IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BAJANTHRI CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5163 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
KWAJA MOYINUDDIN S/O.LATE J.ABDUL SUBHAN R.F.O., PRESENTLY R/AT HOUSE NO.144, 1ST MAIN MLA LAYOUT, R.T.NAGAR BENGALURU-560 032 WORKING AT OFFICE OF CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST PLANNING, ARANYA BHAVAN MALLESHWARA, BANGALORE-560 055 (BY SRI.NATARAJ G., ADV.) AND:
THE STATE BY LOKAYUKTHA POLICE CHIKKAMAGALURU REPT. ITS SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR M.S.BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001 … PETITIONER ... RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER 482 CR.P.C. BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED: 09.07.2019 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, AT CHIKKAMAGALUR, BEING PASSED IN SPECIAL CASE NO.27/2011 ON THE APPLICATION BEING FILED UNDER SECTION 91 OF CRPC AND ETC.
THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER In the instant petition, petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 09.07.2019 on the file of Prl. District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge and Special Judge at Chikkamagalur in the Special Case No.27/2011 on the application filed under Section 91 of Cr.P.C.
2. Perused the order dated 09.07.2019.
3. The petitioner is alleged to have involved in disproportionate to the source of income for which he was subjected to prosecution under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Such proceedings were registered in the year 2008. In the year 2019, he had submitted application for summoning certain Bank accounts – documents which are related to petitioner’s wife and his mother-in-law. Special Judge has rejected the petitioner’s grievance while appraising the factual aspects of the matter.
Para No.10 of Spl. Case No.27/2011 reads as under:
10. The prosecution examined P.W.2 the Chief Manager, Karnataka Bank on 10.07.2018. It appears that he has furnished khatha extract of Smt. Maharajabeen and Najimunnisa i.e. wife and mother-in-law of accused, which were marked and he was thoroughly cross examined. Certain transactions were asked in his cross examination by the accused and he says that unless records are available, he cannot answer the said questions. The accused has fully cross examined the said witness. The documents, on which clarification was sought from P.W.12 in the cross examination, were not of third parties, but accounts of his wife and mother-in-law. As already stated in the above paras, according to Section 13(1)(3) of Prevention of Corruption Act, the accused has to satisfactorily explain about disproportionate of the property. It appears that Lokayuktha had given him an opportunity to give explanation. The case was registered during the year 2008. If the said documents are relevant, he could have obtained the same and produced before Lokayuktha or would have obtained copy of the same from the account holders for cross examination of P.W.12. He slept over all these days and after lapse of about 10 to 15 years, he is trying to summon the records of the bank for the period from 2002 to 2008. It is not known whether such records were preserved by the bank or not. The accused could have obtained the said records even prior to cross examination of P.W.12. It also indicates that with an intention to drag on the proceedings, such application was filed. It also appears that might be intended to take benefit of non availability of the said records, since they were pertaining to transaction of 10 to 15 years back.
4. Having regard to the aforesaid facts, which suffice that petitioner’s conduct is required to be taken note of. Prima – facie, it is only to prolong the litigation as is evident from the date and events. Registration of case is in the year 2008. Documents/accounts which are sought for production relates back to of the year 2002 to 2008. The petitioner had sufficient time between 2008 to 2011 as and when special case was registered and it was numbered as 27/2011. Consequently, petitioner has not made out a case and there is no infirmity in the order 09.7.2019. Accordingly, criminal petition stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE BS