STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. versus KEMPAIAH

Citation: [1998] 3 S.C.R. 910 · Decided: 27-07-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.K. MUKHERJEE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. 
v. 
KEMPAIAH 
JULY 27, 1998 
[M.K. MUKHERJEE AND S.S.M. QUADRI, JJ.] 
Criminal Law : 
Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 : Sections 2(1), 2(2) and 7. 
"Action"-Meaning and scope of-Amassing of wealth by public 
servant-Held: Not covered- Expression "Jn any other manner" in S.2 (1) 
cannot be so interpreted as to mean actions which have no nexus to any 
administrative action-Definition of "allegation" is S.2(2) not relevant for 
interpreting the word "action". 
Interpretation of Statutes : 
lnterpretution-Ejusdem Generis-Rule of-Explained 
Words and Phrases :"Action" and "in any other manner" 
"Action" and "in any other manner"-Meaning of-In the context of 
S.2(1) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984. 
The respondent was an IPS Officer wor!'ing as deputy Commissioner 
of Police. An unsigned letter containing allegations of amassing wealth 
F against the respondent was forwarded to the Registrar, Lokayukta for taking 
necessary action. The Upaokayukta referred the said allegations against the 
.,,, 
respondent to the police wing of the Upalokayukta for preliminary inquiry 
under Section 7(2) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 and commen_ts of 
the respondent were called for under Section 9(3) of the Act. The respondent 
G filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the aforesaid 
proceeding which was allowed. Hence this appeal. 
On behalf of the appellant it was contended that under Section 7(2) of 
the Act the Upalokayukta was competent to investigate into the allegation of 
amassing of wealth by the respondent as it would fall within the meaning of 
H the word "action" in Section 2(1) of the Act. 
910 
STATE OF KARNATAKA v. KEMPAIAH (QUADRI, J.) 
911 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: I.I. The definition of the word "action" in Section 2(1) of the 
Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 indicates that it encompasses administrative 
action taken in any form whether by way of recommendation or finding or 
A 
'in any other manner', e.g., granting licenses or privileges, awarding contract, 
distributing Government land under statutory Rules or otherwise or B 
withholding decision on any matter etc. The expression 'in any other manner' 
takes it in fold the last-mentioned categories of administrative actions. The 
expression 'in any other manner' contains general words, which construed 
literally should receive their full and natural meaning but when they follow 
specific and particular words of the same genus, it will be presumed that the 
legislature has used the general words in a limited sense to convey the C 
meaning implied by specific an particular words. This follows from application 
of Rule of ejusdem generis. In the definition of "action" the expression 'in 
any other manner' follows 'decision' 'recommendation' or 'finding' so it 
connotes other categories of administrative action; it cannot be interpreted 
to mean actions which have no nexus to any administrative action. 
D 
(915-A-D) 
1.2. The definition of 'allegation' in Section 2(2) is couched in very 
wide terms but for purposes of Section 7(2) the scope of investigation is 
confined to a grievance or allegation made in respect of an action within the 
meaning of Section 2(1) of the Act. No support can be had from the definition E 
of 'allegation'. (915-E) 
R v. Edmundson (1959) 28 LJMC 213, referred to. 
"Craies on Statute Law" 6th Edn. p. 179, referred to. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal Nos. F 
722-723 of 1998. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 2.7.96 of the Kamataka High Court 
in Crl. P. No.1155of1993. 
K.R. Nagaraja and K.K. Tyagi for the Appellants. 
Ashok K. Srivastava and T.V. Ratnam for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
QUADRI, J. Leave is granted. 
G 
H 
912 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1998) 3 S.C.R. 
A 
In these appeals, filed by the State of Karnataka against the common 
judgment of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court dated 2nd July, 
,... ... 
1996 in Writ Petition No. 16857of1993 and Criminal Petition No. 1155of1993, 
only that part of the judgment is assailed, which deals with the interpretation 
of 'action' as defined in Section 2( I) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 
B 
(for short "the K.L. Act"). 
To appreciate the contentions of Mr. K.R. Nagaraja, the learned counsel 
for the appellants, it would be necessary to refer to the facts giving rise to 
these appeals. On 17.12.92, an unsigned representation containing allegations 
~ .

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.