BENGALURU: The Karnataka High Court refused to quash proceedings initiated by Lokayukta police against Atthar Ali, Deputy Controller of Legal Metrology department in the city, for allegedly possessing disproportionate assets amounting to 155 per cent, including more than 4kg of gold worth Rs 2 crore, and benami properties.
Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed the petition filed by Ali with an observation that the case at hand, on material presently projected, presents a textbook illustration of circumstances warranting an investigation into disproportionate assets.
Ali moved the High Court challenging the crime registered by Lokayukta police under Section 13 (1)(b) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act on July 18, 2024, on the ground that preliminary inquiry into the assets, following a shoddy source report is only eyewash, which is against the law.
After hearing the arguments, the court noted that Ali had declared possession of 1,650gm of gold. The search, however, allegedly yielded 4kg and 109gm of gold, valued at close to Rs 2 crore. The search is also said to have yielded 303gm of diamonds valued at Rs 78 lakh, and 4.63kg of silver articles worth Rs 3lakh.
The wife of the petitioner is declared to be a homemaker with no independent source of income. Yet, she is said to have purchased a 1,161sqft property in HRBR Layout, valued at Rs 80lakh. When a search was conducted, Rs 25.13 lakh in cash, apart from foreign currency, was allegedly found in the petitioner's possession, whereas annual property returns declared was Rs 15.60 lakh in cash, the court added.
It also noted that the statement of objections filed by Lokayukta police speaks of four apartments, alleged to be benami properties, standing in names of persons other than the petitioner or members of his immediate family, while the rents generated from those apartments are allegedly being received by the petitioner's daughters. Why should his daughters receive rents from properties which, on paper, belong to somebody else? It is precisely the kind of question which investigation must unravel, the court said.
The court also noted that the principal explanation advanced for gold found was that an engagement ceremony was being held in the petitioner's house, and relatives who had gathered had brought their jewellery and kept it in the petitioner's house. Yet, it is not a conclusion this court can record in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS. Who brought the gold; how much was brought; to whom did it belong; when was it brought; whether there exists material to demonstrate such ownership, etc., are questions to be answered by the investigation, the court added.