ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question proceedings in Special Case No.35 of 2017 pending before the IV Additional District & Sessions Judge and Special Judge at Belagavi arising out of crime in Crime No.3 of 2014 registered for offences punishable under Section 13(1)(c) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘the Act’ for short).

2. Heard Smt. Vijetha R Naik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Venkatesh S.Arabatti, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent.

3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:-

The petitioner, at the relevant point in time, was elected Member of the Karnataka State Legislative Assembly from Belagavi Rural Constituency from Bharatiya Janatha Party (BJP). It is the averment in the petition that the petitioner being a Member of the Legislative Assembly for 25 to 30 years has been striving to uplift the uneducated by providing education to the needy through his educational institution run in the name and style of Gomatesh Vidhya Peetha (for short ‘Vidhya Peetha’) through a trust which was established by H.H. Bhadrababu Swamiji. It is the further averment that there are 8000 to 9000 students being educated in the educational institution with a nominal fee. The institution also receives aid from the Government for it being an institution run by the religious minority.

4. During the period when the petitioner was a Member of Legislative Assembly, it is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner allocated funds to the tune of `32,84,692/- between the years 2009 and 2011 under the Karnataka Legislators’ Local Area Development Scheme, 2014 (‘Scheme’ for short) to the account of the Vidhya Peetha. Allegations spring that the petitioner was an MLA of Belagavi Rural Constituency and the Vidhya Peetha did not fall under the Belagavi Rural Constituency and, therefore, the petitioner had violated the terms of the Scheme under which the aforesaid sum of `32,84,692/- had been utilized. The complaint further alleged that misusing and abusing the power of being an MLA, the funds are allocated to his own institution all contrary to the Rules. The complaint is made before the respondent/Lokayukta which becomes a crime in Crime No.3 of 2014 against the petitioner and four others for offences punishable as afore-quoted. The crime comes to be registered on 24-03-2014. While filing the charge sheet all other accused are dropped and the charge sheet is filed only against the petitioner. Filing of the charge sheet and continuation of further proceedings is what has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the petitioner has committed no crime. It is a matter of record that he has in fact recommended release of funds under the Scheme not only to the Vidhya Peetha but for construction of a community hall and several other public programmes. When the complaint comes up in the year 2012 the petitioner returned the entire amount of `32,84,692/- to its last pie. It is the submission that it was an inadvertent error that has happened without noticing that the institution did not come within his constituency but under the neighbouring constituency. It is contended that there were 5 accused at the time of registering the crime. But, the Lokayukta Police have deliberately filed the charge sheet against the petitioner alone, as he was belonging to opposite party, at the time when the charge sheet was filed.

6. On perusal of the charge sheet, the learned counsel would contend that petitioner has only recommended for sanction of the amount under the Scheme, but it is executed by the Deputy Commissioner. Two Deputy Commissioners with one former Deputy Commissioner were arrayed as accused Nos. 2 to 4. They are all dropped from the array of parties. The petitioner could not have been proceeded against, notwithstanding the fact that not a rupee has been gained out of the alleged inc