BENGALURU: Expressing serious displeasure over the inordinate delay in concluding investigations by Lokayukta police, the Special Court for Lokayukta cases noted that taking 5 to 10 years to conclude investigation, or FIRs registered in 2016 still pending before court, will not only affect larger public interest but also cause injustice to real victims.
The court also referred to its correspondence with ADGP of Karnataka Lokayukta on four occasions -- August 24, 2023, March 7, 2025, March 10, 2025, and July 14, 2025 -- pointing out that 60 days under the CrPC is prescribed for investigation of cases registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
“Of course, for getting expert opinion from the forensic lab, chemical examiners and prosecution sanction orders may cause a reasonable delay of six months or even a maximum of one year. But taking 5 years, 7 years or 10 years not only affects public interest but also causes injustice to the real victims, rather than ensuring true justice. No purpose would be served through this kind of investigation, but to invest manpower, valuable time and public money,” said Judge KM Radhakrishna, in an order on Saturday.
The judge said the impact of the delay in concluding investigation would be abatement of proceedings due to death of the accused, cases ending in acquittal due to destruction of evidence with the passage of time, death of material witnesses, investigation officers (IOs) or their retirement from service, and the possibility of witnesses forgetting about the incident, he said.
“Sometimes, the approach of IOs and their subordinates in coming to court without proper preparation and adducing evidence, contrary to facts so negligibly to step out of the doors of the court as soon as possible. Therefore, seriousness needs to be bestowed by police officers towards these lapses and delays for effective investigation...,” the judge said, pointing out serious lapses.
Questioning the Lokayukta police for not chargesheeting Special Land Acquisition Officer Manorama and chargesheeting First Division Assistant Ramesh, who was working under her, arrested while allegedly accepting a bribe of Rs 25,000 in 2021 for release of over Rs 17 lakh compensation to complainant Balasubramanyam for acquisition of land for the Chennai-Bengaluru Expressway in a Kolar village, the judge said the court has come across similar approach of IOs in many cases, wherein they give the go-by to the main accused despite evidence, and chargesheet persons who assist the main accused in demanding and accepting illegal gratification.
“Unfortunately, the IO is suppressing the involvement of the SLAO despite evidence available, to expose her prima-facie involvement in the alleged offence. But he has dropped her from the charge-sheet and given protection without assigning reasons,” the judge observed.