MAHESH JOSHI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petition filed under S. 482 Cr. P. C. for quashing the proceedings in FIR R. C. N. 10 (A)/2000 on the file of the C. B. I. Bangalore.

(2.) THE petitioner was working as Director of Dooradarshan, Bangalore,during 18-1-1999 to 21-8-1999 in the Sponsored Section and also worked as the Executive Producer of the Dooradarshan in a different section from 31-7-1998 to 22-12-1999. The work tenure of the petitioner between 18-1-1999 and 20-8-1999 and from 8-11-1999 to 21-12-1999 as the Director in the Sponsored Section has become the subject matter of the chargesheet alleging commission of the offence punishable under S. 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act of 1988 along with the offence of the conspiracy punishable under S. 120 (B) of the IPC. The C. B. I. has arrayed 7 accused persons. The petitioner is arrayed as accused No. 4 in the F. I. R.

(3.) IT is the contention of the prosecution that a Sponsored Programme Lux Top 10 for telecast on Doordarshan Bangalore was made from 12-10-1998 onwards and was an on going programme till the registration of the case against accused. The accused No. 1 P. S. Palani Swamy the former Director of Doordarshan working in the Sponsored Section during the year 1998 and as Director during his period the illegal telecast of the programme was approved by accepting the rates contrary to the approved rates and thereby causing loss to the Doordarshan. Accused-2 V. Appa Rao who succeeded Accused-1 and during his time, the telecast of disputed programme was continued at a low rates contrary to the scheduled telecast rates. The allegation against Accused 2 to 4 are that after the telecast was permitted, they succeeded to the office of Director, Doordarshan,bangalore despite knowledge that the rates charged for the telecast of the programme is contrary to the scheduled rates allowed the telecast of the programme without initiating appropriate action of cancelling the programme and intimating the authorities. Thereby it is alleged that they have tacitly colluded with the other accused and allowed the programme to be continued charging low rates causing loss to the Doordarshan. Accused 5 and 6 are the Producer and the liaison. Agency who got the contract approved through A. 1.