà dUÀ¢Ã±À, »A¢£À QjAiÀÄ EAd¤ÃAiÀÄgï, ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvï gÁeï EAd¤AiÀÄjAUï G¥À«¨sÁUÀ, PÉÆ¥Àà¼À.
10. ²æà ªÁ¸ÀtÚ »A¢£À QjAiÀÄ EAd¤ÃAiÀÄgï, ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvï gÁeï EAd¤AiÀÄjAUï G¥À«¨sÁUÀ, PÉÆ¥Àà¼À ªÀÄvÀÄÛ AiÀÄ®§ÄUÁð 11. ²æà CZÀÄåvÀgÁªÀ »A¢£À QjAiÀÄ EAd¤ÃAiÀÄgï, ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvï gÁeï EAd¤AiÀÄjAUï G¥À«¨sÁUÀ, PÉÆ¥Àà¼À.
12. ²æà NAPÁgÀªÀÄÆwð, »A¢£À QjAiÀÄ EAd¤ÃAiÀÄgï, ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvï gÁeï EAd¤AiÀÄjAUï G¥À«¨sÁUÀ, PÉÆ¥Àà¼À. 28
13. ²æà ±ÀgÀt§¸À¥Àà, »A¢£À QjAiÀÄ EAd¤ÃAiÀÄgï, ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvï gÁeï EAd¤AiÀÄjAUï G¥À«¨sÁUÀ, PÉÆ¥Àà¼À.
14. ²æà J¸ï.©.£ÁUÉÆÃqÀ, »A¢£À QjAiÀÄ EAd¤ÃAiÀÄgï, ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvï gÁeï EAd¤AiÀÄjAUï G¥À«¨sÁUÀ, PÉÆ¥Àà¼À.
15. ²æà ¦.«dAiÀÄPÀĪÀiÁgÀ »A¢£À ¥Àæ¨Áj ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ PÁAiÀÄð¥Á®PÀ EAd¤ÃAiÀÄgï, ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvï gÁeï EAd¤AiÀÄjAUï G¥À«¨Ás UÀ, AiÀÄ®§ÄUÁð ªÀÄvÀÄÛ UÀAUÁªÀw.
16. ²æà ªÉÊ. ºÉZï.EzÀÝ®V, »A¢£À ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ PÁAiÀÄð¥Á®PÀ EAd¤ÃAiÀÄgï, ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvï gÁeï EAd¤AiÀÄjAUï G¥À«¨Ás UÀ, AiÀÄ®§ÄUÁð 17. ²æà ¥ÀzÀä£Á¨sÀ eÉÆö, »A¢£À QjAiÀÄ EAd¤ÃAiÀÄgï, ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvï gÁeï EAd¤AiÀÄjAUï G¥À«¨sÁUÀ, AiÀÄ®§ÄUÁð.
18. ²æà PÀ¼ÀPÀAiÀÄå, »A¢£À QjAiÀÄ EAd¤ÃAiÀÄgï, ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvï gÁeï EAd¤AiÀÄjAUï G¥À«¨sÁUÀ, AiÀÄ®§ÄUÁð.
19. ²æà CvÀÛgÀ ºÀĸÉãï, »A¢£À QjAiÀÄ EAd¤ÃAiÀÄgï, ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvï gÁeï EAd¤AiÀÄjAUï G¥À«¨sÁUÀ, AiÀÄ®§ÄUÁð.
20. ²æà ±ÀAPÀgÀUËqÀ ¥Ánïï, »A¢£À QjAiÀÄ EAd¤ÃAiÀÄgï, ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvï gÁeï EAd¤AiÀÄjAUï G¥À«¨sÁUÀ, AiÀÄ®§ÄUÁð.
21. ²æà ®PÀëöät »A¢£À ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ EAd¤ÃAiÀÄgï, ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvï gÁeï EAd¤AiÀÄjAUï G¥À«¨sÁUÀ, UÀAUÁªÀw.
22. ²æà gÁWÀªÉÃAzÀægï »A¢£À QjAiÀÄ EAd¤ÃAiÀÄgï, ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvï gÁeï EAd¤AiÀÄjAUï G¥À«¨sÁUÀ, UÀAUÁªÀw.
23. ²æà ¸É®éPÀĪÀiÁgÀ, »A¢£À QjAiÀÄ EAd¤ÃAiÀÄgï, ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvï gÁeï EAd¤AiÀÄjAUï G¥À«¨sÁUÀ, UÀAUÁªÀw.
24. ²æà PÉ.©.gÀ« »A¢£À QjAiÀÄ EAd¤ÃAiÀÄgï, ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvï gÁeï EAd¤AiÀÄjAUï G¥À«¨sÁUÀ, AiÀÄ®§ÄUÁð.
25. ²æà gÀ«PÀĪÀiÁgï, »A¢£À QjAiÀÄ EAf¤AiÀÄgï, ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvï gÁeï EAd¤AiÀÄjAUï G¥À«¨sÁUÀ, UÀAUÁªÀw.
