H. RAGAVENDRA RAO Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the basis of the complaint lodged by one Mallikarjun, resident c 2nd Ward, Vijayanagar, Siraguppa on 27-3-2010, Lokayuktha Polio registered the case in Cr. No. 3 of 2010 against one G. Mehaboob, Chief Officer, Town Municipal Council, Siraguppa and six others for the offences punishable under Section 13(lXc) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 409 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Petitioner herein is arraigned an accused 7.

(2.) It is the case of the prosecution that the Petitioner is a Civil Contractor who had been entrusted with the work of laying the road in 15th ward from the house of LIC Venkobanna to the house of Dr. Yonou and from Bellary Main Road to Shanimahathma Temple in the year 2009. The allegations made in the complaint was that even without laying the said road, the contractor presented the bills and the same has been honoured and amount has been paid to the contractor by the officials of the Town Municipal Council. Thus, public money has been misappropriated and misused. During investigation, some of the accused persons were arrested and they were ultimately granted bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by this Court. Apprehending arrest, the Petitioner filed petition under Section 438 of the Cr. P.C. before the Principal Sessions Judge, Bellary who is the Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, seeking relief of anticipatory bail and the same came to be rejected by order dated 21-4-2010, mainly on the ground that for custodial interrogation his presence is necessary and also for recovery of the amount received by him. It was also found that the Petitioner does not stand on par with the other accused persons who have been granted bail, therefore, the principle of parity is not applicable to the case on hand.

(3.) As noted above, there is no serious dispute that the Petitioner was awarded with contract of laying the aforesaid roads. Even according to the Petitioner, the work of laying the road was shifted to some other area as per the direction of accused 1 and he has carried out the other work for which he has received the money. The Investigation is under way and during investigation these contentions will have to be enquired into and ultimately, it is for the I.O. to form an opinion and to file final report. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is seen that the public money to a tune of Rs. 20 lakhs is involved.