In a significant decision, the Karnataka High Court has set aside the suo-motu discharge orders passed by a trial court that had cleared around 450 individuals, including current and former engineers of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) and private contractors, in cases linked to alleged corruption and irregularities in civil work projects undertaken between 2005 and 2012.
Justice H.P. Sandesh, delivering the judgment, allowed multiple criminal revision petitions filed by the State government and directed the trial court to reconsider the cases from the stage of taking cognizance.
“The orders passed by the Trial Court in all these cases are set aside. The matters are remitted back to the Trial Court for fresh consideration, keeping in view the observations made by this Court,” the bench stated.
The allegations revolve around misuse of public funds, where BBMP engineers and officials, in collusion with private contractors, allegedly failed to conduct proper inspections for projects such as road asphalting and drainage works. This, in turn, allowed contractors to claim inflated payments, causing substantial loss to the state exchequer.
The accused faced serious charges under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including 120B (criminal conspiracy), 409 (criminal breach of trust), 465, 468, and 477A (forgery and falsification of accounts), along with provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The cases stemmed from a report by the Technical Vigilance Cell under the Commissioner (TVCC), which found that civil works were carried out without proper checks, and funds were misappropriated through false measurements and forged documents.
However, in an unusual move, the trial court had discharged the accused without any application from them, citing lack of original TVCC reports and multiple charge sheets from a single FIR, among other procedural concerns. The trial court relied on Sections 227 and 239 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) to suo-motu close proceedings.
The State argued that the trial court’s orders were passed in clear violation of legal procedure and principles of natural justice. It further stated that the discharge orders were issued even after charges had been framed and evidence had been recorded in some cases.
"The Trial Court interdicted the proceedings midway, without allowing the prosecution to present all materials collected during the investigation. This approach is contrary to established law," the High Court observed.
It was emphasized that prior applications for discharge had already been rejected, and in most of the cases, charges had been framed. The High Court criticized the trial court for acting on its own without an application for discharge from the accused and for pre-judging the case without allowing complete presentation of prosecution evidence.
The court also clarified the issue of sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C and Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. While acknowledging the necessity of prior sanction for prosecuting government officials, the High Court stated that the validity of such sanctions must be assessed during the course of the trial, not before.
Ultimately, the High Court allowed the State’s petitions and reinstated the criminal proceedings against all accused persons. The trial court has now been directed to consider the matters afresh, taking into account the merits and allowing the prosecution to present its case fully.
“Unless evidence has been recorded, the issue of sanction validity cannot be conclusively determined,” the bench clarified."The learned Magistrate erred by not permitting the prosecution to proceed and by relying selectively on witness statements to discharge the accused suo-motu, which is unknown to law,” the judgment noted.
Read Also:- Karnataka High Court Orders Inspection of 49 BBMP Schools to Assess Infrastructure and Student Facilities
The case was argued by a team of legal experts for the petitioners, including Senior Advocate Kiran S Jawali, Advocate Chandrashekar, Senior Advocate Shanti Bhushan, Advocate P.N. Hegde, Advocate Vijayakumar, and others. The State was represented by Special Public Prosecutor B.A. Belliappa along with HCGP K.P. Yashodha.
Case Title: State of Karnataka vs B.G. Prakash Kumar & Others
Case No: Criminal Revision Petition No. 975/2024 and connected matters
