Bengaluru, Dec 21 (FN Bureau) In a major relief to former BJP MLA Madal Virupakshappa, the Karnataka High Court Wednesday quashed the alleged graft case against him. The Court granted the relief due to a lack of prima facie evidence against Virupakshappa of either demanding or accepting graft. “If there is not even a whisper of any demand or acceptance of a bribe by the petitioner, Virupakshappa, it is ununderstandable as to how the proceedings can be permitted to be continued against him,” the court said.It also observed that the continuation of criminal proceedings against him without even prima facie ingredients, would amount to “an abuse of the process of law and result in miscarriage of justice.” Justice M Nagaprasanna delivered the verdict on a plea filed by Virupakshappa challenging an FIR filed against him by Karnataka Lokayukta police. The FIR was lodged after his son was caught red-handed while accepting Rs 40 lakh from the complainant, Shreyas Kashyap, a partner of a private firm called Chemical Corporation.
However, the Court held Virupakshappa’s son prima facie guilty in the case by saying, “The entire allegation is against Virupakshappa’s son, Prashanth Madal, who is as per the complaint, prima facie guilty of demand and acceptance of bribe …” “And prima facie, it is the son who has to answer the allegations in a full-blown trial, as all the pointers of demand and acceptance are on the son,” the Court stated.Prashant is a financial advisor and Chief Accounts Officer with the Bengaluru Water Supply and Sewerage Board. The Court refused to sustain Lokayukta police submissions who argued that Virupakshappa is involved in the acts of the son and hence further proceedings should be continued owing to certain moral obligations. The Court overruled the submission by saying that moral obligation cannot be a reason to permit proceeding as it is criminal prosecution and there should be at least prima facie material against the petitioner.
The Court also stated that the complaint was vague and ambiguous and the statements of KSDL GM nowhere implicate Virupakshappa’s offence. The Court also noted that Virupakshappa had not even participated in the process of tender for procurement of certain materials from the complainant company. The company had alleged that a demand for a bribe was made to award tenders in its favour and another company and for prompt release of the amount for the supplied materials. The Court also noted that the tender was awarded on January 30, and a portion of the alleged bribe amount was paid to Prashant on March 2. It was stated in the complaint that they complained as they were unwilling to pay the bribe.