The Karnataka High Court has dismissed the bribery case pending against former BJP MLA from Channagiri, Madal Virupakshappa. The case originated when his son, Prashanth Madal, a KAS (Karnataka Administrative Service) officer, was apprehended accepting a bribe of Rs 40 lakh purportedly on behalf of his father. Subsequently, additional cash was discovered at his residence.
“The son is primarily responsible for addressing the allegations in a comprehensive trial,” the court stated.
In his judgment, Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed the case pending before the special court for sitting and former legislators, emphasizing that there is no evidence against Virupakshappa. However, his son is required to account for the discovered cash.
In response to the petition filed by the former chairman of Karnataka Soaps and Detergents Limited (KSDL), the court declared, “The son is prima facie guilty of demand, acceptance, and is answerable to the cash found in his house or his office. If the petitioner (Madal Virupakshappa) is nowhere found in any of the instances, he cannot be permitted to be prosecuted merely because he is the father of the accused no 2 (Prashanth Madal).”
The court stated that the complaint registered by the Lokayukta police on March 2, 2023, under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) does not meet the criteria for offenses under Section 7 and 7A of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act.
Madal Virupakshappa, the primary accused in the case, faced charges under Section 7(A) and 7(B) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Prashanth Madal is the second accused, while Siddesh, Nicholas, and Gangadhar are the other accused. The court emphasized that there was no evidence of an offense committed by Madal in the entire episode.
“Since no offense in even the remotest sense was found, permitting proceedings against the ex-MLA would become an abuse of the process of law, degenerate into harassment and ultimately result in miscarriage of justice. The son is prima facie guilty of demand, acceptance, and is answerable to the cash found in his house or his office,” the court stated, allowing the proceedings to continue against Prashanth.
