BENGALURU: The complainant in the case registered against the alleged irregularities in the allotment of sites to BM Parvathy, wife of Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, by the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA), moved the special court for the trial of criminal cases against sitting and former MPs/MLAs in Bengaluru seeking directives to change the investigation officer.
When the case was taken up for hearing by Special Court Judge Santhosh Gajanan Bhat on Thursday, the complainant, Snehamayi Krishna from Mysuru, argued that the manner in which the investigation is being conducted is totally against the settled principles of law.
The investigating agencies cannot exonerate some accused persons against whom a ‘B’ report (closure) is filed and kept pending investigation with respect to other accused persons, Krishna argued while filing two applications — one under Article 51(A) of the Constitution and another under Section 156(3) of the CrPC requesting the court to issue directives to change the investigating officer. He also filed a memo containing two judgments.
Refuting the complainant’s submission, the Special Public Prosecutor (SPP), representing the Lokayukta police, said that the investigation is being carried out in accordance with the law and they are awaiting for necessary sanction to proceed further as per the provisions of Section 17(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The SPP sought an accommodation to file necessary objections to the complainant’s applications. The court adjourned the hearing to June 17.
Earlier, the SPP filed an affidavit and also an additional affidavit of the investigating officer in pursuance of the directives issued by the court on the last date of the hearing.
On April 15, the special court kept its decision pending on accepting or rejecting the ‘B’ report by the Lokayukta police, giving a clean chit to Siddaramaiah and his family members in the MUDA case. However, the Lokayukta police were permitted to conduct further investigation into the role of other accused and file a conclusive report on or before May 7.
However, on May 7, the investigating officer filed a requisition for time to conclude the investigation on the premise that they have sought necessary sanction under Section 17(A) of the PC Act to conduct the probe against the former commissioners of MUDA, instead of submitting the conclusive report. The complainant had opposed granting time.
The court, therefore, expressed its displeasure with the manner the adjournment was sought and directed the investigating officer to submit the detailed report by way of an affidavit with respect to the status of the case.