Absence of a manual is leading to incomplete probe: Lokayukta police

There are 882 cases in which the FIRs were filed, but the probe has been pending for years.

A view of Karnataka High Court in Bangalore. File photo: V. Sreenivasa Murthy

In a startling disclosure, the Karnataka Lokayukta police on Wednesday told the High Court of Karnataka that they neither have a manual nor guidelines fixing the timeframe to complete investigation of corruption cases.

It also admitted that the absence of a manual is one of the reasons for incomplete investigations in a large number of cases. There are 882 cases in which the first information reports (FIRs) were filed, but the probe has been pending for years.

A submission in this regard was made by counsel of the Lokayukta police Venkatesh P. Dalwai by submitting particulars of cases still at the stage of investigation after the FIRs were filed; the cases pending with the government for sanction for prosecution; and the cases pending before the courts for trial.

However, the counsel said the progress of investigations would be reviewed every month, while pointing out that in 105 cases the Lokayukta police could not file charge sheets as the government had not passed order on their request for granting sanction for prosecuting public servants. In some cases, the request for sanction had been pending for more than four years.

As many as 1,722 corruption cases are pending for trial in various courts across the State of which the highest, 406, is in Bengaluru city.

Interestingly, the counsel sought directions from the court to plug the loopholes that have been causing delay in completion of probe and pointed out that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had a set of manuals on completing probes in certain types of cases, and the same could be followed by the Lokayukta police.

These particulars were submitted during the hearing of a petition, filed by V.L. Nandeesh, a professor at Mandya Institute of Medical Sciences, questioning the disproportionate assets case registered against him.

Justice A.N. Venugopala Gowda, on noticing non-filing of the final report in this case, had on June 25 summoned details of pendency of cases in the Lokayukta police, who submitted the particulars finally on Wednesday after the court repeatedly pulled them up for delaying submission of data.

Mr. Justice Gowda q uestioned why the Lokayukta police themselves cannot come out with guidelines for completing a probe within a timeframe and wondered what would happen to the evidences or witnesses, if the probe itself takes five years to be completed. From the data submitted by the Lokayukta police, the court noticed that one case had been pending from 1996.

Further hearing on the issue was adjourned till July 21.