26. ²æÃ. ºÉZï. «±Àé£ÁxÀ, »A¢£À ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ EAf¤AiÀÄgï, ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvï gÁeï EAd¤AiÀÄjAUï G¥À«¨sÁUÀ, PÀĵÀÖV.
27. ²æà gÁd±ÉÃRgÀ PÀnÖªÀĤ, »A¢£À ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ EAf¤AiÀÄgï, ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvï gÁeï EAd¤AiÀÄjAUï G¥À«¨sÁUÀ, PÀĵÀÖV.
28. ²æà J.J£ï.SÉʸÁgï, »A¢£À ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ EAf¤AiÀÄgï, ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvï gÁeï EAd¤AiÀÄjAUï G¥À«¨sÁUÀ, PÀĵÀÖV.
29. ²æà «.J¸ï.ºÀ½î, »A¢£À ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ EAf¤AiÀÄgï, ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvï gÁeï EAd¤AiÀÄjAUï G¥À«¨sÁUÀ, PÀĵÀÖV.
30. ²æà JA. E°AiÀiÁ¸ï, »A¢£À ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ EAf¤AiÀÄgï, ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvï gÁeï EAd¤AiÀÄjAUï G¥À«¨sÁUÀ, PÀĵÀÖV.
31. ¥Àæ²ßvÀ 1503 ©¯ïUÀ¼À ¥ÁªÀw ¥ÀqÉzÀ UÀÄwÛUÉzÁgÀgÀÄ. 29 PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdå¥Á®gÀ DzÉñÁ£ÀĸÁgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ ºÉ¸Àj£À°è ¸À»/- (¹zÉÝñÀ ¥ÉÆvÀ®PÀnÖ) ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ C¢üãÀ PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ð (¸ÉêÉUÀ¼ÀÄ-J) UÁæ«ÄÃuÁ©üªÀÈ¢Þ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvï gÁeï E¯ÁSÉ.
14. Pursuant to the said complaint, ACB registered the case in Crime No.3/2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(c)(d)(i)(ii)(iii),(2), 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ‘PC Act’) and under Sections 406, 408, 409, 417, 420, 464, 471, 477, 477(A), 120(B) of IPC against the petitioners and others.
15. Column No.9 of the FIR reads as follows: ¥ÀæxÀªÀÄ ªÀvÀðªÀiÁ£À ªÀgÀ¢ (154 ¹.Dgï.¦.¹. PÁAiÉÄÝ C£ÀéAiÀÄ) J¥sï.L.Dgï. C£ÀĸÀÆa ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ¢üñÀgÀÄ, f¯Áè ¸ÀvÀæ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ «±ÉõÀ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ, PÉÆ¥Àà¼À gÀªÀgÀ°è. ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉ, ¢£ÁAPÀ:
07. 11.2016 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀÄÄAeÁ£É 10-30 UÀAmÉUÉ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdå ¸ÀgÀPÁgÀ¢AzÀ ¨sÀÈóµÁÖZÁgÀ ¤UÀæºÀ zÀ¼À PÉÃAzÀæ PÀbÉÃj, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄgÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀiÁ£Àå J¸ï.¦.§¼ÁîjgÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄÄSÁAvÀgÀ §AzÀ zÀÆj£À C£ÀéAiÀÄ, ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvÀ gÁeï EAd¤AiÀÄjAUï «¨sÁUÀ PÉÆ¥Àà¼ÀzÀ°è ¢£ÁAPÀ 21-09-2013 jAzÀ 06-02- 2014gÀªÀgÉUÉ UÁæ«ÄÃt PÀÄrAiÀÄĪÀ ¤ÃgÀÄ ¸ÀgÀ§gÁdÄ AiÆÉ Ãd£É CrAiÀÄ°è ¥ÁªÀw¹zÀ MlÄÖ gÀÆ.23,41,86,474=00UÀ¼À PÁªÀÄUÁjUÀ¼À°è CªÀåªÀºÁgÀ ºÁUÀÆ CPÀæªÀĪɸÀVzÀ §UÉÎ zÀÆgÀÄ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. EzÀgÀ°è MAzÀÄ PÀ©âtzÀ ¥ÉnÖUÉAiÀÄ°è F §UÉÎ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖ 46 ¸ÀA¥ÀÄlUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ gÀf¸ÁÛçgïÀªÀgÀ ¥ÀvÀæ M¼ÀUÉÆAqÀ 13 C¼ÀvÉ 30 ¥ÀĸÀÛPÀ, PÁå±ï §ÄPï M¼ÀUÉÆAqÀ zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼ÀÄ EgÀÄvÀÛªÉ. ¦ügÁå¢zÁgÀgÀÄ MlÄÖ 30 d£À C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ, UÀÄwÛUÉzÁgÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ EvÀgÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ Criminal breach of trust, Forgery of public records, Fabrication of documents, Falsification of documents, Accounts and Criminal Conspiracy UÁV ªÀÄÄAvÁzÀ C¥ÀgÁ¢üPÀ zÀÄ£ÀðqÀvÉUÀ¼À PÀÄjvÀÀAvÉ Qæ«Ä£À¯ï vÀ¤SÉ £ÀqɸÀ®Ä ¨sÀȵÁÖZÁgÀ ¤ªÀÄÆð®£É PÁAiÉÄÝ 1988 gÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀ£ÀÄß zÁR°¸À®Ä EzÀÝ zÀÆj£À ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ PÉÆ¥Àà¼ÀzÀ ¨sÀȵÁÖZÁgÀ ¤UÀæºÀ zÀ¼À oÁuÉ ªÉÆPÀzÀݪÉÄ ¸ÀASÉå:
03. 2016, P˨A:
13. 1)(¹), (r), (I) (II) (III), (2), (15) ¨sÀȵÁÖZÁgÀ ¤UÀæºÀ PÁAiÉÄÝ 1988 ºÁUÀÆ ¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ zÀAqÀ ¸ÀA»vÉ 1860gÀ PÁAiÉÄÝ PÀ®A:
406. 408, 409, 417, 420, 464, 471, 474, 477, 477(J), 120(©) gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ ¥ÀæPÀgÀt zÁR°¹PÉÆAqÀÄ vÀ¤SÉ PÉÊPÉÆAqÉ£ÀÄ. ¦gÁå¢zÁgÀgÀ UÀtQÃPÀÈvÀ ¦ügÁå¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß EzÀgÉÆA¢UÉ ®UÀwÛ¸À¯ÁVzÉ.
