S.K. PARAMESH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Senior Advocate, Shri. Ravi B. Naik, appearing for the counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. The petitioner is said to be a Mechanical Engineer by qualification and had joined the services of the State Government as an Assistant Mechanical Engineer with the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, in the year 1981. And after years of blemishless service is said to have occupied the post of Director (Technical), KSRTC. The petitioner is married to a reputed Gynaecologist. They have two sons -one is employed in the United States of America, since three years and the other is pursuing post -graduate studies in medicine. The petitioner claims that his wife has made a name for herself in her profession and has earned substantial wealth, movable and immovable, in her own right. A source report dated 15.12.2012 was. submitted by the Inspector of Police (Lokayukta) to the Superintendent of Police (Lokayukta), on receipt of which, the latter had directed the former to register a case under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'PC Act', for brevity) and to take up investigation. It was alleged that the petitioner had a total accumulated assets worth Rs. 2,41,13,000/ -, whereas his known sources of income was only Rs. 1,35,00,000/ -. Hence it was alleged that there was a difference of 78%, beyond the petitioner's known sources of income. The check period indicated in the source report in the. First Information Report was from the year 1981: It is stated that the properties owned by the petitioner's wife is worth about Rs. 1,05,24,899/ - as per her income tax returns. Her total income, from rentals, advances, interests and Amway distributorship is Rs. 2,08,20540/ -. After deducting the value of the assets standing in her name and expenditure, she would be left with a saving of Rs. 33,77,224/ -. Despite production of the material records in respect of the source of income of the wife of the petitioner -the said assets are sought to be treated as that of the petitioner. A wild and unfair allegation is said to have been made in the source report that the income and the practice of the petitioner's wife is projected as a front to legalize the assets of the petitioner.

(2.) IT is contended that the proceedings initiated are, in any event, vitiated on account of the following further circumstances. An investigation under the provisions of the PC Act cannot be entrusted to any officer below the rank of a Superintendent of Police. Hence, the entrustment of the investigation to a police inspector vitiates the proceedings and the same are liable to be quashed. It is highlighted that the assets valuation in the source report is duplicated in the expenditure valuation of Rs. 75 lakh. If this is deducted along with the assets belonging to the petitioner's wife, there would be no irregularity to be found in the assets held by the petitioner.

(3.) The discrepancies apparent in the source report are sought to be addressed in depth, in the body of the petition, attention is drawn to the same. A large number of authorities are cited by the learned Senior Advocate to contend that the proceedings are liable to be quashed.