S.M. SRINIVASA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions are filed by Accused Nos.1 and 2 under Sec. 439 of Cr.P.C. for enlarging them on bail in Crime No.1/2022 of Karnataka Lokayukta police, Bengaluru registered for the offences punishable under Ss. 7(A) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (' PC Act ' for short) now pending on the file of the 23rd Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (Special Judge under P.C. Act ), Bengaluru.

(2.) The petitioner in Criminal Petition No.9489/2022 is Accused No.1, while petitioner in Criminal Petition No.9671/2022 is Accused No.2.

(3.) The brief factual matrix of the prosecution case are that, on 12/9/2022, the respondent/police have received first information of the complainant in respect of the offence punishable under Sec. 7(A) of the P.C. Act against the present petitioners. It is alleged that, the informant was resident of the address given in the complaint and that he was entrusted with the work of amalgamation of property bearing Nos. 6, 7 & 8 situated in Survey No.78 of Ward No. 128 of Nagarabhavi in Bengaluru. The said properties were owned by one Sri.B.Lokesh, Sri. M. Mohan, Sri. Mahindra and Smt.Hemanvathi jointly having independent extent of land. It is alleged that the owners have entered into joint development agreement with one Murali, who is the owner of M/s. Nandi Builders and Developers and since the said properties are to be amalgamated, the informant being the employee of M/s. Nandi Builders and Developers, submitted an application before the Assistant Revenue Officer, Chandra Lay-out for obtaining permission, after obtaining permission from the land owners. The file had been approved by the Revenue Inspector, Assistant Revenue Inspector and it was put-up before the Deputy Commissioner of BBMP West Zone and after his approval, it was pending before the Joint Commissioner i.e., Accused No.1 for approval. It is asserted that the informant with the assistance of his friend Chandrashekar met Petitioner/Accused No.1 (Joint Commissioner) and enquired about the file and there was a demand of Rs.12.00 Lakhs and subsequently, it was settled for Rs.4.00 Lakhs.