16. Insofar as the contention of the learned counsel Sri. S.S. Yadrami that the petitioner/accused No.16 having joined for duty in Koppal only on 28.2.2014, he is not liable for the irregularities that might have taken place during the period between 21.9.2013 and 6.2.2014 is concerned, it is necessary to refer to the report of ombudsman, Zilla Panchayat which is produced as Annexure-E in WP No.63379/2016 and 63380/2016. Last paragraph of the same reads as follows:
2013. 14£Éà ¸Á°£À PÉ®ªÀÅ mÉAqÀgï PÁªÀÄUÁjUÀ¼À£ÀÄß 2014-15£Éà ¸Á°£À°è ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgÉzÀ PÁªÀÄUÁjUÀ½UÁV C£ÀĵÁ×£À ªÀiÁr ¥ÀÆtðUÉƽ¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀzÀj PÁªÀÄUÁjUÀ¼À UÀÄtªÀÄlÖ vÀȦÛPÀgÀªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉÀAzÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¯ÉÆÃ¥ÀzÉÆõÀUÀ¼ÀÄ PÀAqÀħgÀĪÀÅ¢®è vÁAwæPÀªÁV ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÁðºÀPÀ C©üAiÀÄAvÀgÀgÀÄ, UÁæ PÀÄ.¤Ã. ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÉÊ. G¥À-«¨sÁUÀ, UÀAUÁªÀw gÀªÀgÀÄ ¥Àj²Ã°¹ vÁAwæPÀ vÀ¤SɬÄAzÀ ºÁUÀÆ zÀÆgÀÄzÁgÀgÁzÀ ²æà ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAvÀ §¹ÃgÀUÀqÀzÀ, vÁ®ÆèPÀ ¸ÀAZÁ®PÀgÀÄ, PÀ£ÁðlPÀ zÀ°vÀ ¸ÀAWÀµÀð ¸À«Äw UÀAUÁªÀw vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ gÀªÀgÀ °TvÀ ºÉýPÉAiÀÄAvÉ J¯Áè PÁªÀÄUÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄ¥ÀðPÀªÁV C£ÀĵÁ×£À UÉÆArzÀÄÝ F ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ §UÉÎ ªÀÄÄAzÉ AiÀiÁªÀ vÀ¤SÉAiÀÄÄ CUÀvÀå«®èªÉAzÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀzÀj ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¯ÉÆÃ¥ÀzÉÆõUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÀ¼À¥É PÁªÀÄUÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ DVgÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀÄ vÀªÀÄä CªÀºÁºÀ£ÉUÁV ªÁ¸ÀÛªÀ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¸À¯ÁVzÉ. 31 vÀªÀÄä «±Áé¹, ¸À»/- (¦.ZËqÀ¥Àà) MA§ÄqÀìªÀÄ£ï f¯Áè ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvï, PÉÆ¥Àà¼À.
17. The above report clearly shows that the project work required to be executed between 21.9.2013 and 6.2.2014 had spilled over even during the financial year 2014-15 and they were executed during the said time. Further even as per the documents produced by the petitioners namely, report of the Dy.SP, Karnataka Lokayukta dated 14.5.2015 it is disclosed that the project work appears to have been executed as on 14.5.2015 but the quality of the execution of the work was subject to examination by the Experts.
