B K SUNDAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE these three petitions are in respect of same crime number, they have been taken up together to avoid repetition of discussion and to dispose of them with a common order.

(2.) CRL .P.3574/2014 is filed by accused No.1, Crl.P.3556/2014 is filed by accused Nos.6 and 7 and Crl.P.3576/2014 is filed by accused No.3. All these three petitions are filed by the respective petitioners under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking their release on bail for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(d)(ii)(iii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, read with Sections 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 472, 473, 474, 420 and 109 read with Section 120B of IPC registered, registered in respondent police station Crime No.6/2014.

(3.) HEARD the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the respective petitioners and also the learned Spl.PP for the respondent -Lokayuktha in respect of all the three petitions. The learned counsel appearing for petitioner/accused Nos.1, 6 and 7 during the course of his argument submitted that firstly, the Lokayuktha has no jurisdiction to register suo -moto complaint and to conduct the preliminary enquiry in the matter. Hence, he submitted that as per Section 8 of the Lokayuktha Act the said complaint itself is without jurisdiction. Learned counsel also made the submission that so far as accused Nos.6 and 7 are concerned there are no allegations against them about their direct involvement in the alleged offences. He also made the submission that as there was a gift deed in favour of accused No.1, which is said to have been gifted in his favour on 10.10.1961 by Maharaja of Mysore. Learned counsel also submitted that on the basis of the said gift deed petitioner/accused No.1 got the khata of the said property changed into his name from Mysore Mahanagara Palike. Learned counsel further made the submission that accused No.1 presented the confirmation deed before the Sub -registrar i.e., accused No.3 on 22.11.2013 for registration of the said property in his name. Learned counsel submitted that when the registering authority raised objection with regard to the payment of the registration fee the accused No.1 has paid the amount and got the deed registered in his favour. The learned counsel also submitted that it is the property belonging to a private person and not the Government property and hence, the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act are not attracted in this case. The learned counsel submitted that no primafacie material has been placed by the prosecution to show that the petitioners/accused No.1, 6 and 7 have committed the alleged offence and they have been falsely implicated in the said case and hence, any reasonable conditions may be imposed and petitioners/accused No.1, 6 and 7 may be enlarged on bail. In support of his contention learned counsel for the petitioners/accused 1, 6 and 7 relied upon the decisions mentioned at Sl.Nos.1 to 8 filed along with the memo dated 30.06.2014.