Point of Law: Responsibility of the institution like the Lokayukta to curb the menace of corruption cannot also be ignored. Therefore, it is for the Lokayukta not to let loose any loophole, of the kind that is projected in the case at hand in a case of launching of prosecution for disproportionate assets.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question registration of crime in Crime No. 20 of 2023 registered by the Karnataka Lokayukta Police under Sections 12, 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘the Act’ for short) and has consequently sought quashment of entire source information report of the Lokayukta which led to registration of crime.

2. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:

The petitioner is an employee of the Public Works Department having joined the said Department as Assistant Engineer. In the year 2011, he was promoted to the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineer and presently functioning as Assistant Director of Town Planning, Yelahanka Zone, Bangalore. On 21-04-2023 the respondent – Police wing of the Lokayukta registers a crime on the basis of source information report in Crime No. 20 of 2023 for offences punishable under Sections 12, 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of the Act. Based upon the said source information report, on 24-04-2023 in wee hours of the morning, the Police conduct a raid on the house of the petitioner and draw up a seizure panchanama and all other necessary things for it to be in accordance with law. The petitioner, the moment search takes place and registration of crime thereto, is before this Court calling in question registration of crime, which was on the basis of source information report. Since no further proceedings have happened, the issue now lies in a narrow compass with regard to the challenge to source information report and resultant registration of crime.

3. Heard Sri Sandesh J. Chouta, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.B. Patil, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent.

4. The learned senior counsel for petitioner would vehemently contend that the source information report is prepared in a mortal hurry on 21-04-2023. The crime is also registered on the same day and search is conducted on 24-04-2023 based upon the so registered source information report which becomes foundation of the crime. It is his submission that there is blatant violation of Section 17 of the Act which mandates application of mind and an order being passed by the Competent Authority to register the crime. He would take this Court through the statement of objections so filed by the Lokayukta to contend that there is gross variance with the orders that are passed permitting registration of crime with the orders that are generally passed permitting registration of crime. It is his submission that it is an anti–dated order that is placed before this Court. He would seek quashment of entire proceedings by relying on the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the Lokayukta would vehemently refute the submissions and take this Court through the very statement of objections so filed contending that the petitioner who is now charged of amassing wealth disproportionate to the known sources of income should not be shown indulgence on these trivialities with regard to drawing up of source information report or registration of crime. It is for the petitioner to urge all these grounds in a full blown trial. If he is able to satisfy that assets are not disproportionate to his known sources of income he would as well be acquitted of the offences. With regard to the contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that it is an anti dated order, he has produced original records pertaining to the case of the petitioner which led to registration of crime.

6. The learned senior counsel would now join the issue to contend that the petitioner has filed a rejoinder to the statement of objections which would clearly demonstrate that it is an afterthought of preparation of an order under Section 17 of the Act, as the order which is appended to the petition clearly demonstrates that there was no sanction by the Superintendent of Police under Sectio