Karnataka High Court Quashes Corruption Case Against Former BJP MLA K Madal Virupakshappa

The Karnataka High Court has quashed a criminal prosecution initiated under the Prevention of Corruption Act, against former Bharatiya Janata Party legislator, K Madal Virupakshappa.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said “There is no allegation of ingredients of Section 7(a) and (b) of the Act against the petitioner. If there is not even a whisper of any demand or acceptance of bribe by the petitioner, it is ununderstandable as to how the proceedings can be permitted to be continued against him.”

Virupakshappa was the Chairman of Karnataka Soaps and Detergents Ltd (KSDL) but resigned after his son V Prashanth Madal was allegedly caught red-handed by the Lokayukta while accepting a bribe in relation to a contract. The allegation was that Virupakshappa had demanded a bribe of Rupees 80 lakhs for awarding the tender of KSDL. The tenderer in turn complained to the Lok Ayukta. The Lokayukta police set up a trap and sent Rs 40 lakhs with the complainant which was handed over to the son of the accused.

The petitioner had argued that Section 7(a) & (b) or Section 7A of the Act cannot be laid against the petitioner as there is no semblance of any demand or acceptance of bribe since the petitioner who is arrayed as accused No.1 is nowhere in the picture but has been dragged into the web of crime only for the reason that he is the Chairman of KSDL and accused No.2 may have taken money on behalf of his father.

Further, prior approval as to obtaining under Section 17A of the Act for registration of crime is not taken, as the petitioner is a public servant and for registration of a crime against public servant prior approval under 5 Section 17A of the Act is imperative.

The prosecution opposed the plea saying that the petitioner may not even be in the picture but he is the Chairman of KSDL. His son has flexed his power to demand and accept money. Whether it is for the petitioner or for himself is a matter of investigation. It is too early in the stage for interdicting the crime is the emphatic submission of the learned senior counsel. Since it is a case of trap and in the case of trap, obtaining prior approval under Section 17A of the Act is not the law as the proviso to Section 17A permits registration of crime without prior approval in cases of trap.

The bench noted that the soul that runs through Section 7 is demand of undue advantage by a public servant viz., demand of illegal gratification by a public servant; acceptance; for performance or forbearance from performance of a duty. To put it straight, demand and acceptance is sine qua non to prove Section 7.

Then referring to the complaint the court said “In the entire complaint there is no whisper of the fact that the petitioner had at any point in time demanded money or accepted it. The entire allegation is against accused No.2 who as per the narration in the complaint prima facie guilty of demand and acceptance of bribe. The name of the petitioner nowhere figures. There is no allegation of ingredients of Section 7(a) and (b) of the Act against the petitioner.”

Taking into account that a search is conducted in the office and residence of accused No.2. Huge stack of cash is found to the tune of `6.10 crores apart from other movable properties during the search. No where any incriminating material is found qua the petitioner.

Then it held “The son of the petitioner is no doubt prima facie guilty of demand, acceptance and is answerable to the cash that was found in his house or his office. If the petitioner is nowhere found in any of the instances, merely because he is the father of accused No.2 – the son, he cannot be permitted to be prosecuted. Prima facie, it is the son – accused No.2 who has to answer the allegations in a full blown trial, as all the pointers of demand and acceptance are on the son.”

Further it said “The contention of the prosecution that it cannot be said that the father is not involved in the acts of the son and therefore, further proceedings should be permitted to be continued owing to certain moral obligations cannot be accepted, as it is criminal prosecution and there should be at least prima facie material against the petitioner. Ambiguity or vagueness in the complaint against any accused would necessarily result in obliteration of crime, the impugned complaint suffers from the same vice of ambiguity or vagueness qua the petitioner only.”

Finally it said “The document of tender that has become the subject matter of complaint is also placed before Court. Nowhere the petitioner even participated in the proceedings. Therefore, on all these counts, permitting further proceedings against the petitioner would become an abuse of the process of law and result in miscarriage of justice.”

Allowing the petition the bench said “In the teeth of no offence being even found to the remotest sense qua the ingredients of the offence, permitting further proceedings would only become an abuse of the process of law, degenerate into harassment and ultimately result in miscarriage of justice.”

Appearance: Senior Advocate Prabhuling K Navadgi for Advocate Sandeep S Patil for Petitioner

Senior Advocate Ashok Haranahalli for Advocate B B Patil for R1.

Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 490

Case Title: K Madal Virupakshappa AND State of Karnataka

Case No: Writ Petition No 5633 of 2023.

Click Here To Read/Download Order