Page 1

1

NON REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.594 OF 2015 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (Crl.) NO. 108 OF 2015)

YUNUS ZIA              ………APPELLANT

Vs.

STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.             ……RESPONDENTS

O R D E R

V.GOPALA GOWDA, J.         Leave granted.

2.     This appeal is directed against the impugned order  

dated 14.07.2014 passed in Criminal Petition No. 2859  

of 2012 by the High Court of Judicature of Karnataka at  

Bangalore,  wherein  the  High  Court  has  declined  to  

exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code of

Page 2

2

Criminal  Procedure,  1973  (in  short  “CrPC”).  The  

appellant has prayed to set aside the same and quash  

the criminal proceedings initiated against him by the  

respondents, urging various legal grounds.      

3. Mr.  L.  Nageswar  Rao,  the  learned  senior  counsel  on  

behalf of the appellant has submitted that the second  

respondent,  Inspector  of  Police  of  the  Karnataka  

Lokayukta  (in  short  “the  Lokayukta”),  has  made  

allegations against the appellant under Sections 120B  

and 420 of the IPC and under Sections 13(1)(d) and  

13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in  

short “the P.C. Act”).  A case has been registered by  

the  second  respondent  and  an  FIR  has  been  lodged  

against  the  appellant  without  following  the  due  

procedure contemplated under Section 9 of the Karnataka  

Lokayukta  Act,  1984  (in  short  “the  Lokayukta  Act”)  

which deals with the provisions relating to complaints  

and  investigations,  where  any  person  can  make  a  

complaint  under  the  Lokayukta  Act,  either  to  the  

Lokayukta  or  to  the  Upalokayukta.  It  provides  for  

making a complaint in the form of settlement supported  

by an affidavit in such forms and in such manner as may  

be prescribed. The relevant provisions of the Lokayukta

Page 3

3

Act read thus:   

“9.  Provisions  relating  to  complaints  and  investigations-

(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act,  any person may make a complaint under this  Act to the Lokayukta or an Upalokayukta.   Provided that in case of a grievance, if the  person aggrieved is dead or for any reason,  unable to act for himself, the complaint may  be made or if it is already made, may be  prosecuted by his legal representatives or  by any other person who is authorized by him  in writing in this behalf.  (2)  Every  complaint  shall  be  made  in  the  form  of  a  statement  supported  by  an  affidavit  and  in  such  forms  and  in  such  manner as may be prescribed.  (3)Where  the  Lokayukta  or  an  Upalokayukta  proposes,  after  making  such  preliminary  inquiry  as  he  deemed  fit  to  conduct  any  investigation under this Act, he.-

(a)  shall  forward  a  copy  of  the  complaint  and  in  the  case  of  an  investigation initiated suo-motu by  him, the opinion recorded by him to  initiate  the  investigation  under  sub-section (1) or (2), as the case  may be, of section 7;  to  the  public  servant  and  the  Competent Authority concerned; (b)  shall  afford  to  such  public  servant an opportunity to offer his  comments  on  such  complaint  or  opinion  recorded  under  sub-section  (1) and (2) of section 7 as the case  may be;   (c) may make such order as to the  safe  custody of  documents relevant  to  the  investigation,  as  he  deems  fit.    

(4)  Save  as  aforesaid,  the  procedure  for  conducting any such investigation shall be  such, and may be held either in public or in  camera,  as  the  Lokayukta  or  the

Page 4

4

Upalokayukta, as the case may be, considers  appropriate  in  the  circumstances  of  the  case.    (5) The Lokayukta or the Upalokayukta may,  in his discretion, refuse to investigate or  cease to investigate any complaint involving  a  grievance  or  an  allegation,  if  in  his  opinion,-   

(a)the  complaint  is  frivolous  or  vexatious  or  is  not  made  in  good  faith;    (b)There  are  no  sufficient  grounds  for  investigating  or,  as  the  case  may  be,  for  continuing  the  investigation; or    (c) Other remedies are available to  the  complainant  and  in  the  circumstances of the case it would  be more proper for the complainant  to avail such remedies.    

(6) In any case where the Lokayukta or an  Upalokayukta  decides  not  to  entertain  a  complaint  or  to  discontinue  any  investigation in respect of a complaint he  shall  record  his  reasons  therefore  and  communicate the same to the complainant and  the public servant concerned.    (7) The conduct of an investigation under  this Act against a Public servant in respect  of any action shall not affect such action,  or any power or duty of any other public  servant to take further action with respect  to any matter subject to the investigation.”    

