STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. MAHESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944 is filed by the Lokayukta Police, Belgaum challenging the order dated 13.04.2010 passed in Belgaum Lokayukta Police Station Crime No. 14/2008 rejecting the application filed by the Special Public Prosecutor under Section 3 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944 ('the Ordinance' for short). It is the case of the appellant-Lokayukta that the properties at Sl. Nos. 1 to 56 mentioned in the application are liable for attachment on the ground that the respondent has possessed the same disproportionate to his known sources of income which is worth to the tune of Rs. 17,08,35,752/-, The Lokayukta has filed a complaint against the respondent alleging that the respondent was the Motor Vehicle Inspector and that he was appointed as such and when a raid was conducted on the basis of reliable information, it was found that the respondent was in possession of assets which are in excess of his known sources of income to an extent of Rs. 17,08,35,752/-. The description of the said property is shown at item Nos. 1 to 56 in the said application. The learned Special Judge has declined to grant the permission for attachment on the ground that Section 5(6) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ('the Act' for short) empowers the Special Judge to pass an order as prayed for only when the said Special Judge tries the offence.

(2.) I have heard Sri. M. B. Gundawade, learned Counsel for the Lokayukta and Sri. R. D. Desai, learned Counsel for the respondent/accused.

(3.) The learned Counsel for Lokayukta submits that Section 3(1) of the Ordinance authorises a District Judge to pass such an order whether or not the said Court has taken cognizance of the offence and that the purpose of the Ordinance is to prevent the disposal or concealment of property procured by means of corruption or offences. Hence he submits that the application filed by the Lokayukta may be allowed.