Gourish Shankar Bhat vs Karnataka Lokayukta

V. Jagannathan, J.—Heard Sri Shankar Hegde, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri Rajendra Reddy learned Counsel for the Respondent - Lokayukta in respect of the challenge by the Petitioner to the order passed by the Trial Court declining to discharge the Petitioner.

It is submitted that the Petitioner filed an application before the Trial Court seeking discharge and the said application under Sections 227 and 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure was rejected by the Trial Court by observing that the matter required to be adjudicated in the full fledge trial and the Court also observed that there are no grounds to discharge the accused but on the other hand held that there are grounds to frame the charge. It is on this reasoning the impugned order was passed.

The case of the Respondent - Lokayuktha as per the charge sheet in a nutshell is that the Petitioner who was holding the post of a General Manager of Karnataka State Soaps and Detergents Limited, alleged to have amassed wealth in disproportionate to his source of income and the income of the Petitioner was taken as Rs. 1,99,41,008/- and the assets were put at Rs. 1,33,40,847/- and expenditure at Rs. 1,40,94,747/- and thus the total amount was taken at Rs. 2,74,35,594/-. The difference between the income and the total arrived at was found to be Rs. 74,94,506/- or which is said to be the asset disproportionate to the source of income and the acquired amount was to the tune of 37.58% to the income. It is on the said factors, the charge sheet was filed against the Petitioner for the offence punishable u/s 13(1)(e) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Challenging the impugned order of the court below, the learned Counsel Sri Shankar Hegde argued at great length and submitted that the Trial Court did not even look to the derailed written arguments filed by the Petitioner, explaining the various source of income and trial court also did not look to the documents filed in support of the reasons given in respect of each transaction. Secondly, the Trial Court also did not consider the documents filed by the Investigating Officer himself as part of the charge sheet, which documents even on a cursory glance would have established that the Petitioner was not having any asset which is said to be disproportionate to the known source of income. Referring to the table that is filed as per Annexure-F to this petition, learned Counsel argued that the details given in the said table would itself go to show that in respect of each receipt of amount, the Petitioner has given detailed explanation supported by documents and had these documents been looked at by the Trial Court, there would have been no case against the Petitioner. Learned Counsel referred to the statement of witnesses recorded by the investigating Officer in this connection.

Further submission by learned Counsel is that the house bearing No. 327, I Cross, Widia Layout, Vijaynagar, Bangalore belongs to Sri Sadanand Hegde who is a NRI working in Behrain since 19 years and the value of the said house is Rs. 53,52,010/- and documents have also been filed showing that the said house itself belongs to the above named Sadanand Hegde and all these documents which are referred to are at pages 154 to 157, which would clearly establish that the house belongs to Sadanand Hegde and even in the departmental enquiry conducted by the Dy.SP, Lokayuktha, the said finding has been recorded. If the amount of Rs. 53,52,010/- is considered, then the excess amount will not be `74 lakhs, but, it would be less than 21 lakhs. Since the law permits 10% of the total income as the margin to be given then the said 10% would come co 25 lakhs approximately and as such even if other transactions namely the loan, gift and dividend received from the companies in which the Petitioner had invested in shares, are all left out still there will be no case of the Petitioner having assets disproportionate to the known source of his income.

Referring to the properties purchased by Seema Bhat, daughter of this Petitioner, it is contended that the said Seema Bhat is also NRI and the total cost of the property is Rs. 14,85,020/-. Even in respect of the said property, the Petitioner has produced several documents apart from the statement recorded by the Investigating Officer himself. Even if this amount is excluded from purview of consideration absolutely, there will be no case of the Petitioner possessing assets disproportionate to the known source of income. Urging all these contentions, learned Counsel prayed that impugned order be set aside.

On the other hand, Sri Rajendra Reddy, learned Counsel for Lokayukta argues that if this Court were to opine that the impugned order cannot be sustained in law, the matter may be remanded to the Trial Court to reconsider the same.

In the light of the above contentions put forward by learned Counsel for the parties, particularly taking note of the submission made by Sri Shankar Hegde, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the details given in the table at Annexure-F, in my view, learned Trial Judge did not bestow the attention that was required in the instant case since the Petitioner has placed reliance mainly on the documents of evidence and also statement recorded by the Investigating Officer himself and as such mere observation that no case is made out by the Petitioner for discharge, without looking to the documents produced and the explanation given by the Petitioner in his written arguments in respect of each one of the transaction, cannot be sustained and the matter therefore requires to be remanded to the Trial Court for fresh consideration and the Trial Court shall also consider the written arguments filed by the Petitioner in respect of each one of the transaction table that is produced at Annexure-F to this petition and there afterwards shall pass the order on the application filed by the Petitioner for discharge in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This petition therefore stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations.