LAWS(KAR)-2011-7-238

GOURISH SHANKAR BHAT, SON OF SHANKAR S. BHAT Vs. KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA REPRESENTED BY THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER

Decided On July 15, 2011
Gourish Shankar Bhat, Son Of Shankar S. Bhat Appellant
V/S
Karnataka Lokayukta Represented By The Investigating Officer Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Shankar Hegde, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri Rajendra Reddy learned Counsel for the Respondent - Lokayukta in respect of the challenge by the Petitioner to the order passed by the Trial Court declining to discharge the Petitioner.

(2.) IT is submitted that the Petitioner filed an application before the Trial Court seeking discharge and the said application under Sections 227 and 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure was rejected by the Trial Court by observing that the matter required to be adjudicated in the full fledge trial and the Court also observed that there are no grounds to discharge the accused but on the other hand held that there are grounds to frame the charge. It is on this reasoning the impugned order was passed.

(3.) CHALLENGING the impugned order of the court below, the learned Counsel Sri Shankar Hegde argued at great length and submitted that the Trial Court did not even look to the derailed written arguments filed by the Petitioner, explaining the various source of income and trial court also did not look to the documents filed in support of the reasons given in respect of each transaction. Secondly, the Trial Court also did not consider the documents filed by the Investigating Officer himself as part of the charge sheet, which documents even on a cursory glance would have established that the Petitioner was not having any asset which is said to be disproportionate to the known source of income. Referring to the table that is filed as per Annexure -F to this petition, learned Counsel argued that the details given in the said table would itself go to show that in respect of each receipt of amount, the Petitioner has given detailed explanation supported by documents and had these documents been looked at by the Trial Court, there would have been no case against the Petitioner. Learned Counsel referred to the statement of witnesses recorded by the investigating Officer in this connection.