S BANGARAPPA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the order dated 9-8-1999 ordering for framing of the charge for the offence under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (e)of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and to proceed with the trial, the petitioner has filed this petition challenging the correctness and legality of the same with a prayer to quash the further proceedings.

(2.) THE allegation as disclosed in the charge-sheet filed against the petitioner is that between 9-8-1988 and 31-10-1997, the petitioner, in his capacity as Legislator, Minister, Chief Minister and as the Member of the Parliament acquired the assets disproportionate to the known source of his income. The whole basis for framing of the charge depends upon the number of items enumerated in Schedule B-II.

(3.) MR. B. R. Patil, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegation is baseless as the investigating agency has taken into account the assets and liabilities of the wife and two sons of the petitioner and of their business establishments to which they are attached to in different capacities. It is also further submitted that the investigation is made by the persons who were not designated as Investigating officers and the Joint family properties ought not to have been taken to show that his assets are disproportionate to the known source of income. Lastly the contention of the petitioner is that the prosecution has omitted to notice the Partition Deed dated 25-5-1986. On the other hand, Mr. Taranath Shetty, learned Counsel for CBI has vehemently opposed these submissions stating that the Court which has been appointed as special Court to try such nature of cases, has got the jurisdiction to try the cases investigated by the C. B. I. He also contended that the Education Society running in Shimoga by name Sharavathi Education Trust and the finance company by name Varalakshmi Finance Company and the assets standing in the name of their sons were the assets of the petitioner. It is only a make believe affair to show that they are the assets of his sons and wife. In all the transactions it is only the petitioner who is brain behind all these assets.