Only Police Can Do Preliminary Inquiry U/S 17A PC Act, Not Governor: State To Karnataka High Court In CM Siddaramaiah's Plea Against Sanction

While hearing Chief Minister Siddaramaiah's plea against the Governor's sanction to prosecute him, the state government on Monday (September 9) told the Karnataka High Court that the preliminary inquiry under Section 17A of Prevention of Corruption Act could have been conducted by the police only and not the Governor. A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna was hearing the CM's plea seeking quashing of an order issued by Governor Thaawar Chand Gehlot granting sanction to prosecute the former in the alleged multi-crore scam relating to Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA).On August 19, the high court directed the trial court to defer all proceedings against Siddaramaiah, based on the governor's sanction, till the next date of hearing before the high court.During the hearing on September 2, one of the complainant's had argued that Governor's sanction order against CM Siddaramaiah may not be looked at as adversarial but for ensuring purity in public administration. On August 31, the office of the Governor had submitted that the sanction granted to prosecute Siddaramaiah was done after "elaborate application of mind", adding that the sanction order had considered everything. The matter was kept on Monday for submissions by the advocate general appearing for the state government. Appearing for the state government, advocate general Shashi Kiran Shetty on Monday argued that this was a case where private persons had sought approval under section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act. For context, Section 17A and Section 19 being referred to in the matter are under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Section 17A pertains to Enquiry/Inquiry/investigation of offences relatable to recommendations made or decisions taken by public servants in the discharge of official functions or duties. Section 19 of the Act is on the necessity of "previous sanction" for the prosecution of a public servant.Shetty said that the condition precedent for 17A approval is that a preliminary inquiry be done by the investigating officer. To this the high court orally said, "Are you suggesting, prior to sanction by 17A approval there should be an inquiry. If yes then you are equating the order to an FIR". Meanwhile Shetty said that for a "Pre-17A approval" an inquiry is "required". The High Court however orally said that there is no requirement for a "prior inquiry before 17A approval". At this stage Shetty said that there is an "abnormal delay" in the case and the "de-notification" as per the other side (complainants and the Governor's office) is of 1998. "Private Person cannot be put on higher pedestal than a police officer milord. Preliminary inquiry is to be done. In this case inquiry has not be done milords. Here is a case where complaint was given to police officer and sufficient time was not given and then they jump the gun and apply for approval under Section 17A. Governor does not do a preliminary inquiry; in this case he has done preliminary inquiry.Formation of opinion is to be done only by police officer. The competent authority does not do preliminary inquiry it could have asked the IO to give the information and ought not to have acted as investigating officer," Shetty emphasized. He further submitted that the "allegation of complaint" ought to have been returned by the Governor and the information should have been sought from the investigating officer in terms of Section 17A and Standard Operating Procedure issued by the Central Government. "He ought (Governor) not have entertained the application itself. What is crucial is that offence under PC Act should be relatable to decision and office held," Shetty said. At this stage, the high court orally asked, "According to you petitioner (Siddaramaiah) has not done anything that is relatable to a decision taken or recommendation made?"Shetty meanwhile replied, "No that is the legal position in order to invoked Sect 17A it is a condition precedent. For entertaining application preliminary inquiry is required".Submitting that inquiry was to be done only by the police, the advocate general said, "Trigger happy complaints are filed day in and day out, against various public servants to competent authority, nature of inquiry ought to have been done...hearing the complainant/accused, such a thing will defeat the purpose of Sec 17A. Thus inquiry is to be conducted by police only".He said that it is upon the competent authority to grant approval or not, considering the preliminary inquiry of the Investigating Officer. At this stage the high court orally asked, "If inquiry is done then competent authority gives approval for what then?...Your blowing hot and cold. You said prior to approval under Sec 17A there should be an inquiry or some report". Shetty meanwhile submitted that this what the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari has said. He further added that there was "no application of mind" and no preliminary inquiry in the present matter. "Complaint was given on 18 and 25...

Only Police Can Do Preliminary Inquiry U/S 17A PC Act, Not Governor: State To Karnataka High Court In CM Siddaramaiah's Plea Against Sanction

Mustafa Plumber

Tags