prosecuted but the subordinates who had prepared the list of eligible and ineligible candidates. He further submits that the proceedings under Section 9 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 was already initiated against the petitioner for allotting sites to Smt. Preeti Denna Periera and Smt. Sowmya R.N. which is under process. In the meanwhile, the petitioner on coming to know of the proceedings initiated under Section 9 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984, took steps in accordance with the Rule 108K of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 for cancellation of the grant and consequently, cancelled the grant of the sites to Smt. Preeti Denna Periera and Smt. Sowmya R.N. He therefore, submits that there was no offence under Section 13 of the P.C. Act as the petitioner had approved the list of allottees, who were found to be eligible by the concerned Revenue Inspector. He therefore, submits that the impugned prosecution of the petitioner is without any basis but on the contrary is an attempt to harass him. He relied upon the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.4897/2013, which too was a case where a Special Deputy Commissioner had granted an order of conversion based on the report put up by his subordinate. When he was
