Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 325 (KAR)

RAVINDRA MOOLABHARTI v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

2014-03-07

RATHNAKALA

body2014
ORDER These petitions arise out of the case registered by the Lokayuktha, Gulbarga in their Crime No.18/2013 dated 23.11.2013; the complainant is the Police Inspector of the respondent-Lokayuktha. 2. The allegation is Thirtyfour lakh rupees was reserved for the welfare of the SC/ST youth in the budget of City Corporation of Gulbarga. The petitioner of Crl.P.No.200089/2014 Smt.Vijyalaxmi/the Community Affair Officer, the petitioner of Crl.P.No.200109/2014/ Nagaiah who was the then Commissioner of City Municipal Corporation, and the petitioner of Crl.P.No.200119/2014/ Ravindra, the Branch Manager, DCC Bank, Chittapur, and coaccused the then District Coordinator/Tukaram B. Samagar, concocted documents so as to project through Gulbarga (Lidakar) District Coordinator Training has been given to SC/ST youth in respect of leather products. The complainant/Police Inspector of Lokayukta on the direction of Karnataka Lokayuktha, has registered the complaint in respect of offences under Section 13(1)(c)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 468, 471, 420 read with Section 34 of IPC. 3. Sri A. Vijay Kumar, Sri Avinash A. Uploankar, Sri Ameet Kumar Deshapande, learned counsels for the respective petitioner submit that there was a resolution passed by the Municipal Corporation, Gulbarga dated 08.02.2011 to grant to an extent 22.75% of Budget for the year 201011 for the purpose of Training SC/ST youth in leather goods manufacturing through M/s Shiva Cooperative Society, Gulbarga and Dr.Babu Jagajeevan Ram Leather Industry Development Corporation, Gulbarga. Accordingly, those institutions came forward to give training to the needy and the training was successfully imparted and the institutions have drawn the cheques. There was a complaint on 10.08.2011 in respect of misappropriation of funds and in pursuance of the said complaint previous Municipal Commissioner ordered the Bank to stop payment to the above institutions. Subsequently, pursuant to the report of the Mayer and Chairman of the standing committee of the Corporation the petitioner in Crl.P.No.200109/2014 issued direction to the Bank to release the amount and he has no role in the alleged offences. Learned counsel for the petitioner Smt.Vijyalaxmi in Crl.P.No.200089/2014 submits that she was First Division Assistant, though she was in charge of the file she has only forwarded the file to her higher officers and does not have any role or contribution in the alleged offences and she was not a decision maker. Learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.P.No.200119/2014 submits that Ravindara was only in charge Manager of the Bank. Learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.P.No.200119/2014 submits that Ravindara was only in charge Manager of the Bank. In good faith he had opened the account in the name of Coordinator and he had no knowledge why the cheque was issued and for what purpose money was released. 4. Sri A. Syed Habeeb, learned Special Public Prosecutor for Lokayukta opposes the bail applications and submits that the amount is released by the petitioners without imparting Training to the SC/ST youths. Fake documents were concocted so as to appear that the training is already imparted. The predecessor of Sri C.Nagayya, having noticed that the money was not utilized for the purpose it was allotted had stopped the payment of the cheque and had given instructions to the Bank accordingly. But the petitioner in Crl.P.No.200109/2014/Dr.C.Nagaiah without examining the case records properly, has given direction to the Bank to release the amount in favour of accused No.3. The petitioner in Crl.P.No.200089/2014 /Smt. Vijyalaxmi was in charge of the file, so also in surveillance of whole project, negligently forwarded the file. The petitioner in Crl.P.No.200119/2014Ravindra without following the rules and regulations of the Bank opened account in the name of accused No.3, moreover without their being any permission from Lidkar Industry, released the amount in favour of accused No.3. Since it is an economic offence, the petitioners do not deserve anticipatory bail. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2013 SAR (CRIMINAL) 619 SUPREME COURT in the case of Y.S.JAGAN MOHAN REDDY, vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION. 5. As such the complaint is of 23.11.2013. It is not the allegation of the prosecution that petitioners are absconding. The petitioner in Crl.P.No.200109/2014 on attaining superannuation is not in service. The coaccused/A3 is already enlarged on bail by the order of the jurisdictional Special Judge. For disposal of the anticipatory bail, I take note of the fact that all the three petitioners are the persons of known identity, address and they are not shown to have criminal background. They reasonably apprehend that they may be arrested in view of the registration of the case against them. According to them alleged offences do not fall within four corners of Section 13(1) (c) (d) read with Section 13(2) of P.C.Act, and the other offences under IPC even if proved during the trial do not attract major punishment. 6. They reasonably apprehend that they may be arrested in view of the registration of the case against them. According to them alleged offences do not fall within four corners of Section 13(1) (c) (d) read with Section 13(2) of P.C.Act, and the other offences under IPC even if proved during the trial do not attract major punishment. 6. In the given facts and circumstance, there is no impediment to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the petitions are allowed. Petitioners are granted anticipatory bail with the following conditions: i) Petitioners shall appear before the Police Inspector Lokayuktha within one week from the date of obtaining certified copy of this order. ii) In the event of their arrest they shall be enlarged on bail on each of them executing a Bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer; iii) They shall cooperate with the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation; iv) They shall not tamper the prosecution evidence; v) They shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required during the course of investigation.