H M KHYUM ALI vs STATE OF KARNATAKA BY

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
CRL.P No. 3849 of 2019
C/W WP No. 48145 of 2018


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 17 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3849 OF 2019
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.48145 OF 2018 (GM-RES)

IN CRL.P NO.3849/2019:

BETWEEN:

1. H.M. KHYUM ALI
RETD. DEPUTY DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
S/O ZAINULLABEDIN
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
PRESENTLY AT R/AT NO.121
RD
3 MAIN, AUSTIN TOWN LAYOUT
BENGALURU-560 047.
…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. ADITYA NARAYAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY POLICE INSPECTOR
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA POLICE WING
CITY DIVISION, BENGALURU-560 001
REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. VENKATESH S. ARABATTI, SPECIAL PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS
IN SPL.C.C.NO.177/2012 INITIATED BY THE RESPONDENT
TH
POLICE BEFORE THE HON'BLE 76 ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS COURT AND SPECIAL COURT AT BENGALURU














Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
CRL.P No. 3849 of 2019
C/W WP No. 48145 of 2018


CITY, ARISING FROM CRIME NO.77/2008 (PREVEOUSLY
NUMBERED AS CRIME NO.21/2008) (ANNEXURE A) THE
CHARGE SHEET DATED 03.08.2012 (ANNEXURE B) AND THE
SUMMONS ORDER DATED 13.09.2012 (ANNEXURE C) AND ALL
ACTIONS PURSUANT THERETO.

IN WP NO.48145/2018:

BETWEEN:

1. SRI. M.K. BALDEVAKRISHNA
S/O. LATE N.K. MARUTHI
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
TH
R/AT NO.282, 4 MAIN ROAD,
KENGERI SATELLITE TOWN,
BENGALURU.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ABHISHEK M.K., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SANDEEP PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY POLICE INSPECTOR,
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA POLCIE WING
CITY DIVISION
BENGLAURU-560001
REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR.

...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. VENKATESH S ARBATTI, SPECIAL PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION
482 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME NO.38/2008 DATED 26.06.2008
REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE (VIDE
ANNEXURE-A); AND QUASH CHARGESHEET DATED
TH
12.05.2014 PENDING ON THE FILE OF 76 ADDITIONAL
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (VIDE
ANNEXURE-B); AND QUASH ORDER OF TAKING
CONGIZANCE DATED 10.06.2014 PASSED BY 76TH

- 3 -
CRL.P No. 3849 of 2019
C/W WP No. 48145 of 2018


ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU (VIDE ANNEXURE-C); AND QUASH ORDER
TH
DATED 27.08.2018 PASSED BY 76 ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (VIDE
ANENXURE-D); AND QUASH ORDER OF CHARGE DATED
TH
27.08.2018 PASSED BY 76 ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (VIDE ANNEXURE-E).

THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 06.10.2026, THIS DAY, THE COURT
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

CAV ORDER
Heard learned counsel for petitioner in
Crl.P.No.3849/2019 and learned counsel for petitioner in
W.P.No.48145/2018 and learned counsel for respondent in both
the petitions.
2. Crl.P.No.3849/2019 is filed by the petitioner praying
this Court to quash criminal proceedings in
Spl.C.C.No.177/2012 initiated by the respondent-State of
Karnataka by Police Inspector, Karnataka Lokayuktha arising
out of Crime No.77/2008 and quash the charge sheet dated
03.08.2012 and summoning order dated 13.09.2012 i.e.,
Annexures-A to C and grant such other relief as deems fit in
the circumstance of the case.

- 4 -
CRL.P No. 3849 of 2019
C/W WP No. 48145 of 2018


3. The factual matrix of case of the prosecution is that
this petitioner entered into Government Service as an Assistant
Geologist with the Department of Mines and Geology, Raichur,
Karnataka on 02.04.1974. The petitioner was serving as the
Additional Director, Department of Mines and Geology,
Bangalore, prior to his retirement. On 26.06.2008, the
suo moto
respondent registered a case in Crime No.77/2008
against the petitioner for the alleged offence under Section
13(1)(e) r/w. Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 (‘PC Act’ for short) on the basis of the source report and
based on registration of the case, respondent-police
investigated the matter and categorized the petitioner's assets
into Schedules and called upon the petitioner to produce the
documentation in respect of the said assets. Accordingly,
petitioner has furnished information and supporting
documentation relating to Schedules 17 to 23 and indicated
that he was in the midst of collating documents relating to
Schedules 1 to 16B, and requested further time to produce the
same. However, the respondent-Police have completed the
investigation and filed the charge sheet without the details of
information in respect of Schedules 1 to 16B. The allegation
made against the petitioner is that, his assets valued at