4. Further, the learned senior counsel has relied upon  

Section 7 of the Lokayukta Act, wherein on receipt of  

such  complaint,  either  the  Lokayukta  or  the  

Upalokayukta can make such preliminary enquiry as he  

may deem fit to conduct an investigation under the Act.  

He can initiate investigation under Section 7(1) & (2)

Page 5

5

of the Lokayukta Act on the public servant and the  

competent authority concerned as defined under Section  

2(4)(a)to(d)  of  the  Lokayukta  Act.  The  relevant  

provision of the Lokayukta Act reads thus:-

“7.  Matters  which  may  be  investigated  by  the  Lokayukta and an Upalokayukta.–  

(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act,  the  Lokayukta  may  investigate  any  action  which  is  taken  by  or  with  the  general  or  specific approval of,- (a) (i)  the Chief Minister;     (ii) a Minister;     (iii)a member of the State Legislature;     (iv) the Chairman and Vice-Chairman (by  whatever  name  called)  or  a  member  of  an  authority, board, or a committee, a statutory  or  non-statutory  body  or  a  corporation  established by or under any law of the State  Legislature including a society, cooperative  society or a Government company within the  meaning of section 617 of the Companies Act,  1956, nominated by the State Government; in  any  case  where  a  complaint  involving  a  grievance or an allegation is made in respect  of such action. (b) any other public servant holding a post  or office carrying either a fixed pay, salary  or remuneration of more than rupees twenty  thousand per month or a pay scale the minimum  of which is more than rupees twenty thousand,  as may be revised from time to time in any  case where a complaint involving a grievance  or an allegation is made in respect of such  action or such action can be or could have  been,  in  the  opinion  of  the  Lokayukta,  recorded  in  writing,  the  subject  of  a  grievance or an allegation.

(2)  Subject  to  the  provisions  of  the  Act,  an  Upalokayukta may investigate any action which is  taken by or with the general or specific approval  of,  any  public  servant  not  being  the  Chief

Page 6

6

Minister,  Minister,  Member  of  the  Legislature,  Secretary or other public servant refereed to in  sub-section  (1),  in  any  case  where  a  complaint  involving a grievance or an allegation is made in  respect of such action or such action can be or  could  have  been,  in  the  opinion  of  the  Upalokayukta, recorded in writing. the subject of a  grievance or an allegation.”   

Section 8 of the Lokayukta Act further states that:-  

“8. Matters not subject to investigation:- (1)   Except  as  hereinafter  provided,  the  Lokayukta  or  an  Upalokayukta  shall  not  conduct any investigation under this Act in  the case of a complaint involving a grievance  in respect of any action, -

(a)   if  such  action  relates  to  any  matter  specified  in  the  Second  Schedule; or (b) if the complainant has or had, any  remedy by way    of appeal, revision,  review or other proceedings   before  any  tribunal,  Court  officer  or  other  authority and has not availed of the  same.   

(2) The Lokayukta or an Upalokayukta shall not  investigate, -   

(a)  any action in respect of which a  formal  and  public  enquiry  has  been  ordered with the prior concurrence of the  Lokayukta or an Upalokayukta, as the case  may be; (b)  any  action  in  respect  of  a  matter  which  has  been  referred  for  inquiry,  under the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952  with  the  prior  concurrence  of  the  Lokayukta or an Upalokayukta, as the case  may be; (c) any complaint involving a grievance  made after the expiry of a period of six  months from the date on which the action  complained  against  become  known  to  the  complainant; or   (d) any complaint involving an allegation

Page 7

7

made after the expiry of five years from  the date on which the action complained  against is alleged to have taken place:   Provided  that  he  may  entertain  a  complaint referred to in clauses (c) and  (d) if the complainant satisfies that he  had sufficient cause for not making the  complaint within the period specified in  those clauses.   

(3) In the case of any complaint involving a  grievance,  nothing  in  this  Act  shall  be  construed  as  empowering  the  Lokayukta  or  an  Upalokayukta  to  question  any  administrative  action involving the exercise of a discretion  except where he is satisfied that the elements  involved in the exercise of the discretion are  absent to such an extent that the discretion can  prima  facie  be  regarded  as  having  been  improperly exercised.”      

