Karnataka High Court
Sri K Sadashiva vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 August, 2018
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2035 OF 2018
C/W
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.687 OF 2018
In Crl.P No.2035/2018
BETWEEN
Sri. K.Sadashiva,
S/o. Late Nagappa,
Aged about 58 years,
Commercial Tax Joint
Commissioner,(now retired)
R/at "Ramalamma Palace",
Behind Kanakadurgamma Temple,
Gopalaswamy Rao, Gandhinagar,
Ballary Town, Ballary-583101.
...Petitioner
(By Sri. M.N.Umashankar, Advocate)
AND
The State of Karnataka,
Rep. by Lokayukta Police,
Mangaluru-575001.
...Respondent
(By Sri. Venkatesh S.Arabatti, Advocate)
2
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Criminal Procedure Code praying to quash the charge
sheet in Crime No.1/2008 of respondent Police Station,
and further proceedings against the petitioner in
Spl.C.C.No.43/2011 pending on the file of the III
Additional District and Sessions Judge and Designated
Special Court, D.K., Mangalore.
In Crl.R.P. No.687/2018
BETWEEN
Sri. K.Sadashiva,
S/o. Late Nagappa,
Aged about 62 years,
Commercial Tax Joint
Commissioner,(now retired)
R/at "Ramalamma Palace",
Behind Kanakadurgamma Temple,
Gopalaswamy Rao, Gandhinagar,
Ballary Town, Ballary-583103.
...Petitioner
(By Sri. Phaniraj Kashyap, Advocate)
AND
The State of Karnataka,
Rep. by Lokayukta Police,
Mangaluru-575001.
...Respondent
(By Sri. Venkatesh S.Arabatti, Advocate)
3
This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section
397 read with 401 of Criminal Procedure Code praying to
set aside the order dated 02.02.2018 passed by the III
Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru
where in Section 239 application is dismissed vide
annexure-A and discharge the petitioner in
Spl.C.C.No.43/2011 pending on the file of III Additional
District and Sessions Judge D.K., Mangaluru.
These Petitions coming on for admission this day,
the court made the following:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned standing counsel for respondent.
2. These two petitions arise out of Spl.Case.No.43/2011, on the file of III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mangaluru. The petitioner is the accused in the said case and he has been prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. The prosecution case is that in between the period 7.12.1971 4 and 27.3.2008, he amassed wealth disproportionate to his known source of income. The percentage of difference between the two is said to be 84.314.
3. Crl.P.No.2035/2018 is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the charge sheet. The petitioner also sought his discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. Since the trial court, by its order dated 2.2.2018 dismissed that application, the petitioner has sought revision of the said order under Section 397 Cr.P.C.
4. The argument put forward by the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner is that the prosecution has erroneously taken into account the properties that stand in the name of others. The house at Bellary 'Ramulamma Palace' does not belong to the petitioner; it was constructed by his brother, K. Lakshminarayana, who had declared his income in his income tax returns. Likewise, a Chevorlet Tavera car bearing registration No.KA 43 M 979 belongs to one Markandeyalu. If these two items are deleted from the list of properties shown in the charge 5 sheet, the value of the assets held by the petitioner will come within the periphery of his known source of income, and thus the petitioner is entitled to be discharged.
5. The learned standing counsel for respondent has argued that the case of the prosecution is that the petitioner acquired property benami in the name of others. Actually the petitioner is residing in the house 'Ramulamma Palace' and making use of the car. They belong to him. Without holding trial, the contention of the petitioner cannot be appreciated.
6. I have considered the points of arguments and perused the charge sheet and the impugned order. The prosecution case is founded on the premise that the petitioner has acquired properties benami in the name of his close relatives. The charge sheet materials disclose that the petitioner is living in 'Ramulamma Palace' and also using the car for himself. The allegations made against him can be thrashed out only after trial. No inference can be drawn before holding trial that the properties do not 6 belong to him merely because they stand in the names of others. The trial court has come to right conclusion to frame charge. Even there are no materials to quash the charge sheet. Therefore both the petitions are dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE sd