In a major setback to the Lokayukta police, the High Court of Karnataka on Wednesday quashed the alleged corruption case registered against K. Madal Virupakshappa, BJP’s former MLA and former chairperson of Karnataka Soaps and Detergents Ltd. (KSDL).
The court said there was not even prima facie ingredient of either demand or acceptance of bribe to continue the case against him. “If there is not even a whisper of any demand or acceptance of bribe by the petitioner [Mr. Virupakshappa], it is ununderstandable as to how the proceedings can be permitted to be continued against him,” the court said while observing that permitting continuation of criminal proceedings would become “an abuse of the process of law and result in miscarriage of justice.”
‘Son is prima facie guilty’
However, the court pointed out that the “entire allegation is against Mr. Virupakshappa’s son, Prashanth Madal, who is as per the narration in the complaint, prima facie guilty of demand and acceptance of bribe...” and “prima facie, it is the son (accused number 2) who has to answer the allegations in a full-blown trial, as all the pointers of demand and acceptance are on the son.” Prashanth is financial adviser and Chief Accounts Officer with the Bengaluru Water Supply and Sewerage Board.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna delivered the verdict while allowing a petition filed by Mr. Virupakshappa questioning registration of First Information Report (FIR) against him by the Lokayukta police. The FIR was registered after his son was caught red-handed while accepting ₹40 lakh from complainant, one Shreyas Kashyap, a partner of a private firm called Chemical Corporation.
Moral Vs material obligation
The court refused to accept the submission made on behalf of the Lokayukta police that it cannot be said that the father [Mr. Virupakshappa] is not involved in the acts of the son and therefore, further proceedings should be permitted to be continued owing to certain moral obligations. The court said moral obligation cannot be a reason to permit proceeding as “it is criminal prosecution and there should be at least prima facie material against the petitioner.”
While stating that the complaint suffers from the vice of ambiguity or vagueness, the court pointed out that the voluntary statement given by the General Manager of KSDL also nowhere points at the petitioner on the alleged offence.
“The son of the petitioner is no doubt prima facie guilty of demand, acceptance, and is answerable to the cash that was found in his house or his office. If the petitioner is nowhere found in any of the instances, merely because he is the father of accused no: 2, he cannot be permitted to be prosecuted,” the court observed. It pointed out that allegations in the complaint has no ingredients of offence under Section 7(a) and (b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, invoked against Mr. Virupakshappa,
‘Not in tender process’
Mr. Virupakshappa, the court noted from tender documents, had not even participated in the process of tender for procurement of certain materials from the complainant company, which alleged that demand for bribe was made to award tenders in its favour and another company and for prompt release of amount for the supplied materials.
Also, the court pointed out that tender was awarded on January 30, 2023, and a portion of the alleged bribe amount was paid to petitioner’s son after a long period, that is March 2, 2023. It was stated in the complaint that they lodged complaint as they were unwilling to pay the bribe.
The court said that there was no need to examine the issue of legality of registration of FIR without prior sanction from competent authority as required under Section 17A of the Act as it has come to the conclusion that “there is neither demand nor acceptance and ingredients under Section 7 are not even met to its prima facie sense.”
Judge pronounces 50 verdicts in a day
Justice M. Nagaprasanna created a record of sorts on Wednesday as he pronounced 50 judgments on a single day, a first in terms of number of verdicts pronounced by a judge of the High Court of Karnataka on a single day. The judgments on petitions against MLC Suraj Revanna’s election and alleged bribery case against former MLA Madal Virupakshappa were among the 50 judgments.
A judge of the High Court of Orissa last year pronounced 32 verdicts and a judge of the Delhi High Court pronounced 65 judgments on a single day in June this year. Similarly, a judge of the apex court had pronounced 20 judgments in a single day last year.
