For now, the prosecution will not oppose if former Lokayukta Y. Bhaskar Rao files an application for exemption from personal appearance before the special court, which has asked him to appear in person on September 23 in connection with the Lokayukta corruption case.
Senior counsel C.H. Jadhav, appearing for the Special Investigation Team (SIT) that has filed a charge sheet against Mr. Rao with for “failing to initiate action” on complaints of bribery and extortion within the Lokayukta, gave such an assurance to the High Court on Wednesday. This was after Justice Anand Byrareddy, who was hearing the petition filed by Mr. Rao questioning the legality of the charge sheet, refused to pass an interim order and asked Mr. Rao’s counsel to seek exemption from personal appearance before the special court, which has already granted him one such exemption earlier.
During the arguments earlier, senior counsel S.M. Chandrashekar, appearing for Mr. Rao, contended that the SIT could not have submitted the investigation report to the governor through the government and should have submitted it to the Lokayukta or the Upalokayukta as SIT itself was constituted on the Lokayukta’s direction. On the sanction for prosecution granted by the governor, it was contended that he could not have acted in the absence of advise from the council of Ministers.
On a query by the court on how Mr. Rao allowed his son to misuse his office, Mr. Chandrashekar pointed out that Ashwin Rao has been wrongly projected in the media as the one who met a complainant by introducing himself as “Krishna Rao”. He said the complainant, Krishnamurthy, in his statement to the magistrate, had made it clear that Krishna Rao was none other than Ashok Kumar, whom he met in the office of the Lokayukta, though he also had initially believed him to be the Lokayukta’s son.
Meanwhile, Mr. Jadhav defended the charge sheet against Mr. Rao, contending that he had failed to take action on corruption charges against his son and officials of the Lokayukta though such complaints were brought to his notice way back in 2014.
While adjourning further hearing till Monday, the court asked both counsels to elaborate on the procedure for grant of sanction and submission of the SIT investigation report.
