H.D. MAHALINGAIAH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition filed under Section 407 of Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner, the sole accused in Spl. CC. No. 100/10 on the file of Special Court at Koppal registered for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(e) r/w. Section 13(21) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, has sought for transfer of the said case to the Special Court at Tumkur inter alia on the ground that the prosecution has been launched at Koppal only on the premise that at the relevant point of time, the petitioner was serving as Executive Officer of Taluk Panchayat, Koppal and by the date of filing the Final Report, petitioner had been transferred from Koppal to Madhugiri, where he is presently working as executive officer of the Taluk Panchayat and that the assets said to have acquired by the petitioner alleged to be disproportionate to his known source of income are all situated in the jurisdiction of Special Court at Tumkur and that out of 130 charge sheet witnesses 69 witnesses are from Tumkur and Tumkur District, whereas hardly 31 of them are from Koppal District, 15 witnesses are from Bangalore and the remaining are from other places. Under these circumstances, the petitioner has contended that in the interest of justice, the trial of the case requires to be transferred to Special Court at Tumkur, which would be more convenient to the prosecution witnesses also and at the same time it would be convenient for the petitioner to regularly attend the case on all hearing dates. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mrudul M. Damle and Anr. vs. C.B.I., New Delhi reported in 2012 AIR SCW 2943 . The respondent -Lokayukta police have opposed the petition inter alia on the ground that though the majority of the witnesses are from Tumkur, Tumkur District and other places, the prosecution agency would take necessary steps to get the presence of the witnesses before the Court and therefore, there are no justifiable grounds to order transfer of the case to the Court at Tumkur.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for both the sides.

(3.) IN the case on hand, petitioner is the sole accused in the case. 69 out of 130 charge sheet witnesses are from Tumkur and Tumkur District. 15 witnesses are from neighboring Bangalore and Bangalore District. The petitioner is presently working as Executive Officer of Taluk Panchayat, Madhugiri in 'Tumkur District. The assets alleged to have been acquired by the petitioner, which is stated to be disproportionate to his known sources of income are all situated in Tumkur District. The case put forth by the prosecution also appears to be not Koppal centric. Having regard to the above facts, the trial of the case at Koppal would not be convenient to the petitioner as well as the majority of the witnesses. The majority of the prosecution witnesses are required to travel from Bangalore and Tumkur District to Koppal, for which the exchequer is required to meet the expenses. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out sufficient grounds for ordering transfer of the case from Koppal to Tumkur. In this view of the matter, petition is allowed. The prosecution initiated by the respondent -Lokayukta Police against the petitioner, which is pending in Spl. C.c. No. 100/10 on the file of District Sessions Judge and Special Judge at Koppal is ordered to be transferred to the District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge at Tumkur for trial in accordance with law. Registry to send a copy of this order to the Court concerned.