Mr Athhar Ali v. State of Karnataka

ORDER Whereas a Case in Crime No.31/2024 u/s 13(1)(b) r/w 13(2) of PC Act, 1988 was registered on 18-07-2024 in Bengaluru City, Lokayukta Police Station, against Athhar Ali S/o Asgar Ali, Deputy Controller of Legal Metrology, Bengaluru Division, Ali Askar Road, Bengaluru in the matter of amassing wealth and various assets, which are disproportionate to the known sources of his income as alleged in the FIR and for which a thorough investigation is to be carried out.

Sri Vijayakrishna N., PI-11 serving in Bengaluru City unit of Karnataka Lokayukta since 3 years, has been in Police Service for 18 years serving in various Police Stations across the State of Karnataka. He has the experience of investigating several criminal/Raid cases, not only under IPC but also under Special Laws including the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Taking into consideration his vast experience in investigation, I, Dr. K. Vamsikrishna, Superintendent of Police-2, Benglauru City unit, Karnataka Lokayukta, under provision of Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, while exercising the same, do hereby authorize and appoint Shri Vijayakrishna N., Police Inspector-11, Karnataka Lokayukta, Bengaluru City as Investigating Officer.

Sd/- (Dr. K. Vamsikrishna, IPS) Superintendent of Police - 2 Karnataka Lokayukta Bangalore City"

What follows assumes greater significance. The residence of the petitioner is searched. The search, according to the prosecution, unearths material indicative of assets disproportionate

to the known sources of income to the tune of 155%. Reproduction of the source report in its entirety would only add bulk to this order without adding substance to the consideration, as what presently stares at the petitioner is the allegation of disproportionate assets quantified at 155%. The petitioner then knocks at the doors of this Court invoking its writ jurisdiction. This Court, at an earlier point in time, granted an interim order, staying all further proceedings on technical plea projected concerning compliance with Section 17 of the Act. It is at that stage that the matter is now heard.

¶12The learned Special Public Prosecutor for the Lokayukta projects certain circumstances which, according to him, cry out for investigation rather than interdiction. They merit notice.

¶13The annual property returns filed by the petitioner before the Government are placed under scrutiny. From 31-03-2018 onwards, year after year, till the date of search, the petitioner had declared possession of 1,650 grams of gold. The search, however, allegedly, yielded 4 kilograms and 109 grams of gold, valued at close to `2/- crores; This was not all. The search is

also said to have yielded 303 grams of diamonds valued at `78,29,979/- and 4 kilograms and 631 grams of silver articles valued at `3,24,170/-.

¶14The financial trail, according to the Lokayukta, does not stop there. The wife of the petitioner is declared to be a homemaker with no independent source of income. Yet, she is said to have purchased a property measuring 1,161 sq.ft. in HRBR Layout, valued at approximately `80 lakhs. . . . When the search was conducted on 19.07.2024, cash of `25,13,500/-, apart from foreign currency, was allegedly found in the petitioner's possession, whereas the annual property returns declared cash of `15,60,000/-.

¶15There is yet another strand to the allegation. The statement of objections speaks of four apartments, alleged to be benami properties, standing in the names of persons other than the petitioner or members of his immediate family, while the rents generated from those apartments are allegedly being received by the petitioner's daughters. Why should the daughters of the petitioner receive rents from properties which, on paper,

belong to somebody else? The answer to that question cannot be conjured up in proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS. It is precisely the kind of question which investigation must unravel.

¶16If this be the fulcrum of the allegation - emanating not from mere conjecture, but from a source report, followed by a preliminary enquiry, registration of the crime and thereafter a search which allegedly throws up a startling variance between what was declared and what was found - this Court fails to comprehend what more should be demanded of an investigating agency at the threshold before it is permitted to investigate an allegation of disproportionate assets. To interdict investigation even at this stage would be to demand proof of the crime before permitting investigation into the crime. The law does not countenance such an inversion.

¶17The learned senior counsel for the petitioner would strenuously contended that the preliminary enquiry is a mere eyewash; that there is nothing worth the name which could be

described as an enquiry; and that the entire exercise is a ritual performed only to clothe the registration of the crime with an appearance of legality. The submission is noted only to be rejected.

¶18The sequence of events speaks for itself. There is source information; the source information is reduced into a report; its veracity is directed to be tested by a preliminary enquiry; a preliminary enquiry is conducted; the report thereof is placed before the competent authority; the competent authority records its satisfaction; a crime is then registered; an Investigating Officer is appointed and a search thereafter follows. The search, far from yielding nothing, allegedly uncovers material which substantially departs from the declarations made by the petitioner in his annual property returns. To describe this entire exercise as an eyewash would be to close one's eyes to the material that has emerged.