5. The learned senior counsel for the appellant by placing  

strong reliance upon the aforesaid provisions of the  

Lokayukta Act, has contended that it is applicable in  

relation  to  the  persons  who  were  enumerated  under  

Section 2 of the Lokayukta Act, which reads thus:-  

“2. (1) xxx (2)  “Allegation”  in  relation  to  a  public  servant  includes  any  affirmation  that  such  public servant-

(a) has abused his position as such  public servant to obtain any gain or  favour  to  himself  or  to  any  other  person  or  to  cause  undue  harm  or  hardship to any other person; (b) was actuated in the discharge of  his functions as such public servant  by personal interest or improper or  corrupt motives; (c)  is  guilty  of  corruption,  favouritism,  nepotism  or  lack  of

Page 8

8

integrity  in  his  capacity  as  such  public servant;                    OR (d) has failed to act in accordance  with  the  norms  of  integrity  and  conduct which ought to be followed by  public servants of the class to which  he belongs:  

(3) “Chief Minister” means the Chief Minister  of Karnataka; (4)  “Competent  Authority”  in  relation  to  a  public servant means-   

(a)  in the case of Chief Minister or  a  member  of  the  State  Legislature,  the  Governor  acting  in  his  discretion;  (b)  in  the  case  of  a  Minister  or  Secretary, the Chief Minister;  (c)  in  the  case  of  a  Government  servant other than a Secretary, the  Government of Karnataka;  (d) in the case of any other public  servant,  such  authority  as  may  be  prescribed;  

(5)  “corruption”  includes  anything  made  punishable  under  Chapter  IX  of  the  Indian  Penal  Code  or  under  the  Prevention  of  Corruption Act, 1947;   (6) “Government Servant” means a person who is  a member of the Civil Services of the State of  Karnataka  or  who  holds  a  civil  post  or  is  serving in connection with the affairs of the  State  of  Karnataka  and  includes  any  such  person whose services are temporarily placed  at the disposal of the Government of India,  the  Government  of  another  State,  a  local  authority or any person whether incorporated  or not, and also any person in the service of  the Central or another State Government or a  local or other authority whose services are  temporarily  placed  at  the  disposal  of  the  Government of Karnataka.”   

6. After  placing  strong  reliance  upon  the  aforesaid  

provisions of the Lokayukta Act, the learned senior

Page 9

9

counsel  has  submitted  that  the  appellant  herein  is  

neither a government servant nor is or was at any time  

holding  the  post  of  Chief  Minister,  Member  of  

Legislature and Chairman etc. as is enumerated in the  

aforesaid Sections of the Lokayukta Act. Therefore, the  

suo-moto complaint registered by the second respondent  

in  the  Police  Station  of  Lokayukta  against  the  

appellant is without jurisdiction and therefore, the  

same is liable to be quashed.  He has submitted that  

this  important  aspect  of  the  matter  has  not  been  

considered by the learned judge of the High Court and  

he has declined to grant the prayer of the appellant  

without examining the legal submissions urged before  

it.  Therefore, he has urged that the impugned order is  

vitiated in law and the same is liable to be set aside  

by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction.

7. On the other hand, Mr. Basava Prabhu S. Patil, the  

learned senior counsel on behalf of the respondents has  

rebutted  the  aforesaid  legal  contentions  urged  on  

behalf of the appellant, stating that the Inspector of  

Police of the Lokayukta has taken note of the news item  

published in the Newspaper on 28.12.2011 in ‘Vijaya  

Karnataka’  a  Kannada  daily,  which  was  repeated  on

Page 10

10

3.1.2012 in ‘Bangalore Mirror’ and on 05.01.2012 in The  

Times of India, English edition. The complaint against  

the appellant has not been lodged either before the  

Lokayukta or Upa lokayukta but the same was registered  

suo-moto at  the  Police  Station  attached  to  the  

Lokayukta and therefore, the procedure provided under  

the provisions of the Lokayukta Act was not required to  

be followed as contended by the learned senior counsel  

on behalf of the appellant.

8. The learned senior counsel on behalf of the respondents  

has  further  contended  that  the  registration  of  the  

complaint  by  the  second  respondent  suo-moto on  the  

basis of the Newspaper publication is permissible in  

law as the same is in accordance with the judgments of  

this Court in the cases of C. Rangaswamaiah & Ors. v.  

