Shri Shivaprasad vs The State of Karnataka

V. Jagannathan, J.—The petitioner seeks quashing of FIR in Crime No. 14/2008 on a complaint in Special CC No. 33/2012 on the file of the Sessions Judge at Mysore. The submission of the learned Counsel Shri D.R. Sundaresha for the petitioner is that on two grounds the aforesaid prayer is made u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. The first one is that the petitioner was not given opportunity to satisfactorily explain the income which is alleged to be disproportionate to known sources of income and in this regard, attention was drawn to the provision contained in Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The second ground urged is that in the FIR, it is alleged that the petitioner had amassed wealth disproportionate to his known sources of income to an extent of 915% whereas, the sanction order that is also produced along with the petition reads that the percentage was 101.89% in excess of known sources of income. Therefore, no proper application of mind is there while according sanction. On these grounds, the petition be allowed.

Shri B.A. Belliappa, learned Counsel for the Lokayuktha on the other hand submits that the petitioner has given explanation by producing several documents and all of them have been considered by the Lokayuktha before filing the charge sheet. The charge sheet clearly indicates excess wealth found in the hands of the accused have been put at 101.89% and not 915%. Therefore, both the grounds urged by the petitioner''s Counsel cannot be considered as having any merit in them.

Having thus heard both the sides insofar as compliance of Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is concerned, all that the said provision mentions is that insofar as public servant is concerned has to satisfactorily account for the possession in his hands which is disproportionate to known sources of income. In the instant case, the document which has been filed under part 7A and B are to the charge sheet. According to the learned Counsel for the respondent, it contains the details of income as such held by the petitioner. All these documents have been considered by the Lokayuktha before filing the charge sheet. As per the second ground is concerned, the charge sheet which is produced by the respondent''s Counsel also indicates that the prosecution is in respect of excess wealth in the hands of the petitioner to the extent of 101.89% which percentage is consistent with the order of sanction which is produced by the petitioner himself. I therefore do not see any merit in the grounds urged by the petitioner''s Counsel. Petition is dismissed. Nevertheless, the petitioner is at liberty to urge the grounds that are available to him before the trial Court.