SRI. KATTA SUBRAMANYA NAIDU Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions are disposed of by this common order.

(2.) The background, in which these petitions are filed, is as follows. It is said that there was a proposal for acquisition of large tracts of land in Bandikodigehalli and other villages in Jala Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, for the establishment of IT & ITES Industries, by the State of Karnataka through the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board, (KIADB), a statutory body. It is said that during the process of acquisition of lands, several officials of the KIADB were alleged to have demanded bribe from the land owners for speedy disbursement of compensation amounts. In this regard, one Rukmangada Naidu is said to have informed the Lokayuktha Police of these illegal demands. On the basis of the same, a case in Crime no.24/2010 is said to have been registered against several officials of the KIADB, for offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'PC Act', for brevity). Other cases followed , on the basis of a source report by the Lokayuktha police, against more officials of the KIADB as well as others, in Crime no.42/2010 to 46/2010. During the course of investigation of these cases, the IO, in Crime no.42/2010 was said to have been directed by the Superintendent of Police, Lokayuktha, to probe into the possible role of M/s Itasca Software Development Private Limited, (Hereinafter referred to as 'Itasca', for brevity) as regards irregularities in acquisition of land and to register a separate case. The Managing Director of Itasca had already been named as an accused in Crime no.43/2010. Searches are said to have been carried out in the offices of Itasca and on the basis of information gathered, a search was said to have been carried out on the offices of one M/s Indu Builders & Developers, a firm said to be consisting of partners, who were employees of Sowbhagya Petrol Bunk (Accused no.4 & 5), which was said to be run by the petitioner's wife, the petrol bunk was also said to have been searched and the offices of one M/s United Telecom Company (Hereinafter referred to as 'UTL') was also subjected to search. It was on such investigation, that the Lokayuktha police had filed a charge sheet against the petitioner, his son and others for offences punishable under Sections 7,8, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC and Sections 419, 420, 465, 468 and 471 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC', for brevity). The case is now registered as Spl.CC no.135/2011.

(3.) Shri B.C.Muddappa, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in the first of these petitions would contend that the court below has failed to appreciate the circumstances under which Section 7 read with Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the PC Act would be applicable. It is contended that the final report submitted by the IO does not any where indicate that there was a demand made nor of acceptance of any illegal gratification by the petitioner - in which event, the above provisions could not have been invoked. The court below has thus failed to exercise its judicial discretion to discharge the petitioner in the face of such a glaring circumstance.