Karnataka High Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Against Prison Officials For Alleged VIP Treatment Of AIADMK's Ex-General Secretary VK Sasikala

The Karnataka High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against three officials of the Bengaluru Central Jail, charged with allegedly acting as broker in facilitating luxury amenities inside prison to former AIADMK General Secretary Sasikala Natarajan (VK Sasikala).Sasikala was lodged in prison in the year 2017 on being convicted by Supreme Court in a disproportionate assets case. A single judge bench of Justice K Natarajan allowed the petitions filed by Police Inspector Gajaraja; then Assistant Superintendent of Prisons Dr. Anitha R; and Chief Superintendent of Prisons Krishna Kumar.Sasikala and Ilavarasi had surrendered in February 2017 after conviction in disproportionate asset’s case. Five months later, an anonymous letter was addressed to DGP, Prisons, alleging that Sasikala was receiving royal treatment inside the jail. It was alleged that petitioner (Gajaraja) was letting Sasikala meet MLAs, MPs inside the jail without recording the same in the visitor’s register book, by taking bribes.Following which the State government passed an order appointing Vinay Kumar, a retired IAS officer, for enquiring into the allegations. In February 2018, the government accepted Kumar's report which found no irregularities. Thereafter, the government handed over the investigation to the ACB against one HN Sathyanarayana Rao, former DGP Prisons. After investigation, the ACB sought sanction to prosecute the offence against present petitioners. Sanction order was issued and a charge sheet came to be filed on January 7, 2022.Petitioners contended that the order of sanction is without looking into any material; the State had directed ACB to initiate proceedings against HN Sathyanarayana Rao but his name was dropped from the charge sheet. Moreover, the petitioners are neither accused in the FIR nor in the enquiry report, but have been falsely implicated, it was argued.Even otherwise, the petitioners contended, no element of demand or acceptance by them was reflected in the entire material on record for grant of sanction to prosecute the offence under section 13 (1) (a) of Prevention of Corruption Act.The prosecution opposed the plea contending that any defect in the sanction has to be considered only in the trial court, and cannot be questioned before the High Court.Findings: The bench noted that there is no allegation against Gajaraja and there was no inquiry initiated by the State Government against him. Rather, police had filed a chargesheet against other accused persons by dropping Satyanarayana, who was the prime accused against whom the allegation of Rs.2 crores bribe was levelled.The bench also noted that the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal had set aside the order of enquiry and had given a clean chit to Anitha, following which State Government dropped the enquiry against her. However, in the very same order, the State directed the authorities to continue the enquiry against Krishna Kumar. On the very same day the State Government gave sanction to the ACB/Lokayuktha police to prosecute the case against all the above said petitioners.The bench noted that the State Government has not chosen to initiate any disciplinary action against Gajaraja and FIR was also not ordered against him. Nonetheless, ACB dropped the prime accused (DGP-Sathyanarayana Rao) in the charge sheet and obtained permission against Gajaraja for filing the charge sheet, even though absolutely there is no material against him. The bench said the State had issued the sanction order simply mentioning ‘Final report’ of the police and without any discussion or satisfaction and ignoring the earlier government orders for registering FIR against H.N.Sathyanarayana Rao and also ignoring dropping of charge sheet against H.N.Sathyanarayana Rao.Thus it held “Even though knowing fully there is no departmental enquiry initiated against this petitioner and also nothing has been recovered during the raid at the house of the petitioner giving sanction to prosecute against the accused who is a police sub-inspector was posted for the security, is non application of mind. Hence the same is liable to be quashed.” Considering the case of Dr Anitha the bench noted that State Government had dropped charges against her. Thus, by once again passing the impugned order of sanction against her, the sanctioning authority failed to consider the previous order of the Under Secretary to Home Department (Prison and Cinema) dropping enquiry Anitha, court said.It held, “The question of prosecuting the petitioner for the very same allegation without any material for demand or acceptance of any bribe or conspiracy with other accused initiating proceedings and conducting trial is abuse of process of law.” It added “When the very same Under Secretary to State Government, on one hand, has dropped the enquiry and same Under Secretary to State Government, on the other hand, accorded sanctioning for prosecution, which is abuse of process of law and hence, order of sanction was ...

Karnataka High Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Against Prison Officials For Alleged VIP Treatment Of AIADMK's Ex-General Secretary VK Sasikala

Mustafa Plumber

Tags