18. The particulars given in the detailed complaint disclose that there were allegations of bills relating to the Multiple Village Schemes being passed without verification of work, from which prima facie inference can be drawn that the bills were passed either without execution of work or verification of the same. There were also allegations in the complaint that measurements were recorded at a stretch, without verification of the work and the entries in the 32 measurement books do not reflect the verification of work and the measurements shown in the measurement books were apparently false. The officer in-charge of the work had recorded the measurement books on the basis of the estimates without verification of work. The CC bills did not contain the details of the name of the scheme, details of the work already executed and details of the payments already made and the work for which the present bills were passed. Similarly, the CC bills do not bear the date of inspection of work by the officer in-charge of work and verification of work by the jurisdictional Assistant Executive Engineer. It is specifically stated in the complaint that Multiple Village Schemes were on-going works and they were undertaken in several villages under Rajiv Gandhi Submission Water Supply Scheme. Some of the works were entrusted in the year 2008 and some works were entrusted in the year 2009 and 2010 and the bills for the same were passed by the in-charge Executive Engineers without verification of the work. There is also allegation in the complaint that the measurements in relation to several works stated to have been recorded on a single day, which is practically impossible. There are also allegations to the effect that in CC bills, 33 seals were affixed to show that payments were made through cheques, inspite of the fact that the cash book showed that the payments were made through RTGS. Further there are allegations in the complaint that the E-stamp papers used for piece work agreements were ante-dated. The seals of piece work agreement affixed on the obverse of e-stamp paper were incomplete and the signatures of contractors were not tallying. Further allegation is that the work entrusted to several contractors on piece work basis ran into several lakhs of rupees and the works were split to entrust the same on piece work basis and to bring down the value of work within Rs.50,000/-. In relation to many of the bills, the piece work agreements were entered into on the previous day or on the day of passing of bills. There are also allegations in the complaint that in relation to supply of water to the Anganawadi Buildings and school buildings, laying of pipes, fixing of motors and overhead tanks (Synthetic tanks), the Bills were passed on the basis of photographs without verification of work, even without recording in the measurement books. It is alleged in the complaint that a sum of Rs.24 Lakhs was paid to M/s. Sirdi Sai Technical Consultants, Raichur towards consultancy charges and preparation of estimates 34 without approval of the Superintending Engineer and the report/estimate submitted by M/s. Sirdi Sai Technical Consultants were not at all available in the office. It is also alleged that even agreement entered into between Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj Engineering Division, Koppal with M/s. Sirdi Sai Technical Consultants was not dated and the date was left blank and agreement did not contain the essential terms. The allegations in the detailed complaint pertain to serious irregularities suggestive of commission of various offences under IPC as well as under PC Act.
19. In view of the above materials available in the complaint and also voluminous records, measurement books etc. produced by the complaint before ACB along with the complaint, it cannot be said that the complaint is either absurd or it does not disclose cognizable offences.
20. The documents produced by the petitioners themselves including the report of ombudsman shows that the project work entrusted during the period between 21.9.2013 and 6.2.2014 spilled over to the Financial Year 2014-15 as well. The complaint also discloses that the payments were made and the bills were cleared and in the said process, documents were falsified. There 35 are allegations that the project work and consultancy were outsourced and for the said purpose, false agreements were also prepared. The complaint allegations suggest that such outsourcing of consultancy incurring huge amount of Rs.24 lakhs was not at all warranted as there was domain expertise available in the Department itself. The allegations made in the complaint require detailed investigation by the investigating agency.
21. The scope for interdicting the registration of FIR and holding of investigation thereon is very limited. Law on this aspect has been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited and Another Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2018) 16 SCC299 Girish Kumar Suneja Vs. CBI, (2017)14 SCC809and Amish Devgan Vs. Union of India and Others, (2021) 1 SCC1 para-121.
22. In regard to the scope and exercise of power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., Section 397(2) of Cr.P.C. and under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, in matters of this nature, 36 the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Ltd. (supra) has held at paragraphs-21 and 22 as follows: “21. The principles laid down in Madhu Limaye still hold the field and have not been in any manner diluted by the decision of four Judges in V.C. Shukla versus State or by recent three Judge Bench decision in Girish Kumar Suneja versus Central Bureau of Investigation. Though in V.C. Shukla, order framing charge was held to be interlocutory order, judgment in Madhu Limaye taking a contrary view was distinguished in the context of the statute considered therein. The view in S. Kuppuswami Rao, was held to have been endorsed in Mohanlal Maganlal Thacker though factually in Madhu Limaye, the said view was explained differently, as already noted. Thus, in spite of the fact that V.C. Shukla is a judgment by Bench of four Judges, it cannot be held that the principle of Madhu Limaye does not hold the field. As regards Girish Kumar Suneja, which is by a Bench of three Judges, the issue considered was whether the order of this Court directing that no Court other than this Court will stay investigation/trial in Manohar Lal Sharma versus Union of India [Coal Block allocation cases]. violated right or remedies of the affected parties against an order framing charge. It was observed that the order framing charge being interlocutory order, the same could not be interfered with under Section 397(2) nor under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It was further held that stay of proceedings could not be granted in the PC Act cases even under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It was further observed that though power under Article 227 is 37 extremely vast, the same cannot be exercised at the drop of a hat as held in Shalini Shyam Shetty versus Rajendra Shankar Patil as under: (Girish Kumar case, SCC p.835, para
