The Karnataka High Court has declined to quash the proceedings initiated against MR Seetharam, a former legislator and educationist, under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Seetharam is facing charges in a disproportionate assets case involving TN Chikkarayappa, the former Managing Director at the Cauvery Neeravari Nigam.
As President of the MS Ramaiah Education Society, Seetharam had approved an interest-free education loan of Rs. 50 lakh for Chikkarayappa’s daughter. When the Lokayukta (anti-corruption ombudsman) sought details of the transaction, it was revealed that the Society had become defunct and no records could be located. Subsequently, the Lokayukta completed its investigation and filed a charge sheet against five individuals, including Seetharam as an accused.
In the present case, Seetharam had challenged the order of the Special Court that had taken cognizance of the matter.
Dismissing his plea, a single bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna stated, “What is alleged against the petitioner is an offence under Section 109 of the IPC for abetment. The contents of the allegation are amassing of wealth by accused No.1. The reply submitted by the petitioner or the contentions advanced in the petition would all necessarily require a trial.”
Seetharam argued that he should not be held accountable for the issuance of the check in favor of Chikkarayappa’s daughter, as it was the responsibility of the Society. Merely signing the check should not be considered a fault on his part.
However, the Court disagreed with Seetharam’s contention and stated that the prima facie elements of Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) indicate his involvement. The Court made the following observation:
“The Police after investigation file a charge sheet, when the evasive replies were given by the Society, of which, the petitioner is/was the President. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Society is an independent entity; it has now become defunct and all these actions are attributable to the Society and not to the petitioner as an individual would all require evidence before the concerned Court.”
Court no satisfactory answer was furnished explaning how an amount of 50 lakhs was routed and why the interest free loan was granted only to Chikkarayappa’s daughter as a special case. “All this would be in the realm of disputed questions of fact.”
Placing reliance on the Apex court judgement in Kaptan Singh v. State of UP (2021), the bench stated, “In a given case, if such a case is shrouded with seriously disputed questions of fact, this Court would not interfere in its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.”
The court, in addition, dismissed Seetharam’s argument that the order of taking cognizance by the Special Judge was lacking in proper application of mind.
Consequently, the court dismissed the petition.
