S.B. MALLIKARJUNA Vs. KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, REPRESENTED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a police inspector, is accused of offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'PC Act', for brevity). It is claimed that on the basis of information received by the Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lok Ayuktha, Rural District Bangalore, a source report dated 31.10.2007 was said to have been formulated and a case registered for the offences, as aforesaid.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner, in a similar exercise, as was attempted before the court below, seeks to canvass that the assets which are treated as being income or wealth, disproportionate to the known sources of income, is with reference to particular items and with reference to a definite sum of money. When each of these so called questionable items could be reconciled with legitimate and acceptable material documents, which are again capable of verification on a plain perusal, the petitioner being put through the rigmarole of a trial, only for the sake of it, is superfluous and unjust and that it seriously jeopardizes the career of the petitioner. The learned Counsel hence, seeks that the order of the court below be set aside and the petitioner be acquitted.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, while seeking to justify the impugned order seeks to place reliance on the following authorities.