- 5 -
CRL.P No. 3849 of 2019
C/W WP No. 48145 of 2018


Rs.62,75,866.77/-, total expenditure of Rs.53,24,253.63/- and
an income of Rs.67,88,796.44/- during the check period i.e.,
from 11.02.1974 to 27.06.2008 and comes to the conclusion
that disproportionate assets worked out to 70.81% in excess of
the income from unknown sources. It is also stated that on
31.03.2012, he has submitted a detailed response to the
competent authority with information and documentation,
including in respect of Schedules 1 to 16B, pertaining to all
aspects of income, expenditure and assets. The petitioner was
retired from Government service on 31.05.2012. The petitioner
also wrote to the competent-authority requesting it to forward
his detailed representation dated 31.03.2012 to the respondent
for further detailed investigation and for their consideration on
14.06.2012 and even submitted the representation on
18.06.2022. The competent authority issued a letter to the
respondent dated 19.07.2012, indicating that issue of
consideration of sanction to prosecute the petitioner had
become irrelevant, and forwarded the petitioner's
representation and supporting documents dated 31.03.2012 to
the respondent for consideration.
4. The respondent filed the charge sheet in Crime
No.77/2008 and the respondent has admitted that the detailed

- 6 -
CRL.P No. 3849 of 2019
C/W WP No. 48145 of 2018


materials made available to it by the competent authority had
not at all been considered prior to filing of the charge sheet. It
is contended that source information is 900%, but while filing
the charge sheet, disproportionate assets have been shown as
Rs.48,11,323.96 and assets to the extent of Rs.41,31,381/-
have been wrongly taken into account. The Investigating
Officer has failed to take note of income of check period, the
salary of Rs.2,20,193/- and rental income omitted to the extent
of Rs.6,23,000/-. So also, Fixed Deposit interest earned on
maturity at Rs.35,152 and advance on rental and tuition
income Rs.3,60,000 and there is absolutely, no
disproportionate assets.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would
vehemently contend that there cannot be any criminal
prosecution against the petitioner. The counsel also contend
that an amendment was brought into Section 19(1) of the PC
Act on 26.07.2018 and pursuant to the said amendment, when
the proviso was substituted, there cannot be any criminal
prosecution before sanction. The counsel also vehemently
contend that Trial Judge committed an error in taking
cognizance and proceeding against the petitioner. The
petitioner also filed an application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C.

- 7 -
CRL.P No. 3849 of 2019
C/W WP No. 48145 of 2018


seeking discharge and on the same day, it was dismissed
without any application of mind or consideration for the
Amendment Act, 2018 and the respondent's admission in cross-
examination also was not taken note of. Hence, prayed this
Court to set aside the proceedings.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his
argument also filed written submission, wherein he has
contended that though he was appointed on 02.04.1974 and
served for about 34 years in the Department and also
submitted the information in respect of Schedules 17 to 23 on
23.03.2011 and sought time to give details in respect of
Schedules 1 to 16B and failed to consider the same and
prosecution case is based on an incomplete investigation. The
prosecution against the petitioner is wholly misconceived. The
counsel also would contend that the petitioner is now aged
about 75 years.
7. The counsel in support of his argument relied upon
judgment of Division Bench of Madras High Court in
RANGANATHAN vs. STATE reported in 1996 CR.LJ 2041 ,
wherein it is held that “it is the duty of the Investigating
Agency to collect all materials relatable to the case and counter

