Bangarappa to face trial in assets case

CBI had filed the chargesheet against Bangarappa under Section 132 read with Section 131E of the Prevention of Corruption Act on charges of amassing wealth grossly disproportionate to his known sources of income during a check period of 1988-97 when he held public offices either as a Minister or Chief Minister.

Severely criticising the single judge of the High Court for quashing the criminal proceedings against Bangarappa, Justice Thomas, writing the judgement for the Bench, said quot;We have no doubt that the materials which prosecution enumerated are sufficient to frame charge for the offences under Section 131 read with Section 131E of the Act.quot;

Justice Thomas said the High Court, after reminding self that it was high time to eradicate the evil of corruption, should have directed Bangarappa to participate in the trial to reach its quot;logical terminus by affording him the opportunity to explain or account for the excess wealth projected by the investigating agencyquot;.

quot;But the single judge instead of choosing that line, has chosen to scuttle the proceedings at the beginning stage of the trial itself for which he had even upheld the contention that the investigation was illegally conducted,quot; he said.

The Apex Court said the single judge quot;unfortunately bypassed the factual position that the investigation was conducted by the CBI and not the regular police of the state.

quot;It appears that investigation under Section 17 of the Act could be conducted only by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, whichever be the investigating agency,quot; Justice Thomas said and assailed the High Court for wrongly interpreting the provision.

Regarding upholding of the contention of Bangarappa thatthe trial court did not have jurisdiction to try the case, Justice Thomas said quot;We strongly feel that the single judge has chosen to uphold the contention in a very casual manner without taking into account the fall-out of such a finding on other cases pending in that court.quot;

Regarding the finding of the single judge that there was no state government notification empowering the trial court to hear such cases, the apex court expressed its distress over the way the issue has been dealt with.

Justice Thomas said, quot;We are greatly distressed at the degree of superciliousness with which the contention was dealt with by the single judge without even checking up whether there was any such notification.

quot;That apart, if the High Court found that the Bangalore judge is not empowered to try such cases, how could that be a ground to quash the criminal proceedings,quot; he asked and added quot;at the worst that would be a ground to transfer the case from that court to the court having jurisdiction to try it.quot;

The bench said if no court was empowered, the criminal proceedings could have been kept in abeyance till the Government issued a notification conferring such power on any court.

Referring to the detailed discussion on merits of evidence by the High Court, Justice Thomas said quot;Time and again this court has pointed out that at the stage of framing charge the court should not enter upon a process of evaluating the evidence by deciding its worth or credibility.

quot;The limited exercise during the stage is to find out whether the materials offered by the prosecution to be adduced as evidence are sufficient for the court to proceed further,quot; he said and added the veracity of the evidence could be established only during the trial.