PANDURANG ALIAS SATHYABOTH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused before the Special Court in SPL. (SVC) CC. No. 1/2002 is the petitioner herein and he is aggrieved by the trial Court declining to discharge him and holding further that there is prima facie material to proceed against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 13 (l) (e) read with 13 (2) of the Prevention of corruption Act, 1988 ('the PC Act' for short ). Hence this petition calls in question the said order of the trial Court.

(2.) THE facts in brief for the purpose of the present order are in effect that the respondent-the police wing of the Karnataka Lokayukta Police station, Dharwad submitted a charge sheet against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 13 (l) (e) read with 13 (2) of the PC Act on the ground that the petitioner who was working as a Junior Engineer at hubli-Dharwad Municipal Corporation, possessed assets disproportionate to his income, in as much as it was found that the value of the assets held by the petitioner was to the tune of Rs. l,07,60,360. 38ps. as against the actual income from all sources which is Rs. 42,93,499/- and therefore as it was found that the petitioner had possessed assets worth rs. 75,66,670. 42ps. over and above the actual income, the charge sheet came to be submitted for the aforesaid offences. The petitioner appeared before the trial Court and prayed for his discharge from the case on the ground that the investigation was not conducted by an officer of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police as required under Section 17 (c) of the pc Act. And secondly the investigating officer himself is the complainant and for this reason also the proceedings were liable to be quashed and the petitioner be discharged. The trial Judge after hearing the parties in respect of the aforesaid grounds raised before it, disagreed with the contentions put forward by the petitioner and held that there was sufficient material produced to proceed against the petitioner in respect of the aforesaid offences. Aggrieved by the said decision of the trial Court, the petitioner is before this Court.

(3.) I have heard learned Senior Counsel Sri Padmanabha Mahale for the petitioner and Sri P. M. Nawaz, Special Prosecutor for the respondent and perused the entire material placed at this juncture.