37) 37. … ’49. … This reserve and exceptional power of judicial intervention is not to be exercised just for grant of relief in individual cases but should be directed for promotion of public confidence in the administration of justice in the larger public interest whereas Article 226 of the Constitution is meant for protection of individual grievance. Therefore, the power under Article 227 may be unfettered but its exercise is subject to high degree of judicial discipline pointed out above. (Emphasis supplied) 22. It was observed that power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. could be exercised only in rarest of rare cases and not otherwise: “38. The Criminal Procedure Code is undoubtedly a complete code in itself. As has already been discussed by us, the discretionary jurisdiction under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. is to be exercised only in respect of final orders and intermediate orders. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised only in respect of interlocutory orders to give effect to an order passed under the Criminal Procedure Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to serve the ends of justice. As indicated above, this power has to be exercised only in the rarest of rare cases and not 38 otherwise. If that is the position, and we are of the view that it is so, resort to Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution would be permissible perhaps only in the most extraordinary case. To invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court when the Criminal Procedure Code restricts it in the interest of a fair and expeditious trial for the benefit of the accused person, we find it difficult to accept the proposition that since Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution are available to an accused person, these provisions should be resorted to in cases that are not the rarest of rare but for trifling issues.” (Emphasis supplied) 23. In regard to grant of stay of the investigation and further proceedings emanating from the cases registered under the PC Act is concerned, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Ltd. (supra) has held at paragraphs-24, 27, 30 to 35 as follows: “24. It was further observed that no stay could be granted in PC Act cases in view of bar contained in Section 19(3)(c). The relevant observations are: “64. A reading of Section 19(3) of the PC Act indicates that it deals with three situations: (i) Clause (a) deals with a situation where a final judgment and sentence has been delivered by the Special Judge. We are not concerned with this situation. (ii) Clause (b) deals with a stay of proceedings under the PC Act in the event of any error, omission or 39 irregularity in the grant of sanction by the authority concerned to prosecute the accused person. It is made clear that no court shall grant a stay of proceedings on such a ground except if the court is satisfied that the error, omission or irregularity has resulted in a failure of justice–then and only then can the court grant a stay of proceedings under the PC Act. (iii) Clause (c) provides for a blanket prohibition against a stay of proceedings under the PC Act even if there is a failure of justice [subject of course to Clause (b)].. It mandates that no court shall stay proceedings “on any other ground” that is to say any ground other than a ground relatable 24 to the error, omission or irregularity in the sanction resulting in a failure of justice.
65. A conjoint reading of clause (b) and clause (c) of Section 19(3) of the PC Act makes it is clear that a stay of proceedings could be granted only and only if there is an error, omission or irregularity in the sanction granted for a prosecution and that error, omission or irregularity has resulted in a failure of justice. There is no other situation that is contemplated for the grant of a stay of proceedings under the PC Act on any other ground whatsoever, even if there is a failure of justice. Clause (c) additionally mandates a prohibition on the exercise of revision jurisdiction in respect of any interlocutory order passed in any trial such as those that we have already referred to. In our opinion, the provisions of clauses (b) and (c) of Section 19(3) of the PC Act read together are quite clear and do not admit of any ambiguity or the need for any further interpretation.” 40 27. Thus, even though in dealing with different situations, seemingly conflicting observations may have been made while holding that the order framing charge was interlocutory order and was not liable to be interfered with under Section 397(2) or even under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the principle laid down in Madhu Limaye still holds the field. Order framing charge may not be held to be purely a interlocutory order and can in a given situation be interfered with under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. or 482 Cr.P.C. or Article 227 of the Constitution which is a constitutional provision but the power of the High Court to interfere with an order framing charge and to grant stay is to be exercised only in an exceptional situation.
30. It is well accepted that delay in a criminal trial, particularly in the PC Act cases, has deleterious effect on the administration of justice in which the society has a vital interest. Delay in trials affects the faith in Rule of Law and efficacy of the legal system. It affects social welfare and development. Even in civil or tax cases it has been laid down that power to grant stay has to be exercised with restraint. Mere prima facie case is not enough. Party seeking stay must be put to terms and stay should not be incentive to delay. The order granting stay must show application of mind. The power to grant stay is coupled with accountability.
31. Wherever stay is granted, a speaking order must be passed showing that the case was of exceptional nature and delay on account of stay will not prejudice the interest of 41 speedy trial in a corruption case. Once stay is granted, proceedings should not be adjourned and concluded within two-three months.
32. The wisdom of the legislature and the object of final and expeditious disposal of a criminal proceeding cannot be ignored. In exercise of its power the High Court is to balance the freedom of an individual on the one hand and security of the society on the other. Only in case of patent illegality or want of jurisdiction the High Court may exercise its jurisdiction. The acknowledged experience is that where challenge to an order framing charge is entertained, the matter remains pending for long time which defeats the interest of justice.
