Karnataka High Court
H N Bhajakannavar S/O. Late Ningappa vs State By Klap, Haveri on 21 November, 2012
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 21st DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.11378/2012
BETWEEN:
H.N.Bhajakannavar
S/O. Late Ningappa,
Age: 44 Years,
R/O. I Cross,
Naganadeshwar School,
Ranebennur,
Haveri. ... Petitioner
(By Sri. Mohankumar M. & Sri. Dinakar M.P., Advocates)
AND
State by KLAP, Haveri. ... Respondent
(By Sri. Jagadish Patil, Advocate.)
This Criminal Petition is filed U/S 482 of Cr.P.C.
seeking to quash the FIR and the investigation done in
Crime No.05/2011 initiated by the Karnataka Lokayukta
Police, Haveri, against the petitioner, pending before the
Dist. & Sessions & Spl. Judge, Haveri.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission, this
day, the Court made the following: -
:2:
ORDER
In this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner who has been arraigned as accused in Crime No.5/11 of Lokayuktha Police, Haveri registered for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act has sought for quashing the investigation in the said case principally on the ground that the person who is investigating the case has no authority or jurisdiction to conduct investigation. Quashing is also sought on the ground that though the petitioner has submitted his explanation by submitting the schedule statement and sending the same by registered post, the same has been returned as "refused" by the Investigating Officer, therefore, the Investigating Officer may proceed to file final report without taking into consideration the explanation offered by the petitioner.
2. In so far as the grounds urged regarding the jurisdiction and authority of the Investigating Officer to investigate the case is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the general notification issued by State Government authorising the Police :3: Inspectors attached to Lokayuktha Police to investigate, he does not press the said ground. The said submission is placed on record.
3. It is brought to the notice of this Court that pursuant to the notice issued by the Investigating Officer, the petitioner has sent a detailed explanation along with schedule statement by registered post acknowledgement due to the Superintendent of Police, Lokayuktha and also the Investigating Officer concerned. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the article sent by registered post by the petitioner have been returned unserved with a postal shara refused. From this, it is prima facie clear that the Investigating Officer has refused to receive the explanation sent by the petitioner. In a case where the allegations are regarding public servant amassing assets disproportionate to his known source of income, the public servant is entitled for an opportunity to explain his assets and the sources. The Investigating Officer before formulating any opinion for filing a final report is under an obligation to take the explanation if any stated by public servant into consideration and act accordingly. Since the :4: explanation sent by the petitioner through registered post have been returned unserved as 'refused', the apprehension of the petitioner that the Investigating Officer not to take said explanation into consideration while filing final report, is well founded.
4. In this view of the matter, the Investigating Officer is directed to receive the explanation submitted by the petitioner and take the same into consideration before filing the final opinion. The petitioner is directed to resubmit the said explanation either in person or through registered post to the Investigating Officer within one week from today.
The petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE RS/*