- 8 -
CRL.P No. 3849 of 2019
C/W WP No. 48145 of 2018


case and ultimately form an opinion on the materials so
collected.
8. The counsel also relied upon judgment of the Apex
Court in VIJAYEE SINGH vs. STATE OF U.P. reported in
(1990) 3 SCC 190, wherein the Apex Court held that “…where
the accused introduces material to displace the presumption
which may affect the prosecution case or create a reasonable
doubt about the existence of one or other ingredients of the
offence and then it would amount to a case where prosecution
failed to prove its own case beyond reasonable doubt.
9. The counsel also relied upon judgment of Bombay
High Court in SHIVAJI GANU NAIK vs. STATE OF
MAHARASHTRA reported in 1999 CR. LJ 471, wherein the
Bombay High Court held that the duty of an Investigating
Officer is not to suppress inconvenient evidence but to place
before the Court all evidence.
10. The counsel also relied upon judgment of the Apex
Court in RAJIV THAPAR vs. MADAN LAL KAPOOR reported
in (2013) 3 SCC 330, wherein the Apex Court held that High
Court while exercising the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
to quash a proceeding on basis of defence material, if the

- 9 -
CRL.P No. 3849 of 2019
C/W WP No. 48145 of 2018


material leads to conclusion that his/her defence is based on
sound, reasonable and indubitable facts and it amounts to
abuse of process, the Court can exercise the powers.
11. The counsel also with regard to Amendment to
Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has
contended that it is applicable retrospectively by way of
substitution and amendment makes it very clear that sanction
is necessary not only for subjecting a public servant while in
service (or who is in service) but also a public servant who has
retired from service (who was in service). This amendment is
by way of substitution, and it takes effect from the inception in
the sense it must be understood as if the substituted provision
is there from the day when the law was enacted. Hence, it is
contended that the respondent ought to have taken sanction
before prosecuting the petitioner.
12. The counsel also relied upon judgment in STATE
OF KARNATAKA vs. DR. V. CHANDRASHEKHAR in
CRL.R.P.NO.790/2015 decided on 09.02.2022, wherein also
this Court held that substituted Section 19 of PC Act operates
retrospectively and protects retired public servants also.

- 10 -
CRL.P No. 3849 of 2019
C/W WP No. 48145 of 2018


13. The counsel also in respect of taking cognizance is
concerned, brought to notice of this Court order dated
13.09.2012, wherein the Court took cognizance, wherein it is
only mentioned that “seen the final report, cognizance taken,
register the case and issue summons to accused”. The counsel
contend that there must be satisfaction of the Court that there
exists a prima facie basis for proceeding against the accused.
14. The counsel in support of his argument relied upon
judgment of the Apex Court in PEPSI FOODS LTD. vs.
SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE reported in (1988) 5 SCC
749, wherein the Apex Court held that summoning an accused
is a serious matter. The order must reflect application of mind
to the facts and applicable law.
15. The counsel also relied upon judgment of the Apex
Court in MEHMOOD UI REHMAN vs. KHAZIR MOHAMMAD
TUNDA reported in (2015) 12 SCC 420, wherein the Apex
Court held that process must not be issued in a mechanical
manner and the Magistrate is duty bound to show application of
mind to relevant issues.
16. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent in his argument would be contend that there is no

- 11 -
CRL.P No. 3849 of 2019
C/W WP No. 48145 of 2018


need of sanction, since he is retired and also charge sheet was
filed in 2012 and as on the date of filing of charge sheet and
taking of cognizance, he was not in service.
17. The counsel in support of his argument relied upon
judgment of the Apex Court in STATE BY DEPUTY
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE vs. B.T. RAMESH & ANR.
reported in [2025] 8 S.C.R. 202, wherein the Apex Court held
that High Court committed an error in quashing the criminal
proceedings on the ground that charge sheet was filed more
than four years after the date of the alleged incident and lack of
sanction and held that the Rule of Construction under Rule 214
has no application to suppress pending criminal proceedings in
the early stage or for stifling such proceedings after cognizance
of offence has been taken for no better reason than that the
timelines embodied therein have not been adhered to and High
Court committed an error in quashing the same. So also,
discussed with regard to scope of Section 197 and held that
erred in quashing the proceedings qua the offences under the
PC Act as it did not appreciate that Section 19 thereof, prior to
its amendment to 2018, applied only to public servants, who
were in office at the time of taking of cognizance of offence.
Thus, since the respondent retired in 2012 and the cognizance

