Shri Gourish Shankar Bhat vs Karnataka Lokayukta

: V. Jagannathan

Heard learned counsel Shri Shankar Hegde for the petitioner and learned counsel Shri S.G.Rajendra Reddy for the respondent-Lokayuktha in respect of the petitioner''s challenge to the order of the court below refusing to discharge the petitioner.

Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to this order are that, this court, while disposing of Crl.R.P. No. 746/2011 on 15.7.2011, had directed the trial court to consider the material before it in the light of the arguments addressed before this court by the petitioner''s counsel and to consider the written arguments filed by the petitioner in respect of each one of the transactions which are referred to at Annexure-F to the petition filed before this court and, thereafter to pass the order in accordance with law.

The submission now made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, despite the aforesaid directions and this court also having observed or rather token note of the arguments of the petitioner''s counsel at paragraphs-5 and 6 of the order of remand, the trial court did not consider the items which are referred to at paragraphs-5 and 6 of the order passed by this court earlier but has gone on to dismiss the application for discharge.

It is therefore, submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if the court had only taken into consideration the value of the house which belongs to Sadanand Hegde and the property which belongs to Seema Bhat and thirdly, the loans which the accused had taken from various persons which are referred to in the 161 statement by the I.O., there will be no case for the prosecution to prosecute the accused. Therefore, the impugned order be set aside.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent-Lokayuktha submitted that if the trial court had not considered the material as per the directions given by this court in the earlier order, the matter may be remanded for fresh consideration.

Having thus heard both sides, it is clear that the trial court, while passing the impugned order, has not considered the items of the properties which have been referred to at paragraphs-5 and 6 of the order passed earlier and also has not taken into consideration the loans obtained by the accused from various persons which are reflected in the 161 statement and other records. The trial court, therefore, erred in once again ignoring these materials.

If the items which are referred to by the petitioner''s counsel at paragraphs-5 and 6 are taken into consideration, then, the likelihood of the accused having amassed wealth disproportionate to the known sources of income may not arise. Since the prosecution does not dispute certain items, the trial court, therefore, ought to have considered all those items on which the petitioner has placed reliance to seek for discharge.

Under the above circumstances, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and once again the matter has to be remanded to the trial court to consider afresh the arguments of the petitioner in the light of the contentions put forward before this court on the earlier occasion and also now.

Hence, the following order is passed:

The revision petition is allowed and the impugned order of the trial court is set aside and the matter is remanded to the tried court for fresh consideration and to pass the order in accordance with law within a reasonable time.