<div>The High Court observed on Wednesday that if former Lokayukta Justice Y Bhaskar Rao was “innocent,” why is he fearing facing the trial. He can go before the Lokayukta court and make his submission, the court observed. Justice Anand Byrareddy said that it was “painful” to know that Justice Rao's son Ashwin Rao was holding conferences with the government officials inside the Lokayukta office and Justice Rao failed to take any action.<div><br /></div><div>The judge said that though the news of corruption in the Lokayukta office came to light, Justice Rao’s reaction seemed very “suspicious”. He simply took the files and went missing for a few days. The judge made these observations orally, hearing the petition filed by Justice Rao, who has approached the High Court seeking quashing of the additional charge sheet filed by SIT, making Justice Rao accused number seven in the Lokayukta extortion scandal.</div><div><br /></div><div>Senior counsel S M Chandrashekhar said that the petitioner was accused of not taking any action against those involved in the extortion scandal and protecting his son. But it was Justice Rao who directed to form a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to investigate the scandal. Justice Byrareddy said that when there was already a probe ordered by the Upalokayukta, what was the need to form SIT to investigate the scandal.</div><div><br /></div><div>The petitioner's counsel said that the SIT had not followed the procedure while filing the charge sheet. Instead of submitting its report to the Lokayukta, SIT directly filed the charge sheet in the Special Lokayukta Court. Justice Byrareddy asked how the SIT could submitthe charge sheet to the Lokayukta, when the Lokayukta himself was an accused.</div><div><br /></div><div>The judge, however, pointed out that SIT had not followed due procedure while filing the charge sheet. The counsel contended that when the Governor sanction prosecution of Justice Rao, he has to consult the council of ministers, but here the sanction was granted without consultation. </div><div><br /></div><div>Senior counsel C H Jadhav, appearing for SIT, argued that the scandal had damaged the Lokayukta institution. The SIT, during the investigation, found enough evidence against the petitioner. </div><div><br /></div><div>The Lokayukta court, which is hearing the matter, summoned the suspect for the same reason, he said. The petitioner’s advocate sought directions for exemption to appear before the lower court, to which the judge directed the petitioner to approach the lower court and adjourned the hearing to Monday.</div><div><br /></div></div>
<div>The High Court observed on Wednesday that if former Lokayukta Justice Y Bhaskar Rao was “innocent,” why is he fearing facing the trial. He can go before the Lokayukta court and make his submission, the court observed. Justice Anand Byrareddy said that it was “painful” to know that Justice Rao's son Ashwin Rao was holding conferences with the government officials inside the Lokayukta office and Justice Rao failed to take any action.<div><br /></div><div>The judge said that though the news of corruption in the Lokayukta office came to light, Justice Rao’s reaction seemed very “suspicious”. He simply took the files and went missing for a few days. The judge made these observations orally, hearing the petition filed by Justice Rao, who has approached the High Court seeking quashing of the additional charge sheet filed by SIT, making Justice Rao accused number seven in the Lokayukta extortion scandal.</div><div><br /></div><div>Senior counsel S M Chandrashekhar said that the petitioner was accused of not taking any action against those involved in the extortion scandal and protecting his son. But it was Justice Rao who directed to form a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to investigate the scandal. Justice Byrareddy said that when there was already a probe ordered by the Upalokayukta, what was the need to form SIT to investigate the scandal.</div><div><br /></div><div>The petitioner's counsel said that the SIT had not followed the procedure while filing the charge sheet. Instead of submitting its report to the Lokayukta, SIT directly filed the charge sheet in the Special Lokayukta Court. Justice Byrareddy asked how the SIT could submitthe charge sheet to the Lokayukta, when the Lokayukta himself was an accused.</div><div><br /></div><div>The judge, however, pointed out that SIT had not followed due procedure while filing the charge sheet. The counsel contended that when the Governor sanction prosecution of Justice Rao, he has to consult the council of ministers, but here the sanction was granted without consultation. </div><div><br /></div><div>Senior counsel C H Jadhav, appearing for SIT, argued that the scandal had damaged the Lokayukta institution. The SIT, during the investigation, found enough evidence against the petitioner. </div><div><br /></div><div>The Lokayukta court, which is hearing the matter, summoned the suspect for the same reason, he said. The petitioner’s advocate sought directions for exemption to appear before the lower court, to which the judge directed the petitioner to approach the lower court and adjourned the hearing to Monday.</div><div><br /></div></div>