- 12 -
CRL.P No. 3849 of 2019
C/W WP No. 48145 of 2018


of offence was taken four years after his retirement, he was not
entitled to protection under Section 19 of PC Act. Such
protection would have been available to him only if cognizance
was taken while he was still in service.
18. The counsel also relied upon judgment of the Apex
Court in STATION HOUSE OFFICER, CBI/ACB/BANGALORE
vs. B.A. SRINIVASAN AND ANR. reportable in
CRL.A.NO.1837/2019 (Arising out of Special Leave
Petition (Crl.) No.6106/2019 dated 05.12.2019, wherein
the Apex Court discussed in detail both Section 19 and Section
197 of Code and so also discussed with regard to scope of
Section 482 of the Code and held that the High Court clearly
erred in allowing Criminal Revision Petition and accepting the
challenge raised by the Respondent No.1 on the issue of
sanction and set aside the view taken by the High Court and
restored the order passed by the Trial Court, wherein held that
the basic issue pertaining to issue of sanction we shall not be
taken to have expressed any view on merits which shall be
considered independently.
19. The counsel also relied upon judgment of the Apex
Court in STATE OF TELANGANA vs. MANAGIPET ALIAS

- 13 -
CRL.P No. 3849 of 2019
C/W WP No. 48145 of 2018


MANGIPET SARVESHWAR REDDY reported in (2019) 19
SCC 87, wherein also discussion was made with regard to law
as it stood on the date of the alleged crime that will apply,
wherein also observed that the FIR in the present case was
registered on 09.11.2011 i.e., much before the amendment
made in PC Act in 2018, whether any offence had been
committed or not must be examined in the light of provisions of
PC Act, as they stood prior to above enactment.
20. The counsel also vehemently contend that an
application is filed for discharge and the same was rejected and
while rejecting the application, learned Trial Judge also given
reasons. The counsel also would contend that when the
statement of father-in-law was recorded, he categorically
stated that on the costs of this petitioner itself, construction
was made and he admitted that amount was given by this
petitioner for construction and a detailed order was passed. The
accused also has not given reply to Schedules and
subsequently, it was given after 3½ years. When the charge
sheet is already filed and disproportionate assets are also
shown and P.W.1 to P.W.6 are already examined and cross-
examined, question of entertaining the petition does not arise.

- 14 -
CRL.P No. 3849 of 2019
C/W WP No. 48145 of 2018


21. The similar question also involved in another case in
W.P.No.48145/2018. Hence, this Court clubbed the said writ
petition for consideration and taken up the said petition for
discussion in view of clubbing both the matters.
22. In W.P.No.48145/2018 prayer is sought by the
petitioner to issue writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the
suo moto case registered in Crime No.38/2008 for the offence
punishable under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of
PC Act, so also writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the
charge sheet dated 12.05.2014, quash the order taking
cognizance dated 10.06.2014 and issue writ in the nature of
certiorari or any other order quashing the order dated
27.08.2018 and grant such other relief.
23. The factual matrix of case of the petitioner is that
he was then working as Managing Director, Dr. Ambedkar
Development Corporation and the respondent-police conducted
a raid at the residence of the petitioner on 27.06.2008 and
after completion of investigation, submitted a final report,
wherein also alleged that, he has total assets valued at
Rs.2,68,97,390/-, total expenditure of Rs.1,63,99,183/- and an
income of Rs.2,00,05,899/- during the check period. The final

- 15 -
CRL.P No. 3849 of 2019
C/W WP No. 48145 of 2018


report shows that alleged disproportionate assets worked out at
116.41% in excess of the income from known sources. The
petitioner was in service at the time of filing of final report. The
investigating report was submitted to the competent authority
seeking for sanction to prosecute the petitioner under Section
19 of PC Act. The Government of Karnataka forwarded the final
report to the petitioner and called upon to submit the
Schedules and comments as per the guidelines issued by the
Government of India. The petitioner vide letter dated
25.07.2011 furnished a detailed reply to the report and
submitted the Schedules 1 to 23. In the meanwhile, a
committee was constituted vide Government Order dated
21.09.2011 to examine the proposal received from the
respondent regarding sanction for prosecution in raid. The
counsel would contend that the Chief Secretary, Karnataka has
issued a letter on 04.11.2011 to the Additional Director General
of Police, Karnataka requesting to obtain and furnish the
comments/views of the Investigation Officer on the reply
furnished by the petitioner, so as to enable the State
Government to proceed further in the matter.
24. The State Government issued another letter seeking
for remarks of Investigating Officer on the Schedules forwarded

