BENGALURU: A special court has rejected applications filed by three officials of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) and a civil contractor, seeking discharge in three different cases registered against them for irregularities in the laying of a tar road. The CID has filed a chargesheet in these cases and invoked sections of the IPC, the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurement (KTPP) Act.
Special court Judge Ramachandra D Huddar recently rejected the separate applications filed by the four accused, B G Prakash Kumar, Executive Engineer (retired), Y M Muniraju, Assistant Executive Engineer (retired), M K Harish, Assistant Engineer, BBMP and Munirathna, a civil contractor.
“On basis of materials placed on record, one would form the opinion that the accused might have committed the offence. For conviction it would require proof beyond reasonable doubt but a reading of the entire records establish that there are grounds to frame charges against the accused. At this stage, it is not expected to go deep into the matter and hold that the material would not warrant conviction... The applications filed by accused are rejected,” the court said adding that charges would be framed against the accused under the provisions mentioned in the chargesheet.
It was alleged that the three officials of the BBMP, in collusion with the contractor Munirathna, committed irregularities in implementing road works in Malleshwaram, Gandhi Nagar and Rajarajeshwari Nagar, between 2008-10. In the first complaint, it was alleged that contractor Munirathna claimed an excess amount of Rs.8.24 lakh, in collusion with other accused officials.
Similarly, in the second case, Munirathna claimed an excess amount of Rs.1.72 lakh in collusion with other accused officials. In the third case, he claimed an excess of Rs. 4.64 lakh, the complainants alleged. In the discharge application before the court, Contractor Munirathna claimed that he had completed the work as per the tender agreement and that the allegations are false. The officials claimed that the CID had no jurisdiction to probe the cases.