Cash seizure during Lok Sabha polls: Karnataka High Court quashes case against K Sudhakar

Bengaluru: In a relief to Dr K Sudhakar, BJP MP from Chikkaballapur constituency, the Karnataka High Court has quashed proceedings against him in relation to the case registered pursuant to seizure of Rs 4.8 crore by officials on Election duty. Justice MI Arun has allowed the petition filed by Sudhakar observing that the charges pressed in the charge sheet are not made out against the petitioner. A detailed order is yet to be uploaded.

The petitioner challenged the crime registered on April 25, 2024 at Madanayakanahalli police station in Bengaluru rural district and subsequent charge sheet and proceedings before the special court for cases involving MPs/MLAs. As per the complaint, filed by Dasharatha V Kumbar of the Static Surveillance Team (SST), a tip off was received on the previous day of the Lok Sabha elections stating that Rs 10 crore cash was stored at a house meant to be distributed to the voters.

On searching the house belonging to one Govindappa, the team seized Rs 4.8 crore cash. It was further stated in the complaint that Sudhakar later sent messages as well as made calls on WhatsApp to election officer Munish Moudgil to help him in the matter.

The jurisdictional police investigated the case and filed a charge sheet before the JMFC court at Nelamangala, Bengaluru Rural district for offences punishable under IPC sections 171E, 171F, 171B and 171C and also under section 12 of the Representation of People's Act. The offences were related to bribery and inducement of voters. Subsequently, the special court for MPs/MLAs took cognizance of the case for offences punishable under IPC sections 171 E, 171 F and 511.

Challenging the proceedings, Sudhakar argued that the complaint itself does not establish the charges of bribery and inducement and that he has been falsely implicated in the case. According to Sudhakar, mere recovery of cash at the home of an individual residing in a constituency also does not automatically imply that the cash belonged to the candidate or that it was being used for illicit electoral gains. In regard to the calls, it was submitted that relying solely on anonymous call/message identifying it to be the petitioner lacks necessary weight to implicate him.