The very object of registration of a disproportionate assets case against public servants would whittle away if the Lokayukta police left loopholes in the form of procedural defects while launching prosecution, said the High Court of Karnataka.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna made these observations while noticing two procedural aberrations committed by the Lokayukta police while registering a disproportionate assets case in April, 2023, against K.L. Gangadharaiah, an assistant executive engineer, who is working as Assistant Director of of Town Planning in Yelahanka, Bengaluru. Mr. Gangadharaiah, in his petition, had questioned the legality of registration the case.
No authorisation
The two loopholes were the registration of the case without the mandatory authorisation from the Superintendent of Police based on the source information report as per the law, and limiting the check period only till 2015, even though the case was registered in April, 2023, the court said.
Though the Lokayukta police claimed that the Superintendent of Police had granted approval for the registration of the case, the court did not find the order of approval in the original records produced before the court.
“It is understandable why the Lokayukta police is in a mortal hurry in certain cases particularly of disproportionate assets. It would be an altogether different circumstance if it was a case of trap where it has to be immediately and discreetly done,” the court observed.
The HC made this observation while noticing that the Lokayukta police had prepared the source information report, ‘secured approval’ for registration of the crime and registered the case on a single day, on April 21.
“These are cases of disproportionate assets beyond the known sources of income. A properly drawn source information report would always be a guiding light throughout the prosecution or investigation in the least. Therefore, it is necessary for drawing up a source information report with a semblance of application of mind and the Superintendent of Police, who would peruse the source information report, authorise registration of crime by passing appropriate orders,” the Court said.
Petitioner still in service
Pointing out that the petitioner is still in service and had drawn a salary for the month of March, 2023, the court wondered why the Lokayukta police considered his assets only till December 2015 from the date of his joining the service in 1993.
“The responsibility of the institution like the Lokayukta police to curb the menace of corruption cannot be ignored. Therefore, it is for the Lokayukta police not to let loose any loophole, of the kind that is projected in the case at hand in a case of launching of prosecution for disproportionate assets,” the court said.
Stating that the entire process initiated by the Lokayukta police becomes a mockery of law due to non-adherence to the procedure, the court set aside the case registered against the petitioner. However, the court allowed the Lokayukta police to proceed against the petitioner from the stages of procedural defects by acting as per the law.
