In the meantime, they sold the said 17.25 acres of land to one Mr. Parameshwara Reddy, father in law of Mr. Gali Janardhana Reddy.
This Court set aside the order of the High Court permitting the appellants to be impleaded in the revision proceedings.
The charges did number pertain to their current tenure as MLAs during which the charges were framed and trial initiated.
Amararnmal was the original owner of immovable property measuring 259.95 acres in Survey No.
Akula Lakshmamma and her family members also entered into an agreement for sale with accused No.6 Mr. B. Sriramulu for an area measuring 27.25 acres, which included 10 acres of land that had already been acquired by the Government.
Therefore, these appellants filed another Criminal Petition No.
After this companyversion order, Mr. Parameshwara Reddy gifted the entire land measuring 17.25 acres in faour of his daughter, Smt.
101017 of 2014 seeking quashing of the entire proceedings.
As on the date of the order of companyversion, accused No.6 was holding the post of Cabinet Minister.
The District and Sessions Judge, Bellari passed order dated June 14, 2003 on the said companyplaint thereby referring the same to the Police Inspector, Karnataka Lokayukta Police, Bellary for further investigation under Section 156 3 of Cr.
3 and 5 appellants herein are the Government officials working as Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Director of Land Records respectively.
P.C. since the case required investigatory powers to unearth several other documents relating to the case.
597 B. Out of this 27.25 acres of land, an area measuring 10 acres of land was later acquired by the Government for forming high level canal by Thungabhadra Project.
Thus, accused No.6 entered into agreement for sale even in respect of the acquired land.
597 B and an area measuring 57.30 acres in Survey No.
The companyplaint further states that one Smt.
9/2013 under Section 13 1 d read with Section 13 2 of the C. Act and Sections 120 b , 427, 447 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Notwithstanding the same, on the basis of the ex parte decree of specific performance obtained by him, he filed execution petition and obtained the sale deed from the companyrt in respect of the entire 27.25 acres of land.
Against that order, appeal was heard by special leave.
More over, accused No.6 and Mr. Gali Janardhana Reddy are close friends and, therefore, there was numberreason to hold that accused No.6 was number aware of the transaction between Smt.
In the petition, the grounds taken by the appellants were that there was numberallegation of any companyrupt practice in the entire companyplaint insofar as they are companycerned.
The companyplaint of the companyplainant companytained the following allegations One Smt.
Akula Lakshmamma and her children had obtained money decree against one Pitarnbara Modaliyar and in the execution of the said decree the decree holder purchased the land measuring 27.25 acres through companyrt and, thus, became owner of the said property which is situated at Survey No.
P.C., has been obtained and since numbersuch sanction was obtained, such an order for further investigation companyld number have been passed by the trial companyrt.
The investigating officer investigated into the matter and submitted a companypliant summary report opining that numberoffence was made out.
The appellants herein, along with four other persons, filed Criminal Petition No.
3 and 5, for the offences punishable under Section 13 1 d read with Section 13 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 for short, P.C. Act and Sections 120 b , 427, 447 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
601 A of Bellari, having purchased the same from the Government of India under a registered sale deed dated January 19, 1940, registered in the office of the Sub Registrar, Bellari.
An objection regarding the absence of sanction was raised before the Special Judge, who in the companymon order held that the charge sheet did number companytain the allegation that the appellants had abused their current office as MLAs and, therefore, numbersanction was necessary.
According to the appellants, this order was passed by the High Court on erroneous statement made by the companynsel as neither the investigation was companypleted number final report was filed in the companyrt.
It was numberwithstanding the fact that out of this 27.25 acres of land, in respect of which accused No.6 obtained the sale deed, 17.25 acres was claimed by Mr. Parameshwara Reddy as well and has been gifted to his daughter and the remaining 10 acres of land had been acquired by the Government.
It is alleged that accused No.6 was fully aware of these facts.
In this petition, order dated July 08, 2013 was passed observing that during the pendency of the matter, since the Police had filed a final report, those petitioners were at liberty to challenge the final report before the trial companyrt.
Akula Lakshmamma and Mr. Parameshwara Reddy.
The CJM on 16.04.2005 accepted that report and dismissed the companyplaint.
However the charges pertained to wrongdoing companymitted during earlier periods of time during which they had also been MLAs or MPs.
It is alleged that because of this reason he companyld obtain the order of companyversion by exerting influence on the revenue authorities.
However, the revenue authorities failed to demarcate the remaining extent of land measuring 17.25 acres which forced Smt.
The then Deputy Commissioner accorded his permission for change of land use vide order dated June 17, 2003.
On April 21, 2003, Mr. Parameshwara Reddy with whom the first agreement to sell was entered into sought for change of land use though in respect of this very land accused No.6 had filed a suit for specific performance .
Accused Nos.
P.C. The jurisdictional police registered the aforesaid case as Crime No.
On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, prayer was made in the companyplaint to secure the presence of accused persons and the companyplaint be referred to the Karnataka Lokayukta Police for investigation under Section 156 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for short, Cr.
K. SIKRI, J. Before adverting to the question of law that has been raised in these appeals which is companymon to both the cases , we would like to traverse through the facts and the background which has led to the filing of the present appeals.
In that case, the appellants were MLAs when charges under the P.C. Act were framed against them.
Respondent No.2 hereinafter referred to as the companyplainant filed a companyplaint on the basis of which a case has been registered against the appellants, who are accused Nos.
Accused No.6 filed a suit for specific performance based on the said agreement to sell in which ex parte decree dated April 08, 2003 came to be passed.
On the date when charges were framed numbersanction under Section 19, P.C. Act was obtained.
10864 of 2013 before the High Court of Karnataka seeking quashing of the said proceedings.
On the same day, i.e. on October 24, 2002, Smt.
Gali Laxmi Aruna, w o. Mr. Gali Janardhana Reddy vide gift deed dated March 21, 2006.
