BENGALURU: The Special Court for Lokayukta Cases has made startling revelations, observing that all possible efforts appear to have been made by the Lokayukta police to suppress crucial evidence.
The court noted that the material, prima facie, discloses the involvement of the then Backwards Classes Welfare Minister C Puttarangashetty in the case registered after the arrest of a person with cash of Rs 25.76 lakh at the Vidhana Soudha premises in 2019.
The arrest followed allegations that the amount was collected from contractors as a cut intended to be handed over to the minister.
Judge K M Radhakrishna made scathing observations against the Lokayukta police, stating that deciding the quality of an investigation, giving a go-by to the true culprits, filing B-reports or charge sheets, depending on the background and societal status of culprits, is most unfortunate.
The court further noted that it had directed further investigation in several similar cases due to comparable lapses and defects.
The judge observed that the investigating agency had repeatedly shown reluctance to conduct further investigation and had sought to justify defective conclusions without addressing lapses or examining crucial evidence. The court said this pattern had been observed in several cases.
Mohan Kumar, after allegedly accepting the amount from contractors with the help of accused Nos. 2 to 6, was carrying Rs. 25.76 lakh from the Vidhana Soudha Secretariat on the evening of January 4, 2019, to hand over the same to the then minister Puttarangashetty.
Vidhana Soudha police apprehended him at the instance of a reporter. Despite a second opportunity being given to the Lokayukta police, the prime accused was dropped.
"This gives rise to a question as to how the proceedings of this case can be maintained against the other accused in the absence of the prime accused under the Prevention of Corruption Act?, questioned Judge Radhakrishna, while rejecting the additional report with an instruction to forward a copy of the order to the ADGP and IGP to direct further investigation and to Lokayukta for necessary action. The investigating agency has to explain it and the intention behind citing the prime accused persons as the prosecution witnesses in the case, the judge ordered.
The court noted that the investigating agency's conduct was most unfortunate, adding that it had disregarded earlier observations in its order dated January 31, 2025. It further stated that the investigation had taken more than a year instead of the three months stipulated by the court.
The investigating officer, in the additional report, is stated to have dropped accused Nos. 2 and 3 after recording their statements afresh, which were allegedly contrary to their earlier confession statements under Section 164 of the CrPC.
The additional charge sheet subsequently implicated private individuals as accused Nos. 4 to 11, which the court observed appeared to have been done to justify the exclusion of the prime accused.
The court further noted that the additional charge sheet, submitted after further investigation, was contrary to the allegations in the original charge sheet and the material available on record. It also observed that the investigating officer had ignored the confession statement of the first accused Mohan Kumar.