- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33465 CRL.P No. 8559 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8559 OF 2026 BETWEEN: 1. SRI C PUTTARANGASHETTY AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS S/O CHAMASHETTY OCCUPATION: MLA R/O UPPINMOLE, YELANDUR TALUK BR HILLS ROAD CHAMARAJNAGAR DISTRICT-571441 …PETITIONER (BY SRI: C.H. JADHAV, SR.COUNSEL FOR SRI: ADARSH C JADHAV, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY LOKAYUKTA POLICE REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE - 560 001 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI: VENKATESH S. ARBATTI, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 (FILED UNDER SECTION 528 BNSS) CR.P.C BY THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26.05.2026 IN Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33465 CRL.P No. 8559 of 2026 SPL.C.C.NO.993/2023 PASSED BY THE HONBLE XXIII ADDL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE (P.C.ACT), BENGALURU THEREBY REJECTING THE ADDITIONAL REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER OF RESPONDENT NO.1 LOKAYUKTA POLICE AND DIRECTING FURTHER INVESTIGATION AND TO SUBMIT A REPORT WITHIN 45 DAYS OF THE ORDER DATED 26.05.2026. THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before the Court seeking the following prayer: "a) Call for the relevant records; b) set aside the order dated 26.05.2026 in Spl.CC No.993/2023 passed by the Hon'ble XXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge (P.C. Act), Bengaluru thereby rejecting the additional report submitted by the investigating officer of respondent 1 - Lokayuktha police and directing further investigation and to submit a report within 45 days of the order dated 26/5/2026 and c) Grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity." 2. Heard Sri. C.H. Jadhav, learned senior counsel for Sri. Adarsh C. Jadhav, learned counsel appearing for the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33465 CRL.P No. 8559 of 2026 petitioner and Sri. Venkatesh Arbatti, learned counsel representing the respondent - Lokayuktha. 3. Facts in brief germane are as follows: A crime comes to be registered in Crime No. 1 of 2019 for the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ('the Act' for short) against six accused persons. The petitioner is not named as an accused. The matter was transferred to the Anti-Corruption Bureau ('ACB' for short) for the purpose of investigation. Again a suo motu complaint was registered on 08.01.2019 before the ACB and the investigation was undertaken. It transpires that pursuant to the investigation, the police file a charge sheet against accused No.1 only for offence punishable under Sections 7(a) of the Act. The concerned Court directs further investigation as obtaining under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. After taking of cognizance against accused No.1, even here the petitioner is not drawn as an accused. Further investigation results in an additional report being filed on 29.12.2025, wherein again the petitioner is not named as an accused. The charge sheet is filed against accused Nos.4 to 11 for the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33465 CRL.P No. 8559 of 2026 offences punishable under Sections 7A, 8 and 12 of the Act. The concerned Court now directs further investigation by his order dated 26.05.2026 by rejecting the additional report. The petitioner has now rushed to the Court on the score that the observations made in the course of the order while rejecting the additional report would touch upon the petitioner and would cause serious prejudice. 4. Sri. C.H. Jadhav, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that there is no material to indicate that the petitioner was connected with the money that was seized from accused No.1. Therefore, the concerned Court ought not to have directed further investigation in the light of there being no material evidence qua the petitioner. 5. Sri. Venkatesh S. Arbatti, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would, however, refute the submission and contended that the petition is undoubtedly premature as the petitioner was never named as an accused nor is named as an accused in any of the reports. Therefore, the petition must be dismissed. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33465 CRL.P No. 8559 of 2026 6. To redress the apprehension of the petitioner, it is necessary to notice the order of taking of cognizance, which reads as follows: "The Karnataka Lokayuktha Police have laid the additional charge sheet, against accused No.4 to 11 for offences punishable under Section 7(A), 8, and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, the P.C Act) in Crime No.1/2019 of the then Anti Corruption Bureau (for short, the ACB). 2. Perused the record. This is a case originally registered by the Vidhana Soudha Police at Bengaluru, against the 1st accused Sri. S. J. Mohan Kumar in crime No.1/2019. Later on, it was transferred to the then ACB. In turn, they have registered the case afresh in Crime No.1/2019 against S. J. Mohan Kumar and 5 others namely, Sri.Ananthu, Srinidhi, Nanda, Manju and Krishnamurthy for offences punishable under Section 7 and 8 of the P.C Act. Again, the case came to be transferred to the Lokayuktha Police, Bengaluru Urban wing as the ACB was abolished. 