1. In this petition filed under S.482 of CrPC, the petitioner has sought for setting aside the order dated 28.11.2012 passed by the Special Court constituted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ( for short, 'PC Act'), for Bangalore Urban District, Bangalore, in PCR No. 44/2012, referring the complaint lodged by Respondent No. 2 herein to the Superintendent of Police, Lokayuktha, Bangalore Urban District, under S.156(3) of CrPC for investigation and for quashing the private complaint filed by the 2nd respondent in PCR No. 44/2012, and all further proceedings taken thereon.

2. The 2nd respondent herein presented a private complaint under S.200 of CrPC alleging the offence punishable under S.13(1)(e) r/w. S.13(2) of the PC Act against the petitioner herein and sought for referring the matter for investigation to Lokayuktha Police under S.156(3) of CrPC, inter alia alleging that the petitioner herein was for the first time elected as a member of Legislative Assembly of Karnataka in 1989, and later in 1994 and 1999 from Chithapur constituency and he was once again elected to the State Legislative Assembly from Gurumitkal constituency in the election held on 30.05.2008 and since then he has been MLA; that during 1999 to 2004 he was also a Minister of State for Small Savings, Insurance and Muzarai; that the petitioner has amassed huge assets disproportionate to his known sources of income; that he has filed vague and incorrect statement of his Assets and Liabilities before the Lokayuktha while filing statements as required by R.7 of the Karnataka Lokayuktha Rules, 1985; that though he acquired several movable and immovable properties after he became the Member of the State Legislative Assembly, has not disclosed them in his statements of Assets and Liabilities filed before the Lokayuktha; that he also filed incorrect and defective statements before the Election Commissioner; that he has acquired several properties benami in the names of his wife and son - in - law by name one Ramesh; that the total value of the assets held by the petitioner herein both in his name and benami in the names of his wife and others, are worth about Rs.14,52,08,217/-, the total expenditure from 1989 - 90 up to 2010-11 was Rs.45,70,000/-, whereas the total income declared by him was only Rs.1,56,73,000/- and the liabilities declared by him was to the tune of Rs.49,00,000/- and thus, the disproportionate assets possessed by him is to the tune of Rs.12,92,05,217/-, which in terms of percentage works - out to 628% over and above his known sources. In this view of the matter, the complainant alleged that the petitioner herein has acquired assets and cash which was in no way justified by his declared sources of income and thereby he has committed the offence as defined under S.13(1)(e) of the PC Act. It was further alleged that the petitioner herein has not only amassed the assets disproportionate to the declared sources of income, but also indulged in concealing the true assets and undervalued the assets and that the petitioner herein is possessing the assets to the tune of nearly Rs.50 crores, but the same has been undervalued by him with an intention to conceal the true value of the wealth and thus, he has committed the offence under S.13(1)(e) punishable S.13(2) of the PC Act. In the complaint, regarding issue of sanction, it was averred that the accused was first time elected in the year 1989, again in 1994 and 1999; that between 1999 and 2004, he was also a Minister in the State Government, but thereafter, he lost the election and ceased to be a public servant, and since the allegations made in the complaint are only with regard to misappropriation of assets during the period when the petitioner herein was a public servant till he lost election in 2004 and while he served as a Minister and since he completed his term as a Minister in 2004, question of sanction does not arise. With these contentions the complainant sought for referring the matter