33. We have already quoted the judicial experience as noted in the earlier judgments in Para 9 and 10 above that trial of corruption cases is not permitted to proceed on account of challenge to the order of charge before the High Courts. Once stay is granted, disposal of a petition before the High Court takes a long time. Consideration of the challenge against an order of framing charge may not require meticulous examination of voluminous material which may be in the nature of a mini trial. Still, the Court is at times called upon to do so inspite of law being clear that at the stage of charge the Court has only to see as to whether material on record reasonably connects the accused with the crime. The Constitution Bench of this Court in Hardeep Singh versus State of Punjab observed:
42. 100. However, there is a series of cases wherein this Court while dealing with the provisions of Sections 227, 228, 239, 240, 241, 242 and 245 CrPC, has consistently held that the court at the stage of framing of the charge has to apply its mind to the question whether or not there is any ground for presuming the commission of an offence by the accused. The court has to see as to whether the material brought on record reasonably connect the accused with the offence. Nothing more is required to be enquired into. While dealing with the aforesaid provisions, the test of prima facie case is to be applied. The court has to find out whether the materials offered by the prosecution to be adduced as evidence are sufficient for the court to proceed against the accused further. (Vide State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy [(1977) 2 SCC699, All India Bank Officers Confederation v. Union of India[(1989) 4 SCC90 Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad v. Dilip Nathumal Chordia [(1989) 1 SCC715, State of M.P. v. Krishna Chandra Saksena [(1996) 11 SCC439 and State of M.P. v. Mohanlal Soni [(2000) 6 SCC338 25 (2014) 3 SCC9230.
101. In Dilawar Balu Kurane v. State of Maharashtra [(2002) 2 SCC135 this Court while dealing with the provisions of Sections 227 and 228 Cr.P.C., placed a very heavy reliance on the earlier judgment of this Court in Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal [(1979) 3 SCC4 and held that while considering the 43 question of framing the charges, the court may weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out and whether the materials placed before the court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained. In such an eventuality, the court is justified in framing the charges and proceeding with the trial. The court has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the court but the court should not make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh evidence as if it is conducting a trial.
102. In Suresh v. State of Maharashtra[(2001) 3 SCC703, this Court after taking note of the earlier judgments in Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi v. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijjaya[(1990) 4 SCC76 and State of Maharashtra v. Priya Sharan Maharaj[(1997) 4 SCC393, held as under: (Suresh case, SCC p.
707) ‘9. …..at the stage of Sections 227 and 228 the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. The court may, for this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as the gospel truth even if it is 44 opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case. Therefore, at the stage of framing of the charge the court has to consider the material with a view to find out if there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence or that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against him and not for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion that it is not likely to lead to a conviction. (Priya Sharan case, SCC p. 397, para
8) (emphasis in original and supplied) 103. Similarly in State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, while dealing with the issue, this Court held: (SCC p. 42, para
4) 4. …If the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused even if fully accepted before it is challenged in cross- examination or rebutted by the defence evidence, if any, cannot show that the accused committed the offence, then there will be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial. (emphasis in original) 34. If contrary to the above law, at the stage of charge, the High Court adopts the approach of weighing probabilities and re-appreciating the material, it may be certainly a time consuming exercise. The legislative policy of expeditious final disposal of the trial is thus, hampered. Thus, even while reiterating the view that there is no bar to jurisdiction of the High Court to consider a challenge against an order of 45 framing charge in exceptional situation for correcting a patent error of lack of jurisdiction, exercise of such jurisdiction has to be limited to the rarest of rare cases. Even if a challenge to order framing charge is entertained, decision of such a petition should not be delayed. Though no mandatory time limit can be fixed, normally it should not exceed two-three months. If stay is granted, it should not normally be unconditional or of indefinite duration. Appropriate conditions may be imposed so that the party in whose favour stay is granted is accountable if court finally finds no merit in the matter and the other side suffers loss and injustice. To give effect to the legislative policy and the mandate of Article 21 for speedy justice in criminal cases, if stay is granted, matter should be taken on day-to-day basis and concluded within two-three months. Where the matter remains pending for longer period, the order of stay will stand vacated on expiry of six months, unless extension is granted by a speaking order showing extraordinary situation where continuing stay was to be preferred to the final disposal of trial by the trial Court. This timeline is being fixed in view of the fact that such trials are expected to be concluded normally in one to two years.
