State vs Shivanna

Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

There is a delay of 28 days in filing the petition. Notice having been served on the application, no objections are filed. Hence, for the reasons stated, the delay is condoned. The petition is admitted to file and is considered for final disposal.

The present petition is filed by the State represented by the Lokayukta Police questioning the order passed under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Cr.P.C., for brevity) by the court below, in discharging the accused. The accused was said to be the Chief Officer, Town Municipal Council and had retired from service on 30.04.2008. He was subjected to investigation for the check period from 31.07.1980 to 21.04.2008 by the Lokayuktha police and they had come to a conclusion that he had amassed wealth disproportionate to the known sources of income and had filed a charge-sheet under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and an FIR was registered in the Ramanagara Lokayuktha Police Station in Crime No. 2/2008 and it is pursuant to further proceedings that the matter was before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara. The accused had filed the application to contend that his daughter Sowmya and son S. Sudheer Babu were qualified professional having their independent income and that properties which stood in their names had been included in the assets of the respondent and therefore, a wrong conclusion had been drawn. In that, the charge-sheet revealed that the total assets of the accused were "Rs. 62,41,998/-. The charge-sheet revealed the following particulars:

Further, that the property bearing No. 666/A measuring 30'' x 60'' in Kengeri had been purchased under a sale deed dated 24.03.2006 in the name of Sowmya, the respondent''s daughter and a house site situated at Vivekananda Nagar, Ramanagara Town was purchased under a sale deed dated 22.08.2005 in the name of the respondent''s son Dr. S. Sudheer Babu. These had been included in the assets of the respondent and therefore, a wrong conclusion had been drawn. This is the basis on which the court below has held, after a further calculation, as follows:

And the court below has opined that the income or the wealth available to the respondent would be explained with reference to other income that the respondent had and has accordingly, discharged the accused.

What is significantly overlooked is the fact that both the properties which stood in the name of the respondent''s daughter and son, were purchased in the year 2006 and 2005 respectively, at which point of time both of them were students and did not have any income of their own. This is certainly a cardinal error committed by the court below in arriving at its conclusion.

Accordingly, the petition is summarily allowed. The matter is restored to file and the court below shall proceed, in accordance with law.