PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. M/S. TECHNOTREE CONVERGENCE PVT. LTD.,

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.834 OF 2018

BETWEEN:

V.S. MURUGAIAH, S/O. LATE V.S. SIDDARAMAYYA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED ASSISTANT, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, R/AT NO.682, 1ST C MAIN ROAD, III PHASE, 3RD BLOCK, III STAGE, BANASHANKARI, K.G. LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 085. ….PETITIONER

(BY SRI. K.B. MONESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. VIJETHA .R. NAIK, ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY THE LOKAYUKTA POLICE, BENGALURU, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560 001. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI. B.S. PRASAD, ADVOCATE)

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 21.07.2018 PASSED BY THE LXXVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS COURT AND SPECIAL

2 COURT, MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU (CCH-77) IN SPL.C.C.NO.77/2013 ON THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 227 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE SEEKING FOR DISCHARGE FOR ALLEGED COMMISSION FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 13(1)(e) R/W SECTION 13(2) OF THE P.C. ACT AND BE FURTHER PLEASED TO DISCHARGE THE PETITIONER FROM ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 23.08.2023, COMING ON FOR ‘PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER’ THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

This revision is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., by revision petitioner/accused challenging the order passed by LXXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bangalore in Spl.C.C.No.77/2013, dated 21.07.2013, whereby, the learned Special Judge has rejected the application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C., on behalf of the accused seeking discharge. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred with the original ranks occupied by them before the trial Court.

3 3. The brief factual matrix leading to the case are that the accused was prosecuted for the offence under Section 13(1)(e) r/w Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. As per the case of the prosecution, the check period ranges from 1982-2007. The accused has joined service as a Motor vehicle Inspector in 1978 and it is alleged that he has assets worth of Rs.29,22,704.92 and expenses were Rs.14,95,704.40 during the check period. Hence, according to the prosecution, the total assets of the complainant were Rs.44,18,409.32 and the total income of the accused in this period was Rs.34,26,038.90. Hence, it is asserted that the accused has amassed wealth disproportionate to his known source of income to the tune of Rs.9,92,370.92 i.e., 28.97%. Hence, the accused was prosecuted. 4. The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance and issued process against the accused. The accused has appeared and was enlarged on bail. He has moved an application for discharge. The records further disclose that initially, the learned Sessions Judge has passed an

4 order rejecting the discharge application vide his order dated 31.05.2017. The said order came to be challenged before this Court in Crl.RP.895/2017. This Court relying on the decision reported in AIR 1979 SC 366 [UNION OF INDIA vs. PRAFULLA KUMAR SAMAL) has held that the learned Special Judge without considering the case on merits in a cryptic way, rejected the application and the said order was set aside and the matter came to be remitted back to the Special Judge vide order dated 24.11.2017. Thereafter, the matter was again heard and by considered order, the learned Special Judge has rejected the said application filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C., and the same is being challenged before this Court. 5. The main contention of the accused/revision petitioner is that the expenses of his wife and son were recorded, but their income was ignored and if their expenses were taken note of, then there would not be any disproportionate income. Hence, he would contend that the entire calculation is based on a wrong

5 assumption and hence, it is prayed for allowing the revision petition. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/Lokayuktha would contend that the income and expenses of wife as well as son are not at all taken into account and independent income of the accused was taken note of and was restricted to the accused only. He would also contend that all the records were considered and how the expenses are done is a matter of evidence and only on the basis of the calculation the matter cannot be discharged. Hence, he would seek for dismissal of the revision petition. 7. Having heard the arguments and perusing the records, it is evident that accused was having a wife by name Annapurna and two sons by name V.S. Siddaramaiah and V.S.Anil Kumar, who are said to have independent income. However, it is an admitted fact that all of them were residing under a common roof. 8. The main contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused is that the income of the

6 wife and son were not taken note of while their expenses were recorded. But on perusal of the charge sheet material, it is evident that the income as well as expenses of the son and wife were completely excluded by the Investigating officer. Further, admittedly, the wife died during the course of the investigation itself. Much arguments were advanced regarding the wife of the accused securing the lottery price from Kerala State Lottery to the tune of Rs.9,00,000/-, but that was also taken note of and not added towards the income of the accused and the charge sheet clearly discloses that all the income and expenses of the wife and children were completely excluded by the investigating officer and he has restricted the income and expenses pertaining to the accused only. The tabulation provided by the investigating agency clarifies that all the income as well as expenses of the wife and children were not at all taken note of for calculating the total income of the accused. 9. It is submitted that the accused has retired about twenty years back, but that cannot be a ground for

7 discharge and much arguments have been advanced regarding the wife and son of the accused earning crores together, but that is not a criteria and accused being the karta of the family his income and expenses were alone recorded. Further, income tax returns and APR are independent and all these aspects are to be tested only during the course of trial. Much arguments have been advanced regarding FD receipts of the wife being taken as income, but the records disclose that the FD income of the wife independently were not recorded and those referred to in the APR pertaining to accused were taken note of by the investigating agency. 10. The Investigating Officer while submitting the charge sheet in detail, referred to each and every entry with reasons why it is not taken note off and why it is ignored or considered. The note of the investigating officer clearly establishes that the income as well as expenses of wife and children were not taken note of and the contention of the learned counsel that only expenses

8 of the wife and children were calculated and income was ignored cannot be accepted. 11. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has placed reliance on the reportable decisions of Apex Court in CRIMINAL APPEAL No.22-23 OF 2014 [STATE OF TAMILNADU BY INS. OF POLICE VIGILENCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION Vs. N. SURESH RAJAN & ORS.] WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL No.26-38 OF 2014 [STATE REP. BY DEPUTY SUPDT. OF POLICE VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION vs. K.PONMUDI & ORS], CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.1452-1453 OF 2022 [STATE THROUGH DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE vs. R. SOUNDIRARASU ETC.,] and (1977) 1 SCC 816 [KRISHNANAND AGNIHOTRI vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH] & (2011) 4 SCC 402 [ASHOK TSHERING BHUTIA vs. STATE OF SIKKIM]. But the facts and circumstances of the said cases are entirely different. Further, there is no dispute about the fact that if the disproportionate income is less than 10%, needs to be ignored. But in the instant case, the disproportionate is

9 shown to be nearly 28% and that is required to be tested only during the course of the trial. 12. Looking to these facts and circumstances, the order under revision does not suffer from any perversity so as to call for any interference. The principles enunciated in the above cited decisions will not come to the aid of the revision petitioner in any way and hence, the petition being devoid of any merits, does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER 1. The revision petition stands dismissed.

Sd/- JUDGE