The High Court in Karnataka observed that the actions of KAS B. Sudha Prima facie were “deeply penetrated into corruption”, rejected it against her residence order, which limited stay against her.
The justice of M. Nagaprasann approved the order and rejected the petition by Mrs. Sudhou and her husband Stroina Joseph Pais, who is accused of not the accused. 2 in the first information report (FIR).
“Citation of the indictment’s content would undoubtedly prejudice the defense of the petitioners at the court concerned. This court therefore determine to cite the content/observations in the accusation. His order.
What material does it indicate
“… Prima facie material available on the power of huge documents collected during the investigation would undoubtedly require a court,” the court said, saying that the petitioners were purely in a full court.
Given that the High Court in August 2024 limited Lokayukta to the police report on an investigation before a special court for Lokayukta without his permission, the Police of Lokayukta submitted the proposed indictment with documents before the High Court.
While the accused official rejected the fact that the probe made was contrary to the law, the High Court stated that, given that Section 13 of the Corruption Act, he was dealt with by crimes for undue assets. The High Court also did not find any penetration by the special court in the advancing complaint against the investigation.
Background
A special court, which worked on a private compliant submitted by one Abraham, TJ, August 20, 2020, advanced to the investigation to the then anti -corruption office (ACB). After the ACB was terminated, the companies were transferred to the Police Lokayukta.
The complaint was claimed that Mrs. Sudha, when she worked as an assistant to the Commissioner and the Land Officer for the Development of Bangalore, indulged in huge corruption and bought several real estate in Bengalur, Udupi and Doddabalpur worth several Rupes Rupees.
It was argued that she gathered a bribe through some agents who had diverted the complainants.
The complainant argued that in processing ensembles related to land acquisition, Mrs. Sudha provided her agents with the contact details of landowners who then gathered a bribe from landowners for granting the reward for the land obtained.
Published – September 2025 06:36