¶19The principal explanation advanced for the gold found during the search is equally incapable of examination at this stage. The learned senior counsel would submit that an engagement ceremony was being held in the petitioner's house and, therefore,

relatives who had gathered for the occasion had brought their jewellery and kept it in the petitioner's house. It may be so; it may not be so. But that is not a conclusion this Court can record in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS. Who brought the gold; how much was brought; to whom did it belong; when was it brought; whether there exists material to demonstrate such ownership-all these are questions of fact, and questions of fact of this nature must travel through the corridor of investigation and, if necessary, be tested on the anvil of evidence at trial.

¶20The figures themselves cannot be brushed aside. The annual property returns declare 1,650 grams of gold; the search allegedly yields 4 kilograms and 109 grams of gold, 303 grams of diamond and 4 kilograms and 631 grams of silver. The variance is not marginal; it is substantial. Likewise, against declared cash of `15,60,000/-, the search allegedly yields `25,13,500/-, apart from foreign currency. Wherefrom came the excess cash / movable properties is a question for investigation and not for speculation in a petition seeking quashment.

¶21The wife of the petitioner, admittedly shown as a homemaker without an independent source of income, is alleged to own valuable immovable property. The daughters of the petitioner are alleged to be receiving rents from apartments standing in the names of others. Why would rent from another person's property flow into the hands of the petitioner's daughters? Is there an innocent explanation? Perhaps. Is there a legally accountable source? That too is possible. But both possibilities have to be unearthed by investigation; neither can be presumed by this Court.

¶22At the stage at which the proceedings presently stand, the Court is not conducting an audit of the petitioner's assets, much less a miniature trial on their lawful acquisition. The Court is only required to see whether the material placed before it discloses circumstances warranting investigation. On that score, the answer can only be in the affirmative. The case at hand, on the material presently projected, presents a textbook illustration of circumstances warranting an investigation into disproportionate assets.

¶23A plethora of judgments are pressed into service by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner. There can be no qualm whatsoever about the principles enunciated by the Apex Court, by the coordinate Benches of this Court, or indeed by this Bench in the cases relied upon. But precedents do not operate in a factual vacuum. A judgment is an authority for what it decides on the facts before it; similarity of statutory provision cannot obliterate dissimilarity of factual foundation. The authorities relied upon are plainly distinguishable on the peculiar facts obtaining in the case at hand and need not detain this Court by an elaborate exercise of distinguishing each one of them.

¶24The facts here speak with sufficient force. What began as source information was subjected to preliminary verification; what emerged from preliminary verification led to registration of the crime; and what followed in the search allegedly revealed a chasm between the assets declared and the assets discovered. Whether that chasm can ultimately be lawfully explained is for the petitioner

to demonstrate at the appropriate stage. It cannot become a reason to throttle investigation at its very inception.

¶25The matter is still at the stage of the FIR. Investigation, which is the statutory prerogative and obligation of the investigating agency, must be permitted to run its course. It has remained under an interdiction of this Court for nearly two years. The hands of investigation cannot remain tied any longer when the material on record, prima facie, calls for those very hands to investigate. Interference, therefore, is sans countenance.

¶26For the aforesaid reasons, finding no merit whatsoever in the petition, the petition stands dismissed.

It is, however, made unequivocally clear that every observation made hereinabove is confined to the consideration of the prayer for interference at the threshold under Section 528 of the BNSS. None of these observations shall be construed as a finding on the guilt of the petitioner, nor shall they bind, colour or influence the Investigating Officer or any Court or other fora before

which proceedings may hereafter come to be instituted. The investigation shall proceed independently, uninfluenced by the observations made in this order, and reach its conclusion strictly in accordance with law.

Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

nvj CT:MJ

Reserved on :07.07.2026 Pronounced on :24.08.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION No.12652 OF 2024 BETWEEN: MR.ATHHAR ALI S/O LATE ASGAR ALI, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, DEPUTY CONTROLLER, LEGAL METROLOGY DEPARTMENT, BENGALURU DIVISION, ALI ASKAR ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001. R/O. 302, QALANDER MANJIL, 3RD MAIN ROAD, 4TH 'D' CROSS, HRBR LAYOUT (KALYAN NAGAR), BANASVADI BENGALURU – 560 043. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI SANDESH J.CHOUTA, SR.ADVOCATE FOR SRI PARAMESHWAR N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH LOKAYUKTA POLICE, R by PADMAVATHI B K Location: High Court of Karnataka 2- REPRESENTED,THROUGH,ITS,, SPECIAL,PUBLIC,PROSECUTOR,, HIGH,COURT,OF,KARNATAKA,, BENGALURU,–,560,001., , 2,.,,THIPPESWAMