Disposed

Sri S Siddhaiah v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC6 Dec 2016CRL.P/1939/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a Criminal Petition seeking to quash corruption proceedings against a Commercial Tax Inspector. The court rejected the plea to quash, directing the petitioner to move for discharge based on alleged discrepancies in asset attribution before the trial court.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition was disposed of. I.A.1/2016 was also disposed of as a consequence.

Sri S Siddhaiah Vs the State of Karnataka — Corruption | Karnataka HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 06^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1939 OF 2016

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Sri. S. Siddhaiah, Son of Mallannagoudar, Aged about 58 years, Occupation: Commercial Tax Inspector, Resident of No.43/2, 8^th Main, 12^th Cross, Saraswathipuram, Mysore – 570 009.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(By Shri Asim Malik, Advocate for Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, Advocate)

¶11

AND:

¶12

The State of Karnataka, By Lokayukta Police, Mysuru, Represented by State Public Prosecutor,

¶13

¶14

Karnataka, High Court Building, Bangalore – 560 001.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(By Shri Venkatesh S. Arbatti, Special Public Prosecutor)

¶17

¶18

This Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to quash the proceedings in Spl.C.No.17/2016 in the court of the III Additional Sessions and Special Judge for Lokayuktha Court, Mysore for the offences punishable under Section 13(1)(e) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the petitioner.

¶19

This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission this day, the court made the following:

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶22

The petitioner was a Commercial Tax Inspector

¶23

working in the Commercial Tax Department. It was alleged

¶24

that he had amassed wealth disproportionate to his known source of income which was assessed in excess of 238.160% of

¶25

his known sources of income. It was hence alleged that he had committed an offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and a case had been

¶26

¶27

registered, in respect of which cognizance was taken and summons issued. It is at that stage that the present petition is filed. However, it is now stated that a charge-sheet has been filed.

¶28

Notwithstanding the same, the primary contention of

¶29

learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been framed without any basis and in this regard, he would draw attention to a letter written by an Investigating Officer who had investigated the case against the petitioner and had opined that

¶30

the percentage of the disproportionate assets held by the petitioner is less than 10% and it was only 8.43% and therefore, the prosecution of the petitioner would be a futile exercise. This letter, according to the petitioner, would clinch the issue that there is no substance in the case registered against him. It is in this background that the learned Special Public Prosecutor was called upon to ascertain whether any such document is available as a part of the record, as it was very crucial for the

¶31

¶32

petitioner, for, if such a document was part of the record, it would enable him to seek discharge before the court below.

¶33

The learned Special Public Prosecutor would now

¶34

report that there is no such document available and he would question the source from which the petitioner obtained such a document, in reply to which the learned counsel for the petitioner states that he had taken recourse to the Right to Information Act, 2005. However, the document in question does not disclose that it has been issued under the provisions of

¶35

the Right to Information Act.

¶36

In any event, the letter has been written by an

¶37

Investigating Officer who is no more in the service of the respondent and has retired from service. However, from the further assertions of the petitioner which is also acknowledged by the respondent, is the fact that there are two items of property which are attributed as being assets belonging to the petitioner, which if eschewed, would clearly bring the petitioner out of the mischief of Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act. If both

¶38

¶39

the properties are eschewed, the disproportionate assets would fall down to less than 10% and hence, would absolve the petitioner of any criminality.

¶40

It is contended that one of the items of property which

¶41

is attributed to the petitioner is not his and he is not the owner of the same and the sale deed pertaining to the property itself indicates that it stands in the name of a Housing Society. Secondly, another property in the occupation of the petitioner is shown as belonging to the petitioner, whereas he is only a lessee in respect of the property under a lease deed and this has been incorrectly shown as owned by the petitioner. The value of both these items would exceed Rs.43 lakh. If the said amount is eschewed from the total amount attributable to the petitioner, he would clearly be innocent of any crime, as there is no disproportionate assets in that event. Therefore, if even without the document sought to be relied upon by the petitioner, namely the letter written by an Investigating Officer recommending that the proceedings be dropped against the

¶42

¶43

petitioner even if not available as part of the record, it would still be possible for the petitioner to rely upon documents which are on the record and to demonstrate that at least two of the properties have been incorrectly attributed of the petitioner and if the same are excluded, the petitioner would have to be discharged as no case can be made out against the petitioner. This e0xercise can even now be carried out by the petitioner before the court below, on the basis of documents which are part of the record. Therefore, there is no warrant for interference by this court.

¶44

The petition is disposed of without prejudice to the case of the petitioner who has a right to seek discharge on the basis of the defence now set up. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of. I.A.1/2016 stands disposed of as a consequence.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

JUDGE

¶47

Sri S Siddhaiah v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri S Siddhaiah v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Santosh Kumar Thukaram Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Jaishree M. Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Aditya Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Guruprasad M.V. Vs Bangalore Metropolitan Task Force

Sri. Naveen Kumar K M Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Bobben Varghes Vs Tyco Safety Products