VEERANNA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is challenging the order passed by the 2nd respondent of the State of Karnataka dated: 27.5.2008 on the complaint lodged by one Sri Thotappa Malleshappa Hundekar, a resident of Bagalkot, in holding that the petitioner has committed an offence punishable under Section 177 of IPC and further acting as per the provisions of Section 14 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act in directing the Registrar, Lokayukta to file a complaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate. The facts leading to this Writ Petition are as hereunder:

(2.) On 21.8.2007 One Thotappa Malleshappa Hundekar who is a political rival of the petitioner lodged a complaint before the 2nd respondent stating that there are various omissions in declaring the assets and liabilities by the petitioner before the Returning Officer and before the 2nd respondent and hence sought for an investigation for having furnished a false information under Section 22 of the Act.

(3.) The 2nd respondent after receipt of the complaint from Sri Hundekar sought the comments or the reply of the petitioner and he submitted his reply in detail. He contended in the reply that the 2nd respondent has no power to look into the affidavit filed before the Returning Officer under the provisions of the Representations of People's Act, as he has no jurisdiction over the said issue. However, he submitted his detailed reply, in regard to the variation said to have been noticed by the complainant in regard to the declarations filed by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent under Section 22 of the Act for the years 2004-2005, 2005-2006. According to him, the discrepancy in the assets and liabilities submitted under Section 22 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984, for these two years is only in regard to non-disclosure of a two wheeler (Scooter) bearing No. KA 29 Q 999 which he had purchased in the year 2003 and that he had disclosed his ownership of the Scooter in the first statement of assets and liabilities and the declaration filed for the year 2004-2005. However, by oversight without any intention he had failed to mention the ownership of the Scooter for the subsequent year of declaration, that is for the year 2005-2006. He further disclosed that the ownership of the said Scooter has been reflected in the balance sheet. He further contended that there is no violation of any of the provisions of IPC or of the Lokayukta Act. In the circumstances he requested the 2nd respondent to reject the complaint lodged by Sri Hundekar.