- 16 -
CRL.P No. 3849 of 2019
C/W WP No. 48145 of 2018


by the petitioner on 24.01.2012. The Government of Karnataka
took a decision to reject the request for grant of sanction for
prosecuting the petitioner and requested the Department of
Personnel and Training, Government of India vide letter dated
30.03.2013 to give concurrence for the same as the petitioner
was then in the IAS Cadre and in turn, Government of India
called for supporting documents and view/comments/
recommendations of the State Government vide letter dated
05.04.2013. In the interregnum, petitioner retired from his
service. Accordingly, the Committee informed the respondent-
police that issue of consideration of sanction to prosecute
petitioner has become irrelevant and further directed the same
to be communicated to Department of Personnel and Training,
Government of India. Thereafter, the Special Judge took
cognizance of alleged offence under Section 13(1)(e) read with
Section 13(2) of the PC Act.
25. The petitioner had filed an application under Section
91 of Cr.P.C. to summon certain documents and the Special
Judge dismissed the said application. Against the said order,
petitioner had preferred a Crl.P.No.5328/2016 and this Court
disposed of the petition and held that, it is open to the
petitioner to make his submission before the Trial Court in

- 17 -
CRL.P No. 3849 of 2019
C/W WP No. 48145 of 2018


respect of the Schedules having been submitted and been
available with the respondent and the Trial Court would take a
call on whether those documents would be looked into.
Thereafter, the petitioner also filed an application for discharge
and the same was resisted by the respondent-Lokayukta and
the Trial Judge dismissed the said application. It is also the
contention that Section 19 of the PC Act has been amended,
wherein sanction is necessary for prosecution by a person, who
was a public servant and the said provision is also applicable to
the case on hand and sanction was a pre-requisite condition for
taking cognizance. In the absence of a valid sanction, the
Special Judge has no jurisdiction to take cognizance. These are
the grounds raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition
and grounds which have been urged are similar to that of
Crl.P.No.3849/2019.
26. The counsel also in support of his argument filed
written arguments stating factual aspects in respect of this case
is concerned. The counsel also relied upon judgment in STATE
OF PUNJAB vs. LABH SINGH in CRL.A.NO.2168/2010,
wherein it is held that prosecution cannot keep waiting until a
Public Servant retires and thereafter choose to file the charge
sheet against him after his retirement, thereby setting at

- 18 -
CRL.P No. 3849 of 2019
C/W WP No. 48145 of 2018


naught the protection available to such Public Servant under
Section 19 of the PC Act.
27. The counsel also would vehemently contend that
the learned Judge proceeded to take cognizance of the alleged
offence on 10.06.2014 and the operative portion of the order is
that “perused the final report. Cognizance is taken. Register the
case and issue summons to accused returnable by 07.07.2014”
and passing such an order is nothing but without application of
mind. There is no indication in the said order as to the material
which constitutes sufficient ground for proceeding.
28. The counsel relied upon judgment of the Apex Court
in SUNIL BHARATI MITTAL vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION reported in (2015) 4 SCC 609, wherein
also discussion was made with regard to Section 190 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure and proceeds to issue process
under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the order
must disclose that there exists sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused and there is no application of mind and the
very approach of the learned trial Judge is erroneous.
29. It is contended that in Labh Singh ’s case, the Apex
Court held that while dealing with prosecution of retired Public

- 19 -
CRL.P No. 3849 of 2019
C/W WP No. 48145 of 2018


Servants, specifically deprecated the conduct of the prosecution
in waiting until a Public Servant retires, and thereafter filing the
charge sheet so as to defeat the protection available under
Section 19 of the PC Act. The counsel also vehemently contend
that the amendment to Section 19 of the PC Act is not a mere
technical or procedural formality. The sanctioning authority is
required to apply its independent mind and relies upon
judgment of the Apex Court in NANJAPPA vs. STATE OF
KARNATAKA reported in (2015) 14 SCC 186, wherein the
Apex Court held that the question relating to the validity of
sanction can be raised at any stage and that the competence of
the Court to try the accused depends upon the existence of a
valid sanction.
30. The counsel also relied upon judgment of the Apex
Court in VAKIL PRASAD SINGH vs. STATE OF BIHAR
reported in (2009) 3 SCC 355 and brought to notice of this
Court paragraph Nos.18 to 20, wherein the Apex Court has held
that seriousness of the allegations does not by itself justify
permitting an unexplained and constitutionally impermissible
delay to continue indefinitely.

