Karnataka High Court sets aside discharge of BBMP staff, contractors in graft cases

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has set aside the order of the trial court discharging several engineers of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP), including retired Chief Engineer B T Ramesh, and the contractors in the cases of irregularities in the works conducted during 2005 and 2012.

Allowing the batch of 115 criminal revision petitions filed by the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), Justice H P Sandesh has now remitted the matter back to the trial court for fresh consideration.

The cases pertain to illegalities in various works conducted primarily in Malleswaram, Gandhinagar and Rajarajeshwari Nagar engineering divisions in Bengaluru city. Though the criminal case was registered by the Bangalore Metropolitan Task Force (BMTF) based on Technical Vigilance Committee Cell (TVCC) report, the investigation was conducted by the CID. The CID had filed separate chargesheets against officials/contractors involved in different works.

On May 25, 2023 the trial court had suo moto taken up the matter for discharge and on June 19, 2023, passed an order discharging all the accused persons without there being any application filed by the accused persons. The trial court had discharged the accused mainly on the ground that the prosecution had failed to produce the original TVCC report and that it was necessary as the complaint was registered only on the basis of the TVCC report.

Challenging this order, the CID submitted that the trial court should have given an opportunity to lead secondary evidence by following the procedure under the Evidence Act. It was further stated that at the initial stages of the evidence, the trial court had volunteered to secure the presence of BBMP Chief Engineer and checked the availability of the original TVCC report at his office. On the basis of the statement of the Chief Engineer, the trial court came to the conclusion that the original TVCC report was not available and hence the charge-sheet was not sustainable.

Justice H P Sandesh noted that the trial court committed an error in interdicting the proceedings without allowing the prosecution to lead further evidence including secondary evidence. “In the case on hand, charge-sheets are filed and cognizance was taken, even charges are framed and trial has been commenced in some of the cases. The trial judge relied upon the evidence of half baked meal of the prosecution and was not allowed to complete the process of full baked meal by recording the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and interdicted the proceedings considering the grounds urged by the accused persons in the absence of any application for discharge. The procedure adopted by the trial court is unknown to law,” Justice Sandesh said.

The court further said, “The Trial Court is directed to consider the sanction order given by the State to continue the proceedings against the accused where the proceedings have already been quashed by giving liberty to file sanction order and continue to proceed against them from the stage of taking cognizance. If no such sanction is given in respect of the accused persons, which have been relied upon by the respondents, there cannot be any proceedings against those accused persons."