Karnataka High Court asks Lokayukta to 'set its house in order' by completing investigations on time

The Karnataka Lokayukta should set its house in order and complete investigations against public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act (Act) within a time frame, the Karnataka High Court recently said [Dr Kallappa vs Deputy Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayukth]..Justice M Nagaprasanna noted that the High Court had come across several cases where investigation had gone on for ages without a final report being filed. This showed a lackadaisical attitude on part of the Lokayukta, the single-judge opined.In view of this, the Court urged the Lokayukta to set its house in order failing which the Damocles' sword of prosecution will always be hanging on the head of the public servant and defeat several of his rights.."This Court has come across several cases where investigation has gone on for ages and no final report was filed. It, therefore, speaks of volumes of lackadaisical attitude on the part of the prosecution/ Lokayukta. In this view of the matter, the Lokayukta is required to set its house in order by directing completion of investigation within a time frame failing which the Damocles sword of prosecution will always be hanging on the head of the public servant and defeat several of his rights, if any," the Court stated..The Court was hearing a plea by a college professor who was booked under Sections 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of the Act.The professor moved the Court to quash the offence against him, claiming that despite three years having passed, no chargesheet had been filed. He informed the Court that he wished to apply for the position of vice- chancellor at the University he taught at. He had retired as professor upon reaching the age of superannuation and his eligibility for the position of vice-chancellor was about to expire on August 30, 2023.He argued that as long as the crime against him was pending, he could not apply for the post, compromising his fundamental rights..The prosecution opposed the plea, arguing that a similar plea had been filed earlier and the Court had already considered all these submissions. In the earlier proceeding, the Court had directed the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy after the filing of the chargesheet.Further, it was alleged that the petitioner was responsible for the delay because he had not submitted bank records on time. The prosecution said the petitioner initially claimed to have only 20 bank accounts, but it was later discovered that he actually had 58 bank accounts.Deciphering the transactions in these numerous accounts had led to significant delays in the proceedings, the prosecution stated.However, they assured the Court that everything was now ready and the final report will be filed within two months..The Court noted that the petitioner had been granted liberty to avail appropriate remedy upon filing of chargesheet via an order dated August 27, 2020.It further noted that the final report had not yet been filed. However, the Court said that under usual circumstances, if it took four years to file a chargesheet in a case that does not involve heinous or economic offences, the Court would have viewed the issue with a different lens.But this case pertained to disproportionate assets amounting to as much as 136 percent, the judge said. He also opined that whether these figures were fanciful or merely projected without any justification could not be determined at this stage. .The Court examined the documents appended to the memo and observed that the petitioner operated 31 savings bank accounts and about 21 loan accounts.However, the petitioner had only divulged 20 accounts. The investigation had led to 54 accounts being discovered in his name. Further, the counsel for the Lokayukta informed the Court that 4 more accounts had been discovered.The Court said that if in the teeth of these facts, the petitioner is let off the hook on account of the chargesheet not having been filed despite passage of four years, it would be contrary to law.Further, the Court rejected the contention that the petitioner was being deprived of his fundamental rights by not being allowed to apply for the post of vice-chancellor of the University he taught at..The enormous task faced by the prosecution to unearth transactions of the petitioner had undoubtedly taken time and therefore, the delay was not vital to lead to quashing of the crime itself, the Court ruled..It, therefore, dismissed the plea and directed the Lokayukta to file its final report within two months."In the event the final report is not filed within the said time, the concerned Court is at liberty to draw adverse inference against the Lokayukta," the Court added..The petitioner was represented by Senior Advocate Gurudas Khannur and advocate AS Patil.The Lokayukta was represented by advocate Anil Kale..[Read Order].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.