- 20 -
CRL.P No. 3849 of 2019
C/W WP No. 48145 of 2018


31. The counsel also relied upon judgment of the Apex
Court in P. RAMACHANDRA RAO vs. STATE OF
KARNATAKA reported in (2002) 4 SCC 578 and also
Constitution Bench judgment in ABDUL REHMAN ANTULAY
vs. R.S. NAYAK reported in (1992) 1 SCC 225, wherein the
Apex Court held that the question of violation is required to be
determined having regard to the totality of circumstances,
including the length of delay, reasons for delay, responsibility
for the delay and the prejudice caused to the accused.
32. The counsel also relied upon judgment of the Apex
Court in STATE OF HARYANA vs. BHAJAN LAL reported in
1992 SUPP (1) SCC 335, the counsel particularly brought to
notice of this Court paragraph No.102. The counsel referring
these judgments would vehemently contend that continuation
of proceedings against the petitioner is nothing but an abuse of
process and the respondent cannot delay investigation, then
permit the petitioner to retire and thereafter, proceed against
the petitioner and the Court has to take note of malafides on
the part of the respondent-police.
33. The counsel also relied upon judgment of the Apex
Court in DELHI RACE CLUB (1940) LIMITED AND OTHERS

- 21 -
CRL.P No. 3849 of 2019
C/W WP No. 48145 of 2018


vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER reported in
(2024) 10 SCC 690 and brought to notice of this Court
discussion made in the judgment with regard to scope of
inquiry under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. and brought to notice of
this court paragraph No.23, wherein discussion was made with
regard to summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a
serious matter.
34. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent-Lokayukta would vehemently contend that case
was registered based on the source report and investigated the
matter and filed the charge sheet, wherein 116%
disproportionate assets were found. The counsel would
vehemently contend that sanction was not rejected and the
same was sent to the Central Government for consideration
and during the said process, the petitioner has retired from
service and then, intimation was given that no need of sanction
in view of retirement. The counsel also brought to notice of this
Court the said report sent to the Central Government and the
same is not rejected. The counsel also would vehemently
contend that judgment of the Apex Court in Delhi Race Club’s
case is not applicable to the case on hand and when the

- 22 -
CRL.P No. 3849 of 2019
C/W WP No. 48145 of 2018


material was found against the petitioner, charge sheet was
filed.
35. The counsel also would vehemently contend that
when the discharge application was filed, the same was
rejected and the reasoning was given. The counsel also
vehemently contend that when the Schedules were furnished
seeking for details, the prosecution had not furnished the
details in respect of Schedules 1 to 23. When such being the
case, question of quashing the proceedings does not arise, as
sought in the petition.
36. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner in
Crl.P.No.3849/2019, learned counsel for the petitioner in
W.P.No.48145/2018 and learned counsel for the respondent in
both the petitions and also the principles laid down in the
judgments referred supra, the Court has to take note of
material regarding each case and whether it is a fit case to
quash the proceedings initiated against the respective
petitioners and the points that would arise for consideration of
this Court are:

- 23 -
CRL.P No. 3849 of 2019
C/W WP No. 48145 of 2018


(1) Whether the petitioner in Crl.P.No.3849/2019
has made out a case to quash the
proceedings ?
(2) Whether the petitioner in W.P.No.48145/2018
has made out a ground to entertain the writ
petition and grant the relief as sought in the
writ petition ?
(3) What order ?
Point No.(1):
37. The main contention of learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner in Crl.P.No.3849/2019 is that there was no
sanction and when the discharge application was filed, the
same was not considered in a proper perspective and sanction
is necessary, even if the petitioner is retired from service. The
counsel also contend that when the explanation was given, the
same was not considered and also relies upon judgment to that
effect. On the other hand, it is the contention of learned
counsel appearing for the respondent that charge sheet was
filed long back and cognizance was taken prior to the
amendment and material also discloses that father-in-law
himself has made the statement that construction was made at