3. After conclusion of the investigation, the Lokayuktha Police have laid the charge sheet against Sri. S. J. Mohan Kumar alone and dropped 5 other accused persons with the allegation as hereunder: The accused Sri. S. J. Mohan Kumar was working as the personal assistant to the then Minister Sri.Puttaranga Shetty for the Backward Classes Welfare Department in the year 2019. The accused Mohan Kumar had obtained/collected the illegal gratification of Rs.25,76,000/- on 03.01.2019 and 04.01.2019 from different contractors, with the help of drop out accused No.2 to 6, on behalf of the Minister for doing favours in the matter of getting grants, for the civil works i.e., the development of roads and other infrastructures. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33465 CRL.P No. 8559 of 2026 4. Subsequently, the accused Sri. S. J. Mohan Kumar has sought for his discharge on various grounds, while denying the allegation leveled against him. His prayer as such was rejected by this Court on merits vide the order dated 31.01.2025. However, and having noticed serious investigation lapses so also dropping of the prime accused, this court has directed the Lokayuktha Police for further investigation and submission of the report within a period of 3 months, for the following reasons and observations : Plain perusal of the record reveals, that the afore-stated 5 drop out accused persons i.e. Sri. Ananthu Shankar, Srinidhi, Nandana, Manjunatha and Krishnamurthy were accused No.2 to 6 respectively in this crime at the pre-cognizance stage. Their statements and the statements of accused No.4 and 5 under Section 164 of Cr.P.C placed on record reveals, that the contractors namely Sri. Jyothi Prakash and Satish have paid Rs.9 lakh through the 4th accused, Rs.7 lakh by Sri. Raju and Umesh through the 4th and 5th accused, Rs.2 lakh by another contractor Sri.Yogesh Babu through the 5th accused, Rs.4.26 lakhs by a different contractor through the 6th accused, Rs.3.50 lakh by another contractor through the 2nd accused etc. to the 1st accused herein. Further it is forthcoming that, the 1st accused himself had obtained the amount in the manner as detailed above informing that, the minister expects 6% commission to sanction the grants. As per the material on record, the accused himself admits in his confession statement that, after accepting the amount from the contractors with the help of drop out accused No.2 to 6, he was carrying Rs.25,76,000/- from the office at Vidhana Soudha in the evening of 4.1.2019 for handing over the same to the minister, so as to get official favour on behalf of the contractors. However, by the time he was happened to be in the custody of the Vidhana Soudha police at the instance of a B TV reporter. These circumstances exposes the impossibility of payment by the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33465 CRL.P No. 8559 of 2026 contractors and possession of the huge amount Rs.25,76,000/- by the accused being the employee on contract basis in the absence of any nexus with the minister under whom he was working. The circumstances emanating from the foregoing discussion reflects, the existence of sufficient material on record to proceed against the accused in respect of the alleged offence. In other words, his prayer for the discharge cannot be sustained as there exists no justification. The allegation in the charge-sheet is that, the accused had obtained the illegal gratification from the contractors to influence the minister for the official favour and committed the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act. This itself, prima-facie reveals the equal involvement of the contractors in the crime so also the possible involvement of the then minister. None of them are seen to have interrogated throughout the period of investigation. Thus obviously, the charge-sheet is based on an incomplete investigation. In other words, the further investigation is a matter of necessity in the light of my observations, so as to ensure the natural justice in true sense. 5. But, the most unfortunate is the conduct of the investigating agency in throwing away, the observations of this Court in the order dated 31.01.2025 to the wind. It has taken more than 1 year time in the place of 3 months fixed by the Court, to carry out the further investigation. Interestingly the I.O in his additional report has dropped the 2nd and 3rd accused, by recording their statements afresh as against their own previous confession statements under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. The additional charge sheet which is the out come of further investigation, is contrary to the allegations in the original charge sheet and the material available on record. Even the investigation officer has ignored the very confession statement/explanations of the 1st accused Sri. Mohan Kumar S. J. to the following extent for reasons to be given. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33465 CRL.P No. 8559 of 2026 After accepting the amount in question from the contractors with the help of drop out accused No.2 to 6, he was carrying Rs.25,76,000/- from the Secretariat at Vidhana Soudha in the evening of 04.01.2019 to hand over the same to the Minister (Puttaranga Shetty). By the time, the Vidhana Soudha Police took him to their custody at the instance of a B T.V. reporter. 