Karnataka High Court
Credit: iStock Photo
Bengaluru: The High Court of Karnataka has refused to quash Lokayukta police proceedings against a former information commissioner in a bribery case.
Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum noted that call records, voice recording and money transfers, taken cumulatively, prima facie justify continuation of investigation.
The investigation against Ravindra Gurunath Dhakappa pertained to the period when he was posted as information commissioner at the state information commission’s Kalaburagi bench.
On March 27, 2025, an RTI activist and journalist based in Kalaburagi, filed a complaint with the Lokayukta police, alleging that Ravindra had been demanding illegal gratification in connection with the disposal of certain RTI appeals. The complainant stated that he had filed many RTI applications, several of which culminated in appeals pending before the Information Commission.
Of these appeals, 117 applications were rejected by the state information commissioner on February 12, 2025, and his name was included in the blacklist. According to the complainant, Ravindra had issued a notice asking him to appear on March 25, 2025, in connection with the fresh appeals.
During this meeting, Ravindra demanded Rs 3 lakh for extending legal help and said that the amount be transferred to the bank account of one Sai Harsha, who is connected to Ravindra.
Upon filing the complaint, the Lokayukta police handed the complainant a voice recorder. The Lokayukta police laid pre-trap proceedings and directed the complainant to transfer Rs 1 lakh to Sai Harsha. The Lokayukta police arrested Ravindra and the investigation is underway.
Challenging this, Ravindra contended that it was a mistaken transfer and the amount was immediately returned to the complainant within three minutes by PhonePeе. He further argued that non-registration of FIR before the Lokayukta handed over the voice recorder cast serious doubts on the genuineness of the complaint.
On the other hand, the Lokayukta police submitted that the call detail records reveal that the petitioner and the complainant were in telephonic communication on multiple occasions and the conversations lasted close to 9 minutes across several separate calls. In one such call, the petitioner reiterated the need to transfer “at least Rs 1 lakh”, they said.
The court noted that the timing of the calls coincided with the dates of alleged demand and the subsequent transfer of money. Whether the conversation constitutes a demand for undue advantage, whether the money was transferred by mistake, or whether the complainant acted out of malice are all matters for trial, the court said.
“Upon careful examination of the material on record and the legal position, this court is of the considered view that the FIR discloses a cognizable offence. The petitioner’s defences require appreciation of evidence and cannot be looked into in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The call records, voice recording, and transfer of money, taken cumulatively, prima facie justify continuation of investigation,” Justice Magadum said.