LAWS(KAR)-1995-8-68

J ALEXANDER I A S MAJOR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Decided On August 18, 1995
J.ALEXANDER, I.A.S., MAJOR Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KARNATAKA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against an order made by the learned Special Judge functioning under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, on 17-6-1993 by which he allowed the Karnataka Lokayukta to continue the investigation into the offence against the petitioner in accordance with Section 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code and to take all possible steps in consequence thereof, in accordance with law.

(2.) The brief facts leading to this case are that on 22-6-1990 the Lokayukta police registered a case in LAC (Crime) No. 14/1990 for the offences arising under Sections 13(1) (e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and filed a 'B' report in terms of Section 173(2) read with Section 169, Cr. P.C. on 30-11-1991. The said 'B' report was accepted by an order made on 11-12-1991 by the learned Special Judge, as provided under Section 173(4), Cr. P.C. An application was filed under Section 178, Cr. P.C. on 7-6-1993 to recall the order dated 11-12-1991 and seeking permission for investigation. However, the learned Special Judge made an order as aforesaid on 17-6-1993.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner raised the following contentions : that the order made on 11-12-1991 accepting 'B' reports is a judicial order resulting in adjudication of rights between parties as has been observed by the Supreme Court in Kamalapati Trivedi v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1979 SC 771 : (1979 Cr LJ 679 (SC) and is final; that there is no power of review available under the Criminal Procedure Code and when once an order is made that becomes final, and drew our attention to Section 362, Cr. P.C. placing reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in AIR 1977 SC 2185 and AIR 1977 SC 2432; that the learned Special Judge if at all wanted to consider the application under Section 173(8) of the Code, should have issued notice to the petitioner and heard him; that no notice was issued to him much less was he heard in the matter before passing the order under Revision.