35. In Imtiaz Ahmad versus State of U.P. 26 this Court after considering a report noted: (SCC p.697, para
17) “(a) As high as 9% of the cases have completed more than twenty years since the date of stay order. (b) Roughly 21% of the cases have completed more than ten years. 46 (c) Average pendency per case (counted from the date of stay order till 26-7-2010) works out to be around 7.4 years. (d) Charge-sheet was found to be the most prominent stage where the cases were stayed with almost 32% of the cases falling under this category. The next two prominent stages are found to be appearance and summons, with each comprising 19% of the total number of cases. If appearance and summons are considered interchangeable, then they would collectively account for the maximum of stay orders.” After noting the above scenario, the Court directed : (SCC pp.706-07, paras 55 and
56) “55. Certain directions are given to the High Courts for better maintenance of the rule of law and better administration of justice: While analysing the data in aggregated form, this Court cannot overlook the most important factor in the administration of justice. The authority of the High Court to order stay of investigation pursuant to lodging of FIR, or trial in deserving cases is unquestionable. But this Court is of the view that the exercise of this authority carries with it the responsibility to expeditiously dispose of the case. The power to grant stay of investigation and trial is a very extraordinary power given to the High Courts and the same power is to be exercised sparingly only to prevent an abuse of the process and to promote the ends of justice. It is therefore clear that:
47. (i) Such an extraordinary power has to be exercised with due caution and circumspection. (ii) Once such a power is exercised, the High Court should not lose sight of the case where it has exercised its extraordinary power of staying investigation and trial. (iii) The High Court should make it a point of finally disposing of such proceedings as early as possible but preferably within six months from the date the stay order is issued.
56. It is true that this Court has no power of superintendence over the High Court as the High Court has over District Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution. Like this Court, the High Court is equally a superior court of record with plenary jurisdiction. Under our Constitution the High Court is not a court subordinate to this Court. This Court, however, enjoys appellate powers over the High Court as also some other incidental powers. But as the last court and in exercise of this Courts power to do complete justice which includes within it the power to improve the administration of justice in public interest, this Court gives the aforesaid guidelines for sustaining common mans faith in the rule of law and the justice delivery system, both being inextricably linked.
24. Further observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Ltd. (supra) 48 as extracted here below are also very relevant for the present purpose. Paragraphs-51 and 52 read as follows:
51. We are of the view that the Respondents are correct in this submission for the following reasons:
51. 1 Section 19(3)(b) subsumes all grounds which are relatable to sanction granted. This is clear from the word “any” making it clear that whatever be the error, omission or irregularity in sanction granted, all grounds relatable thereto are covered. 51.2. This is further made clear by Explanation (a), which defines an “error” as including competency of the authority to grant sanction. 51.3. The words “in the sanction granted by the authority” contained in sub-clause (b) are conspicuous by their absence in sub-clause(c), showing thereby that it is the proceedings under the Act that are referred to. 51.4 The expression “on any other ground”, therefore, refers to and relates to all grounds that are available in proceedings under the Act other than grounds which relate to sanction granted by the authority. 51.5. On the assumption that there is an ambiguity, and that there are two views possible, the view which most accords with the object of the Act, and which makes the Act workable, must necessarily be the controlling view. It 49 is settled law that even penal statutes are governed not only by their literal language, but also by the object sought to be achieved by Parliament. (See Ms. Eera through Dr. Manjula Krippendorf v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Anr., 2017 SCC Online SC787at paragraphs 134-140). 51.6. In Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, (1977) 4 SCC551at 558, this Court held: “It has been pointed out repeatedly, vide for example, The River Wear Commissioners v. William Adamson (1876-
77) 2 AC743and R.M.D. Chamarbaugwalla v. The Union of India, AIR1957SC628 that although the words occurring in a particular statute are plain and unambiguous, they have to be interpreted in a manner which would fit in the context of the other provisions of the statute and bring about the real intention of the Legislature.” As the Statement of Objects and Reasons extracted hereinabove makes it clear, Section 19(3)(c) is to be read with Section 4(4) and Section 22, all of which make it clear that cases under the Act have to be decided with utmost despatch and without any glitches on the way in the form of interlocutory stay orders. 50
51.7. It has been argued on behalf of the Appellants that sub-section (4) of Section 19 would make it clear that the subject matter of Section 19, including sub- section (3), is sanction and sanction alone. This argument is fallacious for the simple reason that the subject matter of sub-section (4) is only in the nature of a proviso to Section 19(3)(a) and (b), making it clear that the ground for stay qua sanction having occasioned or resulted in a failure of justice should be taken at the earliest, and if not so taken, would be rejected on this ground alone. 51.8 Section 19(3)(c) became necessary to make it clear that proceedings under the Act can be stayed only in the eventuality of an error, omission or irregularity in sanction granted, resulting in failure of justice, and for no other reason. It was for this reason that it was also necessary to reiterate in the language of Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that in all cases, other than those covered by Section 19(3)(b), no court shall exercise the power of revision in relation to interlocutory orders that may be passed. It is also significant to note that the reach of this part of Section 19(3)(c) is at every stage of the proceeding, that is inquiry, trial, appeal or otherwise, making it clear that, in consonance with the object sought to be achieved, prevention of 51 corruption trials are not only to be heard by courts other than ordinary courts, but disposed of as expeditiously as possible, as otherwise corrupt public servants would continue to remain in office and be cancerous to society at large, eating away at the fabric of the nation.