Karnataka  Lokayukta  &  Ors.1 and  State  Of  Karnataka  

v. Kempaiah2.  These judgments have been adverted to by  

the Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in the case  

of State of Karnataka, by Chief Secretary and Ors. v.  

Basavaraj  Guddappa  Maliger3.  In the Kempaiah’s case  

referred to supra, this Court affirmed the judgment of  

1 (1998)  6  SCC  66 2 (1998)  6  SCC  103 3   ILR 2003 KARNATAKA 3589

Page 11

11

the Division Bench of the High Court on the ground that  

the Upalokayukta had no power to investigate into a  

crime allegedly committed by the public servant under  

the provisions of the P.C.Act, however, this Court did  

not quash the FIR. Further, this Court made it clear  

that the FIR registered against the petitioner is not  

quashed and that it is open to the State to have the  

offence investigated in accordance with law. Further,  

in the  C. Rangaswamaiah’s case, this Court has held  

that the police wing on deputation to the Lokayukta, if  

authorised under Section 17 of the P.C.Act and Section  

2(d) of the CrPC, is legally entitled to register a  

case and investigate the matter and file a charge sheet  

in a competent court of law under the provisions of the  

P.C.Act and the CrPC. The relevant paragraphs of  C.  

Rangaswamaiah (supra), read thus:

“21. The next question is whether when the State  Government  had  sent  the  police  officers  on  deputation to the Lokayukta, it was permissible  for  the  Government  to  entrust  them  with  additional  duties  under  the  Prevention  of  Corruption Act, 1988? 22. The  learned  Single  Judge  as  well  as  the  Division Bench are one, as already stated, in  accepting that the police officers of the State  on  deputation  continue  to  remain  as  public  servants in the service of the State Government,  as  long  as  they  are  not  absorbed  in  the

Page 12

12

Lokayukta.  This  legal  position  is  absolutely  unassailable because the State of Karnataka has  merely lent the services of these officers to  the Lokayukta and the officers continue to be  employees  of  the  State.  In  spite  of  the  deputation of these officers with the Lokayukta,  the relationship of master and servant between  the State of Karnataka and these officers does  not stand terminated (State of Punjab v. Inder  Singh). 23. There  is  no  dispute  that  though  these  officers are on deputation, they are otherwise  of the requisite rank as contemplated by Section  17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and  that  other  formalities  under  that  Act  are  satisfied for entrustment of duties under the  Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Question is  whether these police officers of the State can  be invested with powers of investigation under  Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,  1988 by the State under its statutory powers  traceable to the same section?”

9. Further, it has been contended by the learned senior  

counsel for the respondents that the second respondent  

has  registered  the  case  on  the  basis  of  the  

abovementioned  report  published  in  the  Newspaper  

referred to  supra, after satisfying himself with the  

fact that the material information published in the  

aforesaid newspapers are cognisable offences punishable  

under Section 420 and 120B of the IPC, for which he can  

suo-moto register a complaint in the Police Station  

attached  to  the  Lokayukta.  He  has  further  made  the

Page 13

13

categorical  submission  that  the  case  is  neither  

registered  against  the  appellant  on  the  complaints  

submitted  to  the  Lokayukta  or  Upalokayukta,  in  the  

prescribed form by the second respondent nor the due  

procedure contemplated under Section 9(2) & (3) of the  

Act  has  been  followed  after  holding  preliminary  

enquiry.  Thus,  he  has  made  it  very  clear  that  the  

initiation of the proceedings against the appellant is  

not under the provisions of the Lokayukta Act but the  

same has been done in accordance with the provisions of  

the CrPC and the second respondent who is attached to  

the Police Station of Lokayukta can register the FIR  

and  investigate  the  case  independently  against  the  

appellant as held by this Court in the cases referred  

to supra. Therefore, the learned senior counsel for the  

respondents has fairly submitted that if the appellant  

has got any grievance or apprehension for registering  

and investigating the case against him by the second  

respondent, then this Court may pass the appropriate  

order to transfer the case to any police agency in the  

state.  He has placed reliance upon the cases referred  

to  supra and  has  further  made  it  clear  that  

transferring  of  the  case  registered  by  the  second

Page 14

14

respondent to any other police agency in the State of  

Karnataka  shall  not  be  henceforth  construed  or  

understood as an act beyond the scope of authority of  

the  Lokayukta  Police  to  register  case/cases  against  

such persons and investigate the offences under the  

provisions of the CrPC or under the P.C.Act.

