VEERSHETTY Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Bhalki Town Police Station, Bhalki, have registered a case against the petitioner and others in Crime No. 367/2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 120(B), 166(A), 166, 167, 406, 408, 409, 418, 420, 477(A) of IPC and started the investigation.

(2.) THE brief allegations made in the First Information Report are that, the Government has initiated the proceedings by referring a letter to Lokayukta for investigation and for report under Section 7(2A) of Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984, in letter No. ID/95/2000 -01 dated 31.05.2000. The Lokayukta has referred the said complaint or the report to their technical wing and after due investigation the technical wing has found out certain lapses and submitted the investigation report and also advised the Government to take appropriate action against the erred officers in this regard. It is alleged in the First Information Report that the accused persons by name Siddappa, M.S. Venkata Reddy, V.H. Agarkhed (retired) who were working as Executive Engineers and the present petitioner Veershetty working in the Accounts Branch in Bidar District pertaining to Karanja Project. They have misappropriated the amount in purchasing of the articles pertaining to the said Project. It is alleged that there was a huge misappropriation in this regard. The Lokayukta have reported that the amount which was misappropriated was by way of violating the rules and regulations and Transparency act, and misappropriated the Government amount by creating concocted and forged documents and caused loss to the tune of Rs. 2,56,000,00/ -. Therefore, it is advised that the Government should take appropriate action. On the basis of such report the present Executive Engineer by name Premsingh S/o: Bhikkusingh has lodged the FIR, on the basis of which the police have registered a case. The report of the Lokayukta has also been produced before the Court.

(3.) I have heard the arguments of the learned High Court Government Pleader. He contends that, at this stage, the role of this petitioner cannot be bifurcated from the other accused persons. The officials who were involved in the commission of such offences have been taken note of by the Government and also the Lokayukta while submitting their report. Therefore, the custodial investigation is necessary so far as this petitioner is concerned. The argument of the learned High Court Government Pleader is not acceptable for the reasons that, as to why and in what manner the custodial investigation is required, is not brought out from the facts and circumstances of the case.