52. The question as to whether the inherent power of a High Court would be available to stay a trial under the Act necessarily leads us to an inquiry as to whether such inherent power sounds in constitutional, as opposed to statutory law. First and foremost, it must be appreciated that the High Courts are established by the Constitution and are courts of record which will have all powers of such courts, including the power to punish contempt of themselves (See Article 215). The High Court, being a superior court of record, is entitled to consider questions regarding its own jurisdiction when raised before it. In an instructive passage by a Constitution Bench of this Court in powers privileges and immunities of state legislatures, In re Special Reference 1 of 1964, (1965) 1 SCR413at 499, Gajendragadkar, C.J.
held: Besides, in the case of a superior Court of Record, it is for the court to consider whether any matter falls within its jurisdiction or not. Unlike a Court of limited jurisdiction, the superior Court is entitled to determine for itself questions about its own 52 jurisdiction. “Prima facie”, says Halsbury, ‘no matter is deemed to be beyond the jurisdiction of a superior court unless it is expressly shown to be so, while nothing is within the jurisdiction of an inferior court unless it is expressly shown on the face of the proceedings that the particular matter is within the cognizance of the particular court [Halsbury's Law of England, Vol. 9, p. 349]..
25. The resultant position that emerges from the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Girish Kumar Suneja vs. Central Bureau of Investigation – (2017), 14 SCC809(supra), Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited and Another vs. Central Bureau of Investigation – (2018) 16 SCC299and Amish Devgan vs. Union of India and others – (2021) 1 SCC1with regard to the scope of exercise of power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and Article 227 of the Constitution of India for interdicting registration of criminal cases and further proceedings can be summarized as follows : (1) The power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has to be exercised only in the rarest of rare cases and not otherwise. (2) What are those rarest of rare cases to qualify for the exercise of power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 53 have been particularized in para 121 of Amish Devgan vs. Union of India and others – (2021) 1 SCC1and the instances mentioned in Amish Devgan’s case are :
121. ……These could be cases where, manifestly, there is a legal bar against institution or continuance of the prosecution or the proceedings, such as due to requirement of prior sanction; or where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused; or where the allegations in the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence; or where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. Another qualifying category in cases where charge-sheet is filed would be those where allegations against the accused do constitute the offence alleged, but there is either no legal evidence adduced in support of the case or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. Application of these principles depends on factual matrix of each case…..” 54 (3) The power under Article 227 may be unfettered, but its exercise is subject to high degree of judicial discipline. (4) Since the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. itself is required to be exercised only in the rarest of rare cases and not otherwise, resort to Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution would be permissible perhaps only in the most extraordinary cases. (5) The proposition that since Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution are available to an accused person, these provisions should be resorted to in cases that are not the rarest of rare variety, but for trifling issues cannot be accepted, the reason being, the Criminal Procedure Code itself restricts it in the interest of a fair and expeditious trial for the benefit of the accused person (para 22 of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited and Another vs. Central Bureau of Investigation – (2018) 16 SCC299.
26. Keeping in mind the above principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and also the fact that the complaint clearly makes out commission of cognizable offences both under the PC Act as well as IPC, it is impermissible to interdict the investigation in this case. On the other hand, the complaint clearly shows that the 55 petitioners were all working in Koppal not only during the period 21.9.2013 to 6.2.2014 but also during the subsequent period when the work was continued to be executed and the payments towards bills were made for the works executed and the documents were falsified for the said purpose. It is therefore necessary that a proper investigation is held to bring out the truth. It is also evident that the investigation to be held by the investigating agency will be mostly confined to examination of the records, and therefore, personal liberty of the petitioners is not going to be affected. It is in the larger interest of public as well as the petitioners themselves, that the allegations are investigated and the facts are properly looked into in view of the fact that the crores of rupees are alleged to have been swindled in the guise of execution of work.
27. Insofar as the contention of the learned counsel Sri. Vijay Kumar that there is no notification under Section 2 (s) of Cr.P.C. declaring the ACB, Koppal as Police Station is concerned, there is no such pleading in the petition which was filed in the year 2016 and even as on today and therefore, investigating agency had no opportunity of meeting the same by producing necessary documents, and it is only during the oral arguments during the 56 hearing, learned counsel raised this point. In fact, these cases were being listed repeatedly and on the last of the occasions from day-to-day and the petitioners were seeking time and the cases had to be adjourned. The said contention at this belated stage requires production of documents. However, learned standing counsel for investigating agency submitted that the Notification dated 21.4.2016 issued under Section 17(c) of the PC Act invests Inspector of Police, ACB with the powers and jurisdiction to hold investigation and it meets with the requirement of law. I have no reason to reject the same. Since the petitions are pending for five years and such contention was not taken even till final hearing, I do not feel it necessary to call upon the investigating agency to produce such notification deferring the hearing. I accept the submission of learned standing counsel for investigating agency that the Notification dated 21.4.2016 meets with the requirement under the law and accordingly, I reject the submission made by the learned counsel Sri. Vijay Kumar in this behalf.
28. On an entire consideration of the materials placed before me, detailed complaint and voluminous documents furnished to the investigating officer, I am of the view that there are no 57 grounds made out to quash the complaint or FIR and in that view of the matter, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDERa) The above writ petitions are dismissed. b) In view of the above order, pending interlocutory applications, if any, are also dismissed as not surviving for consideration. Sd/- JUDGE JTR