<p>Bengaluru: The <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/tags/karnataka-high-court">Karnataka High Court</a> has refused to quash the proceedings against a retired BBMP executive engineer in a corruption case.</p><p>The petitioner, S Srinivas Reddy, had approached the High Court challenging the February 14, 2024, order passed by a special court for Lokayukta cases, which rejected his application seeking discharge from the case.</p><p>The petitioner was sent on deputation to the BBMP from the Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited.</p><p>While he was serving as the executive engineer of the Byatarayanapura Sub-Division, a suo motu complaint was registered by the Lokayukta police in May 2015, alleging that the petitioner was accepting bribes from contractors through a middleman, namely Murali Mohan, who is named as Accused No 2.</p>.Karnataka High Court slaps Rs 25,000 fine for suppressing facts in land dispute case .<p>The Lokayukta police alleged that Mohan, who is also a contractor, used to collect gratifications on behalf of Reddy for issuing work orders pursuant to tenders and for clearing work bills related to projects executed within the Byatarayanapura division.</p><p>The Lokayukta police filed a chargesheet under sections 13(1)(a), 13(1)(d), 13(2), and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act after receiving sanction to prosecute Reddy. He argued that his application seeking discharge had been rejected by the trial court while allegedly acting as a "mouthpiece of the prosecution" and without proper application of mind.</p><p>On the other hand, the Lokayukta police submitted that the accused failed to explain the presence of Rs 7,000 in cash found in his custody and several official files recovered from the car of the middleman.</p><p>Justice M Nagaprasanna observed that, apart from the cash found with the petitioner, the middleman was caught throwing currency notes amounting to Rs 20,000 out of a window on seeing the Lokayukta police. The police later recovered the cash.</p><p>"The Supreme Court holds that the court exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC should be circumspect and restrain itself in interfering with the order of rejection to discharge, which comes to be rejected at the stage of framing of charge unless miscarriage of justice is writ large, which is palpable and demonstrable, not in disputed questions of fact.</p><p>"It is an admitted fact in the case at hand that the matter has crossed the stage of framing of charge and, as of today, 10 years has passed by after registration of the crime. It is too late in the day for this court to interfere after 10 years of registration of crime, at the stage of framing of charges, in a case where there are no apparent procedural aberrations found in the conduct of investigation, grant of sanction, contents of charge sheet and the order rejecting the application for discharge,” the court said.</p>
<p>Bengaluru: The <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/tags/karnataka-high-court">Karnataka High Court</a> has refused to quash the proceedings against a retired BBMP executive engineer in a corruption case.</p><p>The petitioner, S Srinivas Reddy, had approached the High Court challenging the February 14, 2024, order passed by a special court for Lokayukta cases, which rejected his application seeking discharge from the case.</p><p>The petitioner was sent on deputation to the BBMP from the Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited.</p><p>While he was serving as the executive engineer of the Byatarayanapura Sub-Division, a suo motu complaint was registered by the Lokayukta police in May 2015, alleging that the petitioner was accepting bribes from contractors through a middleman, namely Murali Mohan, who is named as Accused No 2.</p>.Karnataka High Court slaps Rs 25,000 fine for suppressing facts in land dispute case .<p>The Lokayukta police alleged that Mohan, who is also a contractor, used to collect gratifications on behalf of Reddy for issuing work orders pursuant to tenders and for clearing work bills related to projects executed within the Byatarayanapura division.</p><p>The Lokayukta police filed a chargesheet under sections 13(1)(a), 13(1)(d), 13(2), and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act after receiving sanction to prosecute Reddy. He argued that his application seeking discharge had been rejected by the trial court while allegedly acting as a "mouthpiece of the prosecution" and without proper application of mind.</p><p>On the other hand, the Lokayukta police submitted that the accused failed to explain the presence of Rs 7,000 in cash found in his custody and several official files recovered from the car of the middleman.</p><p>Justice M Nagaprasanna observed that, apart from the cash found with the petitioner, the middleman was caught throwing currency notes amounting to Rs 20,000 out of a window on seeing the Lokayukta police. The police later recovered the cash.</p><p>"The Supreme Court holds that the court exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC should be circumspect and restrain itself in interfering with the order of rejection to discharge, which comes to be rejected at the stage of framing of charge unless miscarriage of justice is writ large, which is palpable and demonstrable, not in disputed questions of fact.</p><p>"It is an admitted fact in the case at hand that the matter has crossed the stage of framing of charge and, as of today, 10 years has passed by after registration of the crime. It is too late in the day for this court to interfere after 10 years of registration of crime, at the stage of framing of charges, in a case where there are no apparent procedural aberrations found in the conduct of investigation, grant of sanction, contents of charge sheet and the order rejecting the application for discharge,” the court said.</p>