- 24 -
CRL.P No. 3849 of 2019
C/W WP No. 48145 of 2018


the cost of the petitioner and these are the factors are to be
considered during the course of trial.
38. It is also important to note that in the case on
hand, already charges are framed and discharge application
was also filed and the same was dismissed. When the witnesses
P.W.1 to P.W.6 were examined and cross-examined and when
the evidence had already been commenced, the question of
entertaining the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. does not
arise. The allegation against the petitioner is also that though in
the source report, it was mentioned that petitioner is having
disproportionate assets to the extent of 900% and the
Investigating Officer also considered the details given in respect
of Schedules 17 to 23 and time was sought to furnish details in
respect of Schedules 1 to 16B, but the same was furnished
later on at a belated stage after 3½ years as contended by
learned counsel appearing for the respondent. When the charge
sheet is filed stating that disproportionate assets are is more
than 70% and the same has to be considered only during the
course of trial. This Court cannot venture to exercise its power
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. when the disputed facts are
involved and no doubt, earlier, Schedules were answered in

- 25 -
CRL.P No. 3849 of 2019
C/W WP No. 48145 of 2018


respect of Schedules 17 to 23, but subsequently, after filing of
the charge sheet, other details are also given.
39. It has to be noted that when the cognizance was
taken, no doubt, there is no need to pass any detailed order
but, while passing the order, it is mentioned that seen the final
report, that means, the learned Judge has perused the final
report and cognizance was taken and it requires judicious
application of mind. Hence, reference was made that, perused
the final report, that means the learned Judge has looked into
charge sheet material and considering judgments which have
been relied upon by learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner i.e., Pepsi Foods Ltd.’s case as well as Mehmood
’s
Ui Rehman case, it cannot be contended that order has been
passed in a mechanical manner. No doubt, summoning of the
accused is a serious matter, when the investigation was
conducted and final report was filed, perused the final report.
Hence, the said contention cannot be accepted that it was a
mechanical order.
40. The counsel also relies upon amendment made to
Section 19 of the PC Act and contend that it is retrospective
application and the same cannot be accepted, in view of recent

- 26 -
CRL.P No. 3849 of 2019
C/W WP No. 48145 of 2018


judgment of the Apex Court in State By Deputy

Superintendent Of Police’s case and the same is very clear
with regard to no need of sanction, if a public servant is retired
and the Apex Court quashed the order of the High Court. When
such recent judgment is pronounced by the Apex Court, the
other judgments which have been relied upon by learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner will not come to the aid of
the petitioner. So also the judgment of the Apex Court in
Managipet Alias Mangipet Sarveshwar Reddy ’s case is very
clear and the Apex Court held that once cognizance was taken,
it goes back to the date of alleged offence and already charge
sheet was filed prior to amendment and thereafter cognizance
was taken.
41. This Court also in SRI B.G. PRAKASH KUMAR vs.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER in
CRL.R.P.NO.902/2026 C/W. CRL.R.P.NOS.893/2026,
926/2026 dated 19.09.2026 made an elaborate discussion
with regard to this subject is concerned when similar situation
arose and when the charge sheet was filed and cognizance was
taken, the aid of amendment does not arise and the same is
prospective and not retrospective. Hence, I do not find any
error on the part of the Trial Court in proceeding against the

- 27 -
CRL.P No. 3849 of 2019
C/W WP No. 48145 of 2018


petitioner. So also, the contention that the prosecution case is
based on incomplete investigation also cannot be accepted.
Admittedly, when the Schedules were furnished, only limited
details were given and not furnished full details and subsequent
to filing of the charge sheet, same are given which is also a
matter of defence and when already P.W.1 to P.W.6 have been
cross-examined by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,
question of entertaining all these grounds does not arise and
also defence cannot be considered in a petition under Section
482 of Cr.P.C. Hence, I am of the opinion that petitioner has
not made out any grounds to quash the proceedings by
exercising the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly,
I answer point No.(1) as ‘negative’.
Point No.(2):
42. The relief sought in W.P.No.48145/2018 by the
petitioner is to issue writ in the nature of certiorari quashing
FIR in Crime No.38/2008 and quash the charge sheet dated
12.05.2014 and so also quash the order taking cognizance
dated 10.06.2014 and issue writ in the nature of certiorari or
any other order quashing the order dated 27.08.2018 and grant
such other relief.

