Karnataka anti-corruption watchdog will now have to file an FIR before deciding to search houses and residences of suspected corrupt politicians and bureaucrats.
The change in the Lokayukta’s functioning has been effected following a high court ruling quashing proceedings in a case in which had there was neither an FIR nor a complaint was made to the Lokayukta police to register an FIR.
So far, the Lokayukta police conducted surprise checks without a proper complaint or an FIR in violation of a Supreme Court order. More than 15 suo motu searches — backed neither by an FIR nor a complaint —were reportedly carried out in the past two years, placing the credibility and reputation of Lokayukta at stake.
After the court’s order quashing such cases, the Lokayukta police have now decided to register an FIR before conducting surprise checks.
Lokayukta police chief, HN Sathyanarayana Rao, ADGP, admitted the lapse. “We were not filing FIRs during surprise checks. But we will do so from now on,” said Rao.
Advocate C Sunder, who dealt with one such case, recalled the Supreme Court ruling which laid down that a cognisable case should have a complaint and an FIR as per section 154 of the CrPC; police have to submit the complaint and the FIR to the magistrate prior to any searches as per Section 157 of the CrPC.
“The Lokayukta police in many cases conducted suo motu searches with no complaint and FIR, and, as a result of this, around 16 such cases have been quashed in the past 10 months,” Sunder said.
They got away
On Feb 20, 2009, Lokayukta police conducted a surprise check and seized Rs 5 lakh from a car, which they alleged belonged to Ganganna, an accounts officer with the BBMP. Proceedings were initiated and a chargesheet was subsequently filed in 2010 by the Lokayukta police with the Lokayukta special court.
At this stage, Ganganna and Hombegowda, a contractor who had been named an accused in the case, moved the HC seeking quashing of the proceedings, saying police had conducted the raid without even filing an FIR, which the counsel for accused said was against the CrPC and a Supreme Court directive. The HC’s order on Dec 3 gave relief to Ganganna and Hombegowda.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}