The Police Inspector, Anti-corruption Bureau lodged the

F.I.R. on 19.11.2021 alleging that, he has received complaint

from the general public, that some of the officials of Bengaluru

Development Authority (in short 'BDA') are acting unlawfully to

favour certain private persons by illegally allotting sites, and at

the time of allotment, they manipulated the civic amenities

sites register, and were allotting sites to persons of their

choice. It is further alleged that there were variance in the

register cum sale deed and absolute sale deed and by creating

bogus documents, sites were allotted by some of the officials of

BDA illegally. The F.I.R. was registered for the offence under

- 3 -

Sections 7(a), 7(A), 8, 12, 13(1)(a) read with Section 13(2) of

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

On 22.03.2022, respondent No.2 conducted the

search of the residential premises of the petitioner at #265,

2nd Block, 6th Main Road, R.T.Nagar, Bengaluru and in office

premises at #344, 2nd Cross, 1st Block, R.T.Nagar, Bengaluru.

Thereafter, by drawing panchanama seized few property

related documents and two mobile phones belonging to the

petitioner. On the very same day i.e., on 22.03.2022 search

warrant was issued stating that at the time of searching

premises of one Sri.Ashwath, it was informed that incriminating

documents will be recovered along with cash and other articles

from the petitioner and to conduct the search without any

further delay. Thereafter search was conducted on the

premises of the petitioner, and during the search, certain

property related documents were seized. Hence, this petition.

Sri.A.S.Ponnanna,

learned

Senior

counsel

for

petitioner/accused would make the following submissions:

i)

The allegations made in the F.I.R. is generic

and the informant having received the information of

corruption in the office of BDA and the said allegations

which constitute an offence under the provision of P.C.Act

and are cognizable, the informant was required to

register F.I.R. as specified under Section 154(1) Cr.P.C.

- 4 -

ii)

Even accepting the allegations made in the

F.I.R. on the face of it, does not disclose the commission

of an offence alleged against the petitioner/accused.

iii)

The Investigating Officer without returning

the search warrant which was executed to the learned

Magistrate could not have conducted a fresh search on a

different premise. In the absence of any incriminating

materials

seized

from

the

petitioner/accused,

the

continuation

of

the

investigation

against

the

petitioner/accused will be an abuse of process of law.

iv)

In support, he places reliance on the following

decisions:

a)

P. Sirajuddin v. State of Madras, [(1970) 1 SCC

595]

b)

K.R. Kumar Naik v. State, [2022 SCC OnLine Kar

1362]

c)

Balakrishna HN v. State of Karnataka and anr.

[WP.NO. 15886/2022 (GM-RES)]

v)

First search warrant was conducted on the

basis of dairy recovered from the office of BDA on

20.11.2021 which reflects the name of the petitioner and

his phone numbers and that he has taken four files and

has gave back one file on the basis of the said

information. However, second search was conducted on

the basis of the information alleged to have been

received during the course of search of premises of one

Mr.Ashwath.

Hence,

he

submits

that

the

- 5 -

petitioner/accused has been falsely implicated in the

case.

On the other hand, respondent Nos.2 to 4-

Lokayuktha would make the following submissions:

i)

During the course of investigation, diary was

seized from the office of the BDA which reveals that the

petitioner had taken four files and returned two files and

same establish that the petitioner/accused was involved

in the allotment of sites illegally to third persons. Hence,

the allotment of sites illegally by the officials of the BDA

in connivance with the petitioner and others requires to

be investigated, and at this stage, the investigation

cannot be scuttled against the petitioner.

5.

Considered the submissions.

6.

The Hon'b