- 28 -
CRL.P No. 3849 of 2019
C/W WP No. 48145 of 2018


43. The main contention of learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner is that FIR was registered in 2008 and no
dispute with regard to the said fact. The counsel would
vehemently contend that sanction was rejected on 30.03.2013
as per Annexure-H. This Court has to take note of Annexure-H
and having perused Annexure-H, it is not in dispute that when
the sanction was sought, a decision was taken that not a case
for granting sanction. But, the same was sent to the Central
Government for consideration, as the petitioner is an IAS
Officer. However, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
would contend that it was rejected. Learned counsel appearing
for the respondent would contend that it was not rejected and
the petitioner being an IAS Officer, the same has to be
considered by the Central Government.
44. It is also to be noted that, in the meanwhile, the
petitioner retired from the service and hence, a communication
was sent to the Government in view of retirement and there
cannot be any sanction. Hence, there is a force in the
contention of learned counsel appearing for the respondent that
there is no need of sanction. This Court also in
CRL.R.P.NO.902/2026 C/W. CRL.R.P.NOS.893/2026,
926/2026 dated 19.09.2026 considering the judgment of the

- 29 -
CRL.P No. 3849 of 2019
C/W WP No. 48145 of 2018


Apex Court in State by Deputy Superintendent of Police’s
case comes to the conclusion that sanction is not required, if a
public servant is not in service, if it is in respect of PC Act. No
doubt, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon
several judgments and contend that intentionally waited for
retirement of the petitioner, the said contention cannot be
accepted for the reason that when the matter was referred to
the Central Government, the same was pending for
consideration and in the meanwhile, the petitioner retired from
service and a communication was sent in view of retirement,
the question of consideration of writ petition does not arise.
Hence, the very contention of learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner relying upon judgment in Sunil Bharati Mittal’s
case, so also judgment in Delhi Race Club’s case will not
come to the aid of the petitioner. So also, the judgments which
have been relied upon by learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner in Labh Singh’s case, the other judgment in
Nanjappa’s case, Vakil Prasad Singh’s case will come to the
aid of the petitioner and the Court has to take note of recent
judgment of the Apex Court in State by Deputy
Superintendent of Police’s case.

- 30 -
CRL.P No. 3849 of 2019
C/W WP No. 48145 of 2018


45. It is also important to note that main contention of
learned counsel for the petitioner is that cognizance was taken,
but while taking cognizance, the learned Trial Judge committed
an error and did not apply his mind. But, the order is very clear
that perused the final report and cognizance is taken. On
perusal of final report and on application of mind, cognizance is
taken and no doubt, not specifically mentioned that it is a case
for proceeding against the petitioner, but the law is very clear
that, it requires application of mind, if documents are perused
along with the charge sheet while taking cognizance. The
contention that after sanction was rejected, waited till
retirement of the petitioner also cannot be accepted as the
same was consideration by the Central Government and when
it was pending before the Central Government, the petitioner
has retired.
46. The other ground of learned counsel for the
petitioner is that discharge application was rejected is a matter
of trial, since there is disproportionate assets to the extent of
116% and particularly, Schedules have not been answered by
the petitioner. When such being the case, the scope is very
limited in a writ petition and disputed fact cannot be
considered.

- 31 -
CRL.P No. 3849 of 2019
C/W WP No. 48145 of 2018


47. The other contention is that the petitioner was aged
about 75 years is not a ground to quash the proceedings and
age is not a material and whether there was disproportionate
assets or not has to be ascertained during the course of trial
and the petitioner can raise all these contentions as a defence
and defence cannot be considered while considering the writ
petition and the relief as sought. It has to be noted that in the
source report, disproportionate assets of the petitioner is shown
to the extent of 180%, but considering the material on record
by the Investigating Officer, he arrived at a conclusion that it is
116.41%, whether it is 180% or 116.41% and it matches with
the salary and expenditure is a matter of trial. Hence, I do not
find any ground to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari to
quash the suo moto case registered in Crime No.38/2008 for
the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) read with
Section 13(2) of PC Act, so also writ in the nature of certiorari
to quash the charge sheet dated 12.05.2014, order taking
cognizance dated 10.06.2014 and order dated 27.08.2018 as
contended by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The
Court cannot conduct any mini-trial and no ground is made out
to quash the proceedings issuing writ in the nature of certiorari

- 32 -
CRL.P No. 3849 of 2019
C/W WP No. 48145 of 2018


as sought in the writ petition. Accordingly, I answer point
No.(2) as ‘negative’.
Point No.(3):
48. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) The Crl.P.No.3849/2019 is dismissed.
(ii) The W.P.No.48145/2018 is also dismissed.


Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE



ST