Karnataka High Court stays ACB cases against two officials

‘On what legal basis has State established the bureau?’

April 12, 2017 12:27 am | Updated 12:27 am IST - Bengaluru

Staying further proceedings based on two separate First Information Reports registered against two officials by the State’s Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), the High Court of Karnataka on Tuesday asked on what legal basis has the State government established the ACB.

Justice Anand Byrareddy passed the interim orders while hearing separate petitions filed by K.T. Nagaraj, Chief Engineer of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, and Gayathri N. Nayak, Special Land Acquisition Officer of State’s National Highways division, Mangaluru.

“What is the legal basis for the ACB. It is not akin to Lokayukta. Everything was fine under Lokayukta...Why was this ACB constituted...,” the judge asked orally.

To this, ACB’s counsel said that it was created through an executive order of the State government.

Meanwhile, claiming that there was neither a demand nor acceptance of bribe for release of compensation for an acquired land as she had passed order for releasing compensation besides signing the cheque about four days prior to lodging of the complaint, the petitioner contended that she was not caught red-handed as the allegation in the the panchanama is that a cover containing ₹25,000 was found in the bag belonging to her on the table on January 3, 2017 when the petitioner was not in the office.

The FIR contains only the name of Tukrappa, a revenue inspector, it was pointed out in the petition as the allegation was that the revenue inspector had demanded ₹5,000 for himself and ₹20,000 for the LAO.

‘ACB is illegal’

Ms. Nayak, a KAS officer, has also contended in the petition that “the ACB is one without authority of law though it purports to create an independent wing, and it is controlled by the Chief Minister.

The ACB is under the excessive control of political executive, and promoting the growth of authoritarianism and shaking the foundation of democracy.”

In his petition, Mr. Nagaraj had questioned the basis on which the source report about his assets was prepared by the ACB officials considering the properties of his relatives without any valid reason and in violation of the prescribed norms.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.