<p>A special court for Lokayukta cases has sought explanations from the Investigating Officer and two government servants named as prosecution witnesses (PW), for dereliction of duty and misleading the court in a case of disproportionate assets. The court passed this order while convicting V Muniyappa, former Managing Director of the Karnataka Council for Technical Up-gradation at Basava Bhavana of Bengaluru City for accumulating assets disproportionate to his known sources of income.</p><p>The court sentenced Muniyappa to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs 4.5 crore, special judge KM Radhakrishna said in the order. The court held that during the check period between December 1982 and July 2014, Muniyappa had accumulated 77.8 per cent assets disproportionate to his known sources of income.</p>.Census 2027 | Karnataka to begin self enumeration on April; Rules and key FAQs explained .<p>In the order, special court judge KM Radhakrishna noted that courts get the assistance of experts and officials from several departments; PWD, Statistics, Transport, Agriculture and Horticulture, and these officials must show commitment, honesty and greater responsibility while assisting the courts. The court said the officials should not be under the misconception that no accountability be fastened against them for their irresponsibility, dereliction of duty for providing false information to favour the accused.</p><p>In the case at hand, the court noted that T V Manjunath, police inspector, one of the investigating officers in the case, Nagaraja S (PW5), the then Assistant Director of Agriculture, and Narayana Swamy (PW6), the then Assistant Director of Horticulture have shown negligence, dishonesty, dereliction of duties, and have misled the court. The court observed that PW5 and 6 had not personally visited the spots to ascertain the facts relating to the agriculture and horticultural expenditure of the accused and submitted contrasting reports.</p><p>The investigating officer has committed blunders in the investigation and left out several assets, the court observed. “Unnecessary delay in the matter of investigation years together, the entrustment of the investigation responsibility in a single case to multiple officers, deciding the quality of investigation depending on the background, position and societal status of the true culprits, is another face of destroying the evidence. Unless this approach gets an end, perhaps the very purpose of an investigation and the object behind the PC Act would certainly be defeated,” the special court said. The court has directed the officials to respond within 20 days as to why disciplinary actions shall not be recommended against them for these lapses.</p>
<p>A special court for Lokayukta cases has sought explanations from the Investigating Officer and two government servants named as prosecution witnesses (PW), for dereliction of duty and misleading the court in a case of disproportionate assets. The court passed this order while convicting V Muniyappa, former Managing Director of the Karnataka Council for Technical Up-gradation at Basava Bhavana of Bengaluru City for accumulating assets disproportionate to his known sources of income.</p><p>The court sentenced Muniyappa to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs 4.5 crore, special judge KM Radhakrishna said in the order. The court held that during the check period between December 1982 and July 2014, Muniyappa had accumulated 77.8 per cent assets disproportionate to his known sources of income.</p>.Census 2027 | Karnataka to begin self enumeration on April; Rules and key FAQs explained .<p>In the order, special court judge KM Radhakrishna noted that courts get the assistance of experts and officials from several departments; PWD, Statistics, Transport, Agriculture and Horticulture, and these officials must show commitment, honesty and greater responsibility while assisting the courts. The court said the officials should not be under the misconception that no accountability be fastened against them for their irresponsibility, dereliction of duty for providing false information to favour the accused.</p><p>In the case at hand, the court noted that T V Manjunath, police inspector, one of the investigating officers in the case, Nagaraja S (PW5), the then Assistant Director of Agriculture, and Narayana Swamy (PW6), the then Assistant Director of Horticulture have shown negligence, dishonesty, dereliction of duties, and have misled the court. The court observed that PW5 and 6 had not personally visited the spots to ascertain the facts relating to the agriculture and horticultural expenditure of the accused and submitted contrasting reports.</p><p>The investigating officer has committed blunders in the investigation and left out several assets, the court observed. “Unnecessary delay in the matter of investigation years together, the entrustment of the investigation responsibility in a single case to multiple officers, deciding the quality of investigation depending on the background, position and societal status of the true culprits, is another face of destroying the evidence. Unless this approach gets an end, perhaps the very purpose of an investigation and the object behind the PC Act would certainly be defeated,” the special court said. The court has directed the officials to respond within 20 days as to why disciplinary actions shall not be recommended against them for these lapses.</p>