Balakrishne Gowda had allegedly amassed property after his voluntary retirement as a state administrative officer.
Karnataka high court on Thursday gave permission to the Lokayukta police to investigate the financial assets of HD Balakrishne Gowda, son of JD(S) leader and former prime minister HD Deve Gowda.
The case is based on a complaint filed in the Lokayukta court, alleging that Balakrishne Gowda had amassed property after his voluntary retirement as a state administrative officer.
The complainant, SN Balakrishna, a retired mechanical engineer from Bhadravathi Vishveswaraiah Iron and Steel plant, alleged that Balakrishnegowda had amassed property worth `77 crore after opting for voluntary retirement in 2005. He said the properties were bought during the last six years.
On October 24, 2011, the Lokayukta special court had directed the Lokayukta police to investigate the corruption charges against Balakrishnegowda who then moved the HC to get a stay on the lower court’s order. Hearing Balakrishnegowda’s interlocutory application seeking a stay on proceedings, the HC stayed the investigation for eight weeks.
When the case came up for hearing before Justice N Anand on Thursday, he dismissed Balakrishnegowda’s petition seeking a stay on the investigation and the FIR. The judge observed that when the investigation is at its threshold, it is not possible to hold that the complaint and consequent FIR were initiated with mala fide intention.
He said that at this stage, it is not possible to hold that once a public servant demitted office, he could not be prosecuted for an offence punishable under Section 13(1) (e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of the Corruption Act.
The judge observed that the averments of the complaint could not be turned down as absurd or vexatious. Even if the first respondent had oblique motive against the petitioner, that alone would not be sufficient to quash the first information report especially when the material furnished in the complaint would constitute an offence alleged against the petitioner.
“I am of the opinion that this court cannot exercise its power under Section 482 to quash the complaint and subsequent reference and not to interfere with the investigation. Hence, the petition is dismissed,” the judge said.
It was not the situation where the single judge had referred the matter without application of mind or without being satisfied that there was material for investigation by the Lokayukta police, observed the judge.
“Even otherwise, in the complaint I find that there are several acquisitions of immovable properties by wife, brother-in-law and sister-in-law before April 30, 2005... It is a matter of investigation,” he said.
){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}