BENGALURU: The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash the proceedings initiated by the Lokayukta Police against Atthar Ali over allegations of possessing disproportionate assets and illegal properties.
Atthar Ali, Deputy Controller of the Legal Metrology Department in Bengaluru, allegedly possesses 155 per cent disproportionate assets, including more than 4 kg of gold worth Rs 2 crore and properties held in unknown names.
Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed the petition filed by Ali, observing that the documents presented before the court provide a textbook illustration of circumstances warranting an investigation into the case.
Ali had moved the High Court challenging the crime registered against him under Section 13(1)(b) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act on July 18, 2024. He contended that the preliminary enquiry into the disproportionate assets, based on a defective source report, was merely an eyewash and contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court.
After hearing the arguments, the court noted that Ali had declared possession of 1,650 grams of gold. However, the search yielded 4 kilograms and 109 grams of gold, valued at nearly Rs 2 crore.
During the search, cash amounting to Rs 25.13 lakh, apart from foreign currency, was found in the petitioner's possession, whereas his annual property returns declared cash holdings of Rs 15.60 lakh, the court noted.
The court noted that, according to the statement by the Lokayukta Police, four apartments were allegedly benami properties. However, the rents generated from the apartments were being received by Ali's daughter.
"Why should the daughters of the petitioner 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.
"If this be the fulcrum of the allegation - emanating not from mere conjecture, but from a source report, followed by a preliminary enquiry, registration of the crime and thereafter a search was conducted. To describe this entire exercise as an eyewash would be to close one's eyes to the material that has emerged," the court added.
The court also noted that the principal explanation advanced for the gold found was that an engagement ceremony was being held at the petitioner's house and that relatives who had gathered for the occasion had brought their jewellery and kept it at the petitioner's residence.
"It may be so; it may not be so. But court cannot record this as a conclusion in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 528 of the 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.
