Karnataka High Court
Sri H K Revanna vs The State By Karnataka on 21 August, 2013
Author: N.Ananda
Bench: N.Ananda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.540 OF 2013
Between:
Sri H.K.Revanna,
S/o.H.K.Basappa,
Aged about 56 years,
Occ: P.I.District Special Branch,
R/at No.2035/73-74,
13th Cross, Anjaneya Extension,
Davanagere - 577 001. ... Petitioner
(By Sri C.H.Jadhav, Senior Advocate for Sri P.Prasanna
Kumar, Advocate)
And:
The State by Karnataka,
Lokayukta Police Davanagere,
Represented by State Public Prosecutor,
High Court Building,
Bangalore - 560 001. ... Respondent
This Crl.R.P is filed U/S 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. praying to
set aside the impugned order dated19.06.2013 passed by the
Prl.Dist. and S.J., and Special Judge (Lokayuktha),
Davanagere in Spl. (LOK) case No.7/2012.
This petition, coming on for admission, this day, the
Court made the following:
2
ORDER
The petitioner is facing trial for offences punishable under Section 13(1)(e) r/w. 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on the file of the Special Judge at Davanagere. The learned Special Judge has dismissed the application for discharge. Therefore, petitioner is before this Court.
2. Sri C.H.Jadhav, learned Senior Counsel for petitioner has made following submissions:
(i) At the first instance, suo-motu first information was registered on the basis of source information in the office of Lokayuukta at Bangalore. Later, investigation was entrusted to Police inspector of Lokayuukta Police at Shimoga and final report was filed before the Court of Special Judge at Bangalore. Later, it was transferred to the Court of Special Judge at Davanagere. The entire investigation is without jurisdiction.
(ii) The investigation officer was inimical towards accused. Therefore, entire investigation is motivated.
(iii) That the valuation of assets has been inflated by the investigating officer to increase the disproportionality. 3
3. As per the investigation records, petitioner was found to be in possession of disproportionate assets which was in excess by 145.33% to his known source of income during the period between 1997 and 2008. The first information was registered on the basis of the source information. The investigation commenced at Bangalore. The Police Inspector of Lokayuukhta Police at Shimoga was entrusted with the investigation. Under Section 17, the Superintendent of Police can entrust the investigation to a Police Inspector. It is probable that sufficient number of police inspectors were not available in Lokayukta Police at Bangalore, the Superintendent of Police had entrusted the investigation to Police Inspector of Lokayuktha Police at Shimoga. Therefore, entrustment of investigation has not vitiated the investigation.
4. The submission of learned Senior Counsel that Investigation Officer namely M.N.Karibasavanagouda had grudge against petitioner is being urged for the first time before this Court. It is neither found in the application filed before the court below, nor there is any material on record to 4 show that there was enmity between petitioner and the Investigation Officer.
5. Whether investigating officer had inflated valuation of assets held by accused to increase the disproportionality or not is a matter for consideration during trial.
6. The learned trial judge, on going through investigation records has held that disproportionality of assets held by the petitioner exceeds by 145.33% to his known source of income during the check period.
7. The source information was registered at Bangalore. After investigation, final report was filed before the Court of Special Judge at Bangalore. The learned Special Judge holding that petitioner had acquired assets within the jurisdiction of Court of Special Judge at Davanagere and transferred the case to the Court of Special Judge, Davanagere. Therefore, learned Special Judge at Bangalore has not committed any illegality in transferring the case. There are no grounds to discharge accused. 5
8. This petition is dismissed.
9. It is made clear that the learned trial judge shall not be influenced by the observations made herein during subsequent stages of the case.
Sd/-
JUDGE Cm/-