Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2020 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (7) TMI 827 - HC - Indian LawsPermitting the respondent No. 3 to investigate all purported violations of the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act, 1988), by Mr. D.K. Shivakumar and other officials of the Government of Karnataka and to identify and investigate all persons involved in the alleged violation of the provisions of the PC Act, 1988 - impugned order bears reason for granting sanction to prosecute the concerned persons or not - petitioner has locus standi to question the impugned order or not - impugned order is a consent or sanction. HELD THAT:- A perusal of the impugned Order indicates that the consent was to enable the respondent No. 3 to investigate the violations of the PC Act, 1988 by Mr. D.K. Shivakumar and other officials of the Government of Karnataka and for identification and investigation of person/s involved in connection with the alleged violation of the provisions of the PC Act, 1988. The reference to the petitioner in the impugned Order was only incidental while recording the findings of the Enforcement Directorate and nothing else. The petitioner failed to establish as to how any of his rights were infringed or violated by the consent granted by the respondent No. 1 or as to how he was aggrieved by the consent granted under Section 6 of the DSPE Act, 1946. It is not the case of the petitioner that the respondent No. 1 could not itself investigate the offences committed by Mr. D.K. Shivakumar and other officials of the Government under the PC Act, 1988, based on the documents/information provided by the Enforcement Directorate - The word "sanction" found in the impugned Order is wrongly employed as what is contemplated under Section 6 of the DSPE Act, 1946 is only a "consent" to enable the respondent No. 3 to investigate the offences. The word "consent" is phonetically, etymologically and textually different from the word "sanction" and a world of difference pervades between the two and can never be used interchangeably. Though the respondent No. 1 has termed it as sanction under Section 6 of the DSPE Act, 1946 in the impugned order, yet what can be granted is only a consent and nothing more. The word "consent" admits of myriad definitions as per its use in various legislations such as consent in contractual matters, consent in offences relating to human body, consent for establishment under the Environmental laws. In so far as the word "consent" found in Section 6 of the DSPE Act, 1946, it only means a "permission" of the concerned State in the Constitutional scheme of things. Whether grant of consent under Section 6 of the DSPE Act, 1946 is more in the nature of an administrative Order and does not require enormous rejigging as the issue is whether to allow the investigation to be done by the CBI or not? - HELD THAT:- In so far as the present case is concerned, the raid was allegedly conducted by the Department of Income Tax followed by investigation by the Enforcement Directorate into the alleged acts of money laundering, which found violations of the PC Act, 1988. Thus, in the fitness of things, the respondent No. 1 has felt it appropriate that the violations of the PC Act, 1988 be investigated by the respondent No. 3. Even if it is assumed that the respondent No. 1 was required to apply its mind before granting the consent, the opinion of the Advocate General would indicate that the Enforcement Directorate had shared documents pertaining to the said investigation in the form of a complaint filed before the Special Court for Economic Offences, the communication made by the Enforcement Directorate to the Central Bureau of Investigation etc., and the impugned Order itself would indicate the circumstances that compelled it to grant consent. It is thus the subjective satisfaction of the respondent No. 1 which has resulted in a consent under Section 6 of the DSPE Act. The writ petition is dismissed.
|