Karnataka High Court quashes alleged bribery case against former MLA Madal Virupakshappa

In a major setback to the Lokayukta police, the High Court of Karnataka on Wednesday quashed the alleged corruption case registered against K. Madal Virupakshappa, BJP’s former MLA and former chairperson of Karnataka Soaps and Detergents Ltd. (KSDL).

In a major setback to the Lokayukta police, the High Court of Karnataka on Wednesday quashed the alleged corruption case registered against K. Madal Virupakshappa, BJP’s former MLA and former chairperson of Karnataka Soaps and Detergents Ltd. (KSDL).

The court said there was not even prima facie ingredient of either demand or acceptance of bribe to continue the case against him. “If there is not even a whisper of any demand or acceptance of bribe by the petitioner [Mr. Virupakshappa], it is ununderstandable as to how the proceedings can be permitted to be continued against him,” the court said while observing that permitting continuation of criminal proceedings would become “an abuse of the process of law and result in miscarriage of justice.”

However, the court pointed out that the “entire allegation is against Mr. Virupakshappa’s son, Prashanth Madal, who is as per the narration in the complaint, prima facie guilty of demand and acceptance of bribe...” and “prima facie, it is the son (accused number 2) who has to answer the allegations in a full-blown trial, as all the pointers of demand and acceptance are on the son.” Prashanth is financial adviser and Chief Accounts Officer with the Bengaluru Water Supply and Sewerage Board.

Justice M. Nagaprasanna delivered the verdict while allowing a petition filed by Mr. Virupakshappa questioning registration of First Information Report (FIR) against him by the Lokayukta police. The FIR was registered after his son was caught red-handed while accepting ₹40 lakh from complainant, one Shreyas Kashyap, a partner of a private firm called Chemical Corporation.

The court refused to accept the submission made on behalf of the Lokayukta police that it cannot be said that the father [Mr. Virupakshappa] is not involved in the acts of the son and therefore, further proceedings should be permitted to be continued owing to certain moral obligations. The court said 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.”

While stating that the complaint suffers from the vice of ambiguity or vagueness, the court pointed out that the voluntary statement given by the General Manager of KSDL also nowhere points at the petitioner on the alleged offence.

“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, he cannot be permitted to be prosecuted,” the court observed. It pointed out that allegations in the complaint has no ingredients of offence under Section 7(a) and (b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, invoked against Mr. Virupakshappa,