10.We have heard both the learned senior counsel for the  

parties  and  perused  the  reports  published  in  the  

Newspapers  on  the  dates  mentioned  above  which  were  

taken  into  consideration  suo-moto by  the  second  

respondent, wherein he has registered the FIR after  

being satisfied with the material facts published in  

the Newspapers that there is a cognisable offence to be  

investigated by the police against the appellant. The  

same cannot be found fault with either by the High  

Court or by this Court for the reason that the second  

respondent, who is on deputation to the Lokayukta, is  

an  Inspector  of  Police  attached  to  the  State  of  

Karnataka.  Therefore,  he  has  got  every  power  under  

Section 2(d) of the CrPC, to act  suo-moto and take  

cognisance of the offence/offences alleged to have been  

committed by the appellant on the basis of the reports  

published against him, which according to him warranted

Page 15

15

registration  of  an  FIR  and  investigate  the  matter  

against him in accordance with law.   

11.The learned senior counsel on behalf of the respondents  

has rightly made the categorical submission that there  

is  no  need  for  the  registration  of  the  FIR  under  

Section 9 of the Lokayukta Act, in relation to the  

matters  to  be  investigated  under  Section  8  of  the  

Lokayukta Act. Therefore, in the light of the above  

contentions urged on behalf of the parties and in view  

of the law laid down by this Court under the Lokayukta  

Act and keeping in mind the apprehension expressed by  

the learned senior counsel on behalf of the appellant  

with regard to the investigation that may be carried  

out by the Lokayukta Police, we are of the considered  

view  that  the  learned  Judge  of  the  High  Court  has  

rightly  declined  to  exercise  his  inherent  power  to  

quash  the  proceedings,  which  does  not  call  for  our  

interference in this appeal.  

12.Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the  

case, it would be just and proper for this Court to see  

that  justice  is  meted  out  and  the  case  is  fairly  

investigated by the Corps of Detectives (COD) of the  

State. The said investigation shall be entrusted to an

Page 16

16

officer of the rank equivalent to the Superintendent of  

Police in the COD.  

13.For the foregoing reasons and the decisions of this  

Court  referred  to  supra,  we  direct  the  second  

respondent to transmit the FIR to the COD Bangalore for  

further  investigation  in  the  matter.   The  COD  

represented  by  the  Director  General  of  Police  must  

entrust  the  same  to  the  officer  of  the  rank  of  

Superintendent  of  Police  for  conducting  impartial  

investigation and proceed with the matter in accordance  

with law.  

14.We make it amply clear that the direction is given to  

second  respondent  to  transfer  the  case  registered  

against the appellant to COD, keeping in view the facts  

and circumstances of this particular case only and it  

shall  not  be  construed  as  precedent  for  any  future  

case(s) before the Lokayukta or the courts. In view of  

the judgments of this Court referred to supra, we hold  

that the second respondent has the right to register a  

cognizable  offence  against  any  person  under  the  

provisions of the IPC, CrPC and the P.C. Act. The same  

shall be legal and valid.

Page 17

17

15.The appeal is dismissed. The order dated 05.01.2015  

granting  stay  of  further  proceedings  shall  stand  

vacated.       

                            …………………………………………………………J.                               [V. GOPALA GOWDA]     

                            …………………………………………………………J.          [C. NAGAPPAN]

New Delhi, April 9, 2015

Page 18

18

ITEM NO.1B-For JUDGMENT     COURT NO.11               SECTION IIB                S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A                        RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Criminal Appeal  No(s)........./2015 arising from SLP(Crl.) NO.  108/2015 YUNUS ZIA                                          Appellant(s)                                 VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.                          Respondent(s) Date : 09/04/2015 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM :           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. GOPALA GOWDA          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. NAGAPPAN For Appellant(s)                      Mr. Vikash Singh,Adv.                       For Respondent(s)                      Mr. V. N. Raghupathy,Adv.

Hon'ble  Mr.  Justice  V.Gopala  Gowda  pronounced  the  judgment of the Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon'ble Mr.  Justice C.Nagappan.

Leave granted. The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed Non-

Reportable Judgment.       (VINOD KR.JHA)    (MALA KUMARI SHARMA)

COURT MASTER COURT MASTER (Signed Non-Reportable Judgment is placed on the file)