Fri May 16 14:29:56 UTC 2025: Here’s a summary and a news article based on the provided text:

**Summary:**

The Karnataka High Court has ruled that police cannot circumvent the requirement for prior permission under the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act by initially investigating a case without invoking the Act, only to add charges under the Act later with just a prosecution sanction. The court quashed a case against a former chairman of D. Devaraj Urs Truck Terminals Ltd., D.S. Veeraiah, finding that the police deliberately avoided seeking prior permission under Section 17A of the PC Act by registering the initial FIR against “unknown persons,” even though the complaint implicated Veeraiah. The court emphasized that offences under the IPC, such as criminal breach of trust, are essentially the same as those under the PC Act, making the police’s attempt to bypass the PC Act’s requirements unlawful.

**News Article:**

**Karnataka High Court Slams Police Tactic to Avoid Corruption Probe Permissions**

**Bengaluru, May 16, 2025** – The Karnataka High Court has sharply criticized a tactic used by police to sidestep legal requirements for investigating corruption allegations, ruling the practice illegal. The court’s decision came in response to a case against D.S. Veeraiah, the former chairman of D. Devaraj Urs Truck Terminals Ltd. (DDUTTL) and former MLC, who was accused of misappropriating ₹47.1 crore from the public sector company.

Justice M. Nagaprasanna quashed the criminal case against Veeraiah, stating that police cannot circumvent Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act, which mandates prior permission from a competent authority before investigating a public servant.

The police had initially registered an FIR against “unknown persons” for offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), such as criminal breach of trust and cheating, while notably omitting any charges under the PC Act. The High Court found that this was a deliberate attempt to avoid seeking prior permission to investigate Veeraiah, even though the initial complaint directly implicated him.

The court emphasized that offences under the IPC and the PC Act are essentially the same, particularly in cases involving criminal misappropriation by public servants. It further noted that while the police eventually obtained sanction for prosecution under the PC Act, they never secured the required prior permission to investigate under Section 17A of the PC Act.

“No camouflage proceedings can be permitted to get over the rigour of Section 17A of the PC Act,” Justice Nagaprasanna stated in his order, declaring the entire procedure adopted by the police as illegal. This ruling is expected to have significant implications for how corruption cases are investigated in Karnataka, ensuring stricter adherence to the PC Act’s requirements and preventing future attempts to bypass legal safeguards.

Read More