BENGALURU: The Special Court for Lokayukta Cases strongly criticised the Karnataka Lokayukta police for their approach of overlooking high-ranking officials accused in corruption cases, while filing charge sheets solely against lower-rung staff.
The court expressed serious displeasure at the authority's failure to properly scrutinise investigations and grant approval before filing charge sheets despite repeated concerns being raised about the exclusion of primary accused individuals.
“This is not the first instance of the Lokayukta police disregarding the main accused, particularly in trap cases, and instead filing charge sheets against clerks, attenders, or C-Group officials working under the main accused. This kind of approach by the investigating agency is most unfortunate. What is particularly concerning is the negligent attitude of the authority responsible for examining and approving charge sheets for submission to the court,” observed Judge K.M. Radhakrishna.
These remarks followed the court’s examination of a case in which the Lokayukta police filed a charge sheet against police constable Rajesh of the BESCOM Vigilance Wing, Malleswaram, while omitting Assistant Executive Engineer (AEE) Nagesh, despite both being named in the FIR. The court also noted that the police had failed to investigate the roles of Shiva M. and Moihuddin Arif K., through whom Rajesh and Nagesh allegedly received the bribe.
“I am of the opinion that further investigation is absolutely necessary in the interest of justice. Without it, effective adjudication of the case cannot be expected,” the judge said. The court directed its office to forward a certified copy of the order to the Additional Director General of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta, instructing that further investigation be carried out and a report submitted to the court within two months.
The court further observed that the prima facie involvement of the AEE—named as the second accused in the FIR, alongside Rajesh—was evident. It stated that, in the absence of the AEE's involvement, acts such as the alleged disconnection of power, creation of forged documents, and demand for illegal gratification could not have been carried out by the constable alone. Moreover, it emphasised that neither Shiva nor Arif had been interrogated.
