The Karnataka High Court at Dharwad Bench comprising Justice M Nagaprasanna has directed that the Karnataka Lokayukta sets its house in order, and competes the investigations registered against public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act within the time frame.

In that context, it was said that, "This Court has come across several cases where investigation has gone on for ages and no final report was filed. It, therefore, speaks of volumes of lackadaisical attitude on the part of the prosecution/ Lokayukta. In this view of the matter, the Lokayukta is required to set its house in order by directing completion of investigation within a time frame failing which the Damocles sword of prosecution will always be hanging on the head of the public servant and defeat several of his rights, if any. It is hoped that this case would become an eye opener for speedy completion of investigation for which lack of will of the Lokayukta has to be effaced."

Senior Counsel Gurudas Khannur appeared for the petitioner, while Counsel Anil Kale appeared for the respondents.

In this case, Dr. Kallappa Mahadevappa Hosamani, a retired college professor, filed a petition to quash charges against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act. He argued that the chargesheet had not been filed for three years, and this was hindering his fundamental right to apply for the position of Vice-Chancellor at the university, which he must do before August 30, 2022.

The prosecution opposed the plea, stating that a similar petition had been previously considered and the petitioner was advised to seek remedies after the chargesheet was filed. They alleged that the delay was partly due to the petitioner's own actions, including a delay in submitting bank records. Additionally, the prosecution claimed that the petitioner initially reported having 20 bank accounts but actually had 58, which complicated the investigation. They assured that everything was now in order, and the final report would be submitted to the Court within two months.

The High Court held that the prosecution could not sleep over the matter any further, and that an outer limit was required to be directed for filing of the final report before the concerned Court.

The Court further observed that it had come across several cases where investigation has gone on for ages and no final report was filed, which spoke volumes of the lackadaisical attitude on the part of the prosecution/Lokayukta.

In light of the same, the petition was rejected, and the Lokayukta was directed to file its final report within 2 months.

Cause Title: Dr Kallappa v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police

Click here to read/download the Judgment