1 week ago
10
A special court in Bengaluru has made scathing remarks against an investigating officer of the Karnataka Lokayukta police and experts from different departments of the State government for “serious investigation lapses”, “dereliction of duty”, “dishonesty”, and “misleading the court”, while convicting V. Muniyappa, a former Managing Director of the Karnataka Council for Technological Upgradation, in a corruption case.
The court sentenced Muniyappa, now aged 66, to three years of rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of ₹4.50 crore. The court found that Muniyappa had accumulated disproportionate assets worth ₹4.13 crore — a staggering 170% above his legitimate income — during the check period from December 9, 1982, to July 15, 2014.
K.M. Radhakrishna, judge of the special court for Lokayukta cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, found that Muniyappa had routed his ill-gotten wealth through family members, purchasing multiple properties in the names of his wife, a home-maker, and daughter and son, who were students with no independent income sources, during the relevant check period.
Blunders & serious lapses
Analysing quality of probe, the Court pulled up the nvestigating officer (IO), T.V. Manjunatha, who had filed the charge sheet against Muniyappa, for multiple blunders including failure to investigate crucial assets like gold ornaments and ignoring evidences.
The court noted that the IO committed multiple blunders — including failing to investigate the source of 833.9 grams of gold ornaments, worth ₹21.68 lakh then, found during the raid, accepting Muniyappa’s self-serving explanations without any verification.
The blunders that the IO committed expose not only his negligence but also ignoring the investigation on assets and his failure to collect related evidences., the court said.
“This kind of conscious lapses not only helps the real culprits to escape, but also ends the cases in acquittal. These lapses are because of the lack of time-to-time supervision, scrutiny and control over the investigation by the superiors concerned,” the court observed.
Specific lapses of IO and four assessing officers
Manjunatha: Investigation Officer
The IO failed to verify critical financial claims, accepting unverified hand loans, unexplained bank transactions, and large quantities of gold without inquiry. He neglected to confirm property sale details, accepted an unsupported cash gift, etc.
Kantharaju: Assistant Director of Statistics
He endorsed a report prepared by a subordinate without independent verification. He failed to collect any family-related financial information, assumed expenses during customary periods when expenses were unlikely, and calculated children’s expenses as if they were adults. The court found his methodology based on imagination and assumptions, describing his overall approach as careless, irresponsible, and lacking analytical credibility.
Nagaraja: Assistant Director of Agriculture
He prepared income assessments without visiting the land, relying only on RTCs. His report found ragi and teak crop as against coconut crop showed in the horticulture report on the same land of Muniyappa. Without data on tree counts, age, or productivity, his report appeared speculative.
Narayana Swamy: Assistant Director of Horticulture
He also failed to inspect the property and relied solely on RTCs. His crop assessment report showed coconut crops contrary to ragi and teak found on the same land found in agriculture report. The court said that he provided baseless, misleading information, mirroring agriculture officer’s deficiencies.
Vasudeva, Motor Vehicle Inspector
He repeatedly used incorrect formulas while assessing fuel expenses for five vehicles, ignored insurance premiums, and relied on wrong mileage figures instead of certified rates and omitted historical fuel-price accuracy across vehicles. The court found he misled proceedings through flawed calculations, suppressed relevant details, and displayed irresponsibility in every aspect of the vehicle-related assessments.
Unnecessary delays
Flagging unnecessary delay in investigation, entrusting one case to multiple officers, and varying investigation quality based on culprit’s status destroy evidence, the court said these lapses are defeating the purpose of investigation and the PC Act.
Meanwhile, the court also pulled up four government officials, — K.N. Kantharaju, an Assistant Director of Statistics, Nagaraju S., an Assistant Director of Agriculture, Narayana Swamy, an Assistant Director of Horticulture, G. Vasudeva, who was a Motor Vehicle Inspector at Indiranagar RTO – for their negligence, dishonesty, dereliction of duties, and misleading the court in their reports on assessment of movable and immovable assets Muniyappa.
“This kind of conduct on the part of the public servants is totally intolerable. It is the time to view these lapses seriously in the interest of justice,” the court said while asking the four officials and the IO to show cause why disciplinary actions should not be recommended against them for their lapses.
Mr. Nagaraj and Mr. Narayana Swamy “appear to have prepared the reports to the satisfaction of invisible hands. In this way, they have not only committed dereliction of duty, but also misleaded the court by providing the baseless information,” the court said.
English (US) ·