Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

It is alleged by the said complainant that the accused though submitted his assets and Liabilities for the period from 01-01- 2006 to 31-12-2006, it does not contain the details of the Bank balance though savings Bank account numbers are mentioned. It is alleged in the complaint that the share holdings of the accused and his wife in Megacity (Bengaluru) Developers and Builders Limited as on 31-12-2006 have not been mentioned. It is further stated by the complainant that there is variance with regard to the insurance amount as accused showed an amount of Rs.35 lakh as on 31-03-2006 and the said amount is shown as 25 lakh as on 31-12-2006, so also it is alleged by the complainant that accused has not mentioned about the vehicle owned by him on 31-12-2006 though earlier he had shown vehicle No.KA02 MF 1234 Scorpio belongs to him. Thus, it is alleged that there is discrepancy in the information furnished with regard to the property owned by the accused and even he has not declared lands standing in his name so also in the name of his wife. The said complainant alleges that accused has not mentioned about the land measuring 50 acres owned by him and his wife. This mis-statement of facts being furnished by him so also in respect of loan taken from Megacity (Bangalore) Developers and Builders Limited have been furnished by the accused. With these allegations the complaint came to be filed before the Lokayuktha.

4. It is further commented that he had insured Rs.35 lakhs, either for non-payment or for some other reason he has retained policy worth of Rs.25 lakhs in his name and it is further contended that, vehicle bearing No.KA02 MF 1234 was handed over to Megacity (Bengaluru)Developers and Builders Limited on 31-03-2004 and ownership is transferred in the name of the Company much prior to 31-12-2006. Thus accused in his comment has stated that, he has mentioned about the land which are purchased by him in his individual capacity and out of joint family. He further contended that the advance amount paid by Megacity (Bangalore) Developers and Builders Limited to the tune of Rs.5 crores has been reduced to Rs.3,37,58,378/- as on 31-12-2006 and the same is mentioned in the additional statement dated 10-08-2007 filed by him.

27. He relies on the provisions of section 22 of the Karnataka Lokayuktha Act, 1984 wherein it states that though the accused being the public servant is expected to submit true account statement, he has not furnished. Therefore, the complaint is lodged.

28. He himself admits in the cross-examination that a similar complaint was lodged by the complainant Ravindra Belayuru against the accused for the period 2007 and it was dismissed by Lokayuktha. It is produced by the accused as per Ex.D1. This Ex.D1 is confronted to PW.1 and he admits that Lokayuktha has dismissed the complaint filed by CW-1 vide separte order. There the question arose before the Lokayuktha as per Ex.D1 that this accused has not given the correct picture of his investment in Megacity Developers and Builders Private Ltd. Since the accused has mentioned his investment in the said concern at Rs.35 lakhs approximately, so also certain allegations were made which relates to the Election Commission and all the complaint averments have been negatived by passing orders stating that there are no materials to disbelieve the version of the complainant. Accordingly, the complaint was not continued for investigation holding that it is not a fit case to continue the investigation. So for subsequent years this accused was being targeted by the complainant by filing a complaint, but the Lokayuktha has negatived the said complaint.

34. Another grievance of the prosecution is that, this accused has not furnished any details with regard to the possession of Scorpio Vehicle bearing No.KA02 MF 1234 though owned by him. It is a specific comment of the accused before the Lokayuktha that though he was the owner of the said vehicle, he has transferred the said vehicle on 20-03-2004 to Megacity Developers and Builders Pvt. Ltd., to that effect Ex.D6 is produced. Form 29 is also produced as per Ex.D7. When already the accused has sold the said vehicle as per Ex.D6 and Ex.D7 and delivered the said vehicle to the purchaser, it is submitted by the counsel for the accused that question of showing as an asset in the Assets Liabilities statement by the accused for the year 01-01-2006 to 31-12-2006 do not arise at all. There is substance in the submission of the counsel for the accused that when the accused was not the owner of the said vehicle in the year 2006, he has already sold the said vehicle, then the question of he showing the same as his asset does not arise at all. PW-1 admits about the contents of Ex.D6 and D7.