
BENGALURU: The special court to try criminal cases against sitting and former MPs/MLAs set aside the closure report filed by the Lokayukta police in a case involving former excise minister K Gopalaiah and other officials. They had allegedly committed violations while granting permission to KN Resources Pvt Ltd to export 2 lakh metric tonnes of molasses from 2021 to 2023. The court directed the Lokayukta police to investigate the case in accordance with law and submit the report within three months.
Besides Gopalaiah, the court directed the probe against then excise commissioner J Ravishankar, then Undersecretary to the Finance Department Manjula Nataraj, then secretary to the Finance Department Dr Ekroop Kaur and then additional chief secretary of Finance Department ISN Prasad.
The court said the statements of Ravishankar, Kaur and Prasad recorded by the investigation officer clearly indicated that some permits were also issued in the past deviating from the mandatory M2 license. The authorities are bound to explain why such irregularities are being continued, and the illegality cannot be perpetuated, it said.
“The closure report indicates that no loss has been caused to the government exchequer. However, on careful appreciation of the materials, it is noticed that a sum of Rs 458 per MT was required to be paid towards export, and the approximate loss, which is calculated by the complainant, is Rs 9.16 crore. However, without adhering to the basic principles, the impugned act was committed,” the court observed, pointing to a series of lapses in the probe.
“Considering the entire records and also by looking into the materials available on record, it would clearly indicate that the investigation conducted by the Karnataka Lokayukta is not in accordance with the law,” said Special Court Judge Santhosh Gajanan Bhat.
The court ordered the investigation into the private complaint filed by Manjunath S, vice-president of Lanchamukta Karnataka Nirmana Vedike. The Lokayukta police filed a closure report on October 12, 2023 after conducting the preliminary investigation. But Manjunath challenged it arguing that it was shoddy and lacked clarity.
The court said it will be appropriate to remind the investigating agency that there cannot be any direct evidence with respect to the commission of an offence under Section 120-B of the IPC. It is a cardinal principle of law that criminal conspiracy will be hatched in darkness and committed in secrecy. The investigating agency should have joined the leads which were available in the case to ascertain whether any offence was committed. It seems that the investigating agency, without looking into these aspects, straightaway came to a conclusion that there are no materials to hold that the accused persons committed offences, the court observed.
“It is rather unfortunate to note that the complaint averments indicate that the accused persons have committed offences punishable under Section 477-A (falsification) of the IPC. However, the non-application of mind by the IO concerning the said offence itself would create a shadow of doubt in the manner in which the investigation process is conducted,” it observed.