The High Court of Karnataka on Thursday said that it would have to monitor the investigation by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) into the bribery case against J. Manjunath, former Deputy Commissioner of Bengaluru Urban district, as the ACB and its head have repeatedly failed to protect public interest in not acting against the DC, an IAS officer, despite having materials against him.
The court also pointed out that the DC was arraigned as an accused after Additional Director-General of Police Seemant Kumar Singh, who heads the ACB, was summoned to the court on June 22.
Justice H.P. Sandesh made these observations in the interim order on the petition filed by Mahesh P.S., a deputy tahsildar and an accused in the bribery case.
Despite cognisable offence
Even after arraigning Mr. Majunath as an accused, the court said the ACB had only issued notice to him, even though offence alleged is a cognisable one. Moreover, the ACB facilitated Mr. Manjunath to approach the court by filling two separate petitions, questioning arraigning him as an accused and for quashing of the case against him. Finally, Mr. Manjunath was arrested only after he could not get any interim relief from the court, Mr. Justice Sandesh pointed out.
Refusing to accept the ACB’s contention that court cannot monitor the investigation in a bail petition, Mr. Justice Sandesh, citing the apex court’s verdicts, said that the constitutional courts could monitor the probes in instances like when the investigating agency or its officers fail to show enthusiasm in probe, conduct an improper investigation, fail to take the probe to a logical end, failure of the government to assist the investigating agency, etc.
Observing that the ADGP of the ACB had failed to safeguard the social and public interest, the court said that the ACB even did not provide correct information on the closure reports (‘B’ reports) filed in corruption cases since the creation of the ACB in 2016 despite an undertaking given by the bureau’s counsel.
Closure reports filed
Though the ACB on Thursday said that it had filed ‘B’ reports in 99 cases, Mr. Justice Sandesh said that true facts were not stated by the ACB while pointing out that it had wrongly stated that no ‘B’ report was filed in 2022 even though, as per the court’s registry, the ACB did file ‘B’ reports this year. However, the ACB’s counsel said that it had given data of ‘B’ reports on the basis of year of registration of the case.
While adjourning the further hearing till July 11, the court directed its Registrar (Judicial) to secure the details of ‘B’ reports filed by the ACB from the trial courts.