6. The name sake investigation is seen to have carried out, for the eye-washing purpose. Virtually, sidelined the required investigation on serious lapses and defects noticed by this Court in the order dated 31.01.2025. The very purpose of further investigation has been defeated. Obviously, all possible efforts are seen to have made to suppress the crucial evidence which prima-facie discloses, the involvement of the then Minister in the crime. Rather, the investigating agency has implicated the private individuals as accused No.4 to 11 in the additional charge sheet, to justify its acts of giving go-bye to the prime accused. There by, has given the scope for other accused persons to escape from the clutches of law. This gives raise a question as to, how can the proceedings of this case be maintained against the other accused in the absence of the prime accused under the P.C Act?. The investigating agency has to explain it and the intention behind citing the prime accused persons as the prosecution witnesses in the case. 7. This tainted and shabby investigation cannot be said to have carried out with no sense. I mean to say, that the required investigation and crucial evidence has been ignored. This is what really happened and happening as observed by this Court in many cases. Deciding the quality of an investigation, giving go-bye to the true culprits, filing of B reports or the charge sheets etc., depending on the background, and societal status of culprits is most most unfortunate. The present case is the best and living example. Such approach on the part of the law enforcing agencies erodes the faith of the common people in the system. These kind of activities - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33465 CRL.P No. 8559 of 2026 are not the good signal. Rather becomes challenge to the P.C Act and the institute. 8. The practice of entrusting the investigation responsibilities in a single case to multiple officers, is another facet of destroying the crime related evidence. This practice need to be halted in the interest of the institution. Otherwise, the concept of natural justice loses its meaning and days may come, to question the necessity of the very institution. Mere registration of cases for statistical purpose without ensuring the proper, effective and impartial investigations would be of no use. 9. Indeed, this Court has directed further investigations in many cases of this nature for similar lapses and defects. The investigating agencies are in the habit of exposing reluctance in the matter of further investigations and submit the report well in time or else, they use to justify their defective conclusions without attending the lapses. The modus operandi of this nature, paves the way of destroying the crime related evidence on the one hand, and helps the real culprits to escape from their criminal liabilities. This atmosphere should be ended to meet the intention of the legislature and expectations of the people. With this, I am to conclude that the additional report submitted by the investigating officer deserves to be rejected. The further investigation in the case necessarily warrants to unearth the truth, and decide the offence as against all those, who involved therein. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER The additional report submitted by the investigation officer is rejected. Office is directed to forward the true copy of this order to the ADGP and IGP of the Karnataka Lokayukta Police Wing, to cause the further investigation in the light of observations hereinabove and submit the report to the Court within 45 days. Further, it is directed to mark the true copy of this order to the Hon’ble Karnataka Lokayuktha for the kind information." - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33465 CRL.P No. 8559 of 2026 7. Learned senior counsel would seek to lay emphasis on paragraph 9 to contend that the observations would cause serious prejudice. 8. A perusal at paragraph 9 of the impugned order as afore-quoted would nowhere indicate any kind of prejudice caused to the petitioner. The name of the petitioner is not even found in the said paragraph. Therefore, the apprehension has no rational basis. The extract found at paragraph 5 is again projected to become an apprehension. It is an extract of a particular confession statement, which has not yet reached the doors of the petitioner for naming him as an accused. 9. Therefore, on mere apprehension there cannot be entertainment of a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C, unless there is some order passed by the concerned Court, which would cause prejudice to the petitioner. Observations in an order cannot cause prejudice to entertain a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33465 CRL.P No. 8559 of 2026 10. Reserving liberty to the petitioner to knock at the doors of the appropriate fora, when needed, the petition stands dismissed. I.A.No.1/2026 stands disposed as a consequence. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE BGN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 6