Dismissed

K.B. Anand v. the State by Lokayukta P S

Karnataka HC13 Oct 2022CRL.P/8001/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a petition under Sections 407 and 482 Cr.P.C. praying for transfer of corruption proceedings from Kolar to Mysuru. The Court held that age and ailments like diabetes were insufficient grounds for transfer, distinguishing a prior order made solely due to district bifurcation.

What did the court decide?

The prayer for transfer of jurisdiction from Kolar to Mysuru was rejected.

K.B. Anand Vs the State by Lokayukta P S — Corruption | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8001 OF 2021

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

K.B. ANAND S/O BETAIAH AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/A NO.93, YADUGIRI VAGDEVI NAGAR TELECOM LAYOUT MYSORE - 570 005

¶8

… PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. RAHUL S REDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE BY LOKAYUKTA P S REP. BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE - 560 001

¶12

...RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI. VENKATESH S.ARBATTI, ADVOCATE)

¶14

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 407 R/W SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO TRANSFER THE CASE IN SPL.C(CORRUPTION) NO.3/2015 FROM THE JURISDICTION OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT KOLAR TO THE JURISDICTION OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT MYSORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶15

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Petitioner who is accused has filed this petition under Section 407 r/w/s 482 Cr.P.C. to transfer Spl.C(Corruption)No.3/2015 from the jurisdiction of Prl.District & Sessions Judge, Kolar to the jurisdiction of Prl.District & Sessions Judge, Mysuru.

¶19

It is the case of the petitioner that respondent - Police registered case in Cr.No.5/2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(e) r/w/s 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, while he was working as Taluk Social Welfare Officer, Bangarpet, Kolar District. After completing investigation, charge sheet is filed. Now, petitioner has retired from service and settled at Mysuru. Petitioner is suffering T-2 Diabetes Mellitus and Hypertension. Looking to the same he is advised not to travel. On every hearing date, he requires assistance of his family members to attend the Court proceedings. He is also not having vehicle of his own. The properties owned by him are situated in and around Mysuru and prays to allow the petition.

¶20

¶21

In support of his arguments, learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon the order in

¶22

Crl.P.No.3213/2015 dated 21.07.2015 passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court.

¶23

Learned counsel representing the respondent has filed objections stating that the petition is not maintainable. The offences alleged against the petitioner were committed within the local jurisdiction of the Court wherein the charge sheet is filed. Already trial has commenced and it would disturb the entire process if the case is transferred. The earlier petition filed by petitioner in Crl.P.No.9395/2017 under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash

¶24

the proceedings is rejected on 22.06.2018, which fact is not disclosed by the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner regarding his old age and ailment are not valid grounds for granting the prayer, so also the ground that major portion of the properties are situated in and around Mysuru and that petitioner has served most part of his service at Mysuru. Except the medical certificate, petitioner has not produced any documents to prove his contention that he is not supposed to travel.

¶25

¶26

4.1 So far as the order in Crl.P.No.3213/2015 is

¶27

concerned, it was a matter arising out of bifurcation of Kolar District into Kolar and Chikkaballapur and the coordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court held that as most of the properties were situated in Chikkaballapur District and witnesses were also hailing from the said place, the case should have been transferred by the Prl.District Judge by administrative order and therefore, the petition was allowed transferring the case from Kolar District to Chikkaballapur District and the same is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

¶28

Heard arguments and perused the record.

¶29

At the relevant point of time when respondent

¶30

Police conducted raid on the house and other properties

¶31

of the petitioner he was working as Taluk Social Welfare Officer, Bangarpet, Kolar District. Having regard to the nature of the charges levelled against the petitioner, it is quite natural that the properties acquired by him are situated at different places. After superannuation petitioner has settled at Mysuru, which is not a justifiable

¶32

¶33

ground to seek transfer of the criminal case from Kolar to Mysuru. Nowadays High Blood Pressure and Diabetes are common ailments which any person above the age of 40 years would be suffering from and it is not a ground for granting the prayer of the petitioner.

¶34

As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for respondent, in Crl.P.No.3213/2015 the co-ordinate Bench of this Court ordered for transfer of the case from Kolar to Chikkaballapur mainly on the ground that after bifurcation of the District, having regard to the facts and circumstances therein and the properties involved, it was a case to be tried by the special Court at Chikkaballapur and the Prl.District Judge ought to have transferred it by administrative order.

¶35

Thus, from the above discussion, I hold that petition does not merit consideration.

¶36

However, it is open to the petitioner to seek exemption whenever it is not possible for him to attend the Court. Of course on such occasion he cannot dispute his identity. Whenever such application is filed, the trial

¶37

¶38

Court may consider it favourably, if it is not going to affect the trial and proceedings.

¶39

In the result petition fails and accordingly, it is

¶40

dismissed.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42