N SRINIVASA REDDY Vs. STATE BY KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A FIR came to be registered against the petitioner in Crl.P.No.1708/2016 (accused No.1) and petitioner in Crl.P.No.586/2016 (accused No.2) for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(a), 13(1)(d) and 12 r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short "Act"). After registration of the complaint, the Police Inspector attached to the Karnataka Lokayukta, Bengaluru City conducted a raid and on personal search of accused No.1, he was found in possession of Rs.7,000/-. The said amount was not declared in the office. Accused No.1 failed to offer satisfactory explanation for possession of the said amount, hence, the amount was seized. On seeing the raiding team, accused No.2 threw a wad of notes through the window which was also seized. It contained Rs.20,000/-. On enquiry, accused No.2 led the raiding team to Maruti Suzuki Ritz Car parked in the premise of Byatarayanapura Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (for short "BBMP") Ward Office. In the boot of the said car, there were 12 files belonging to BBMP. The same were seized. A panchanama was drawn at the spot in the presence of witnesses and investigation is being continued. In the meanwhile, petitioners have approached this Court seeking quashment of the above proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

(2.) I have heard Sri.Y.R.Sadasiva Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of learned Counsel for accused No.1, Sri.Murthy Dayanand Naik, learned Counsel for accused No.2 and Sri.B.S.Prasad, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent-Lokayukta.

(3.) Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No.1 submits that the prosecution was initiated based on credible information said to have been received by the complainant. In the complaint, it is stated that the information was verified before proceeding to the spot, but no material is produced to show that any such preliminary enquiry was conducted before conducting the raid. Even in the matter of conducting raid and personal search of accused No.1, a meager amount of Rs.7,000/- was found. Accused No.1 carried the said amount to clear his medical bills. In proof thereof, the bills issued by Kanva Diagnostics Services (P) Ltd., is produced before the Court. Therefore, there was satisfactory explanation for possession of the said amount by accused No.1. That apart, no material was available to show that the said amount was collected by accused No.1 as illegal gratification. No complaint has been lodged either by the general public or by any of the contractors alleging that accused No.1 had collected the said amount against a demand made by him for the purpose of any official favour. In the absence of any such material, there was no basis for the respondent to hold that the amount in possession of petitioner No.1 was an illegal gratification so as to attract the offence under Section 13(1)(a) or 13(1) (d) of the Act. Even otherwise, the allegations made in the FIR and the material collected by the respondent do not fall within the ambit of Section 13(1)(a) or 13(1)(d) of the Act.