SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1997 Supreme(Kar) 453

T.S.THAKUR
M. MAHESHAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent


Advocates:
Gangadhar R.Gurumath, S.VIJAYA SHANKAR

( 1 ) TWO questions that arise for consideration in this writ petition can at the very outset be stated thus :- (1) Is the Bureau of Investigation Karnataka Lokayukta competent to register and investigate cases involving offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, without the directions of the Lokayukta asking it do so ? (2) If the answer to question No. 1 be in the negative should the registration of the case against the petitioner and investigation conducted by the Bureau of Investigation till now be quashed ? The questions arise in the following backdrop. The petitioner is a supertime Scale Officer in the Indian Administration Service. On the 6th of June 1984, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bureau of Investigation, Karnataka Lokayukta , Bangalore is said to have received credible information about the alleged acquisition of assets by the petitioner disproportionate to the known sources of his income constituting an offence punishable under Section 13 (1) (e) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Information received was recorded and a report submitted to the Superintendent of Police, Bureau of Investigation, Lokayukta on the same d
























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top