C P YOGESHWARA Vs. REGISTRAR KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition U/s. 482 of Cr. P. C, the order passed by the learned VIII Addl. CMM, Bangalore City taking cognizance and directing issue of summons to the petitioner is called in question.

(2.) THE brief facts necessary for the present purpose are to the effect that the petitioner, who is the sitting MLA of channapatna Constituency, furnished his statement of assests and liabilities for the years 2004-05 and 2005-06 to the respondent-Lokayukta and one Ravindra Beleyur filed a complaint before the respondent-Lokayukta alleging that the above stated petitioner has furnished false information while submitting his assets and liabilities for the years mentioned above. The respondent-Lokayukta, after investigation and after due notice to the petitioner, came to the conclusion that the petitioner had furnished certain false information while submitting his assets and liabilities statement for the above mentioned years and thus committed the offence punishable U/s. 177 of the Indian Penal Code. A complaint was lodged U/s. 200 of Cr. P. C. by the respondent herein before the trial court and the trial court upon submission of the complaint, passed an order on 3. 3. 2007 and the said order reads as under: "presented on 3. 3. 2007 at 2. 10 p. m. by the Hon'ble registrar, Lokayukta. Heard. As the complainant is the Govt. servant, he is exempted from examining. Hence, cognizance taken. Register as C. C. Issue SS to accused by 7. 4. 2007. "

(3.) THIS order of issuance of process is called in question by the petitioner and among the several grounds urged in the petition, the main grievance of the petitioner is that while taking cognizance and issuing process the trial court has not mentioned the offences in respect of which the Court had taken cognizance and therefore the procedure followed by the trial court is contrary to the provisions of Cr. P. C. and in the absence of mentioning the offences in the impugned order, the petitioner is at a loss to know the offences alleged against him. One other ground urged in the petition is that the complaint of Ravindra Beleyur was filed before the Lokayukta with a malafide intention to take revenge against the petitioner. For all these reasons, the impugned order passed by the trial court is liable to be quashed by this Court under its inherent power U/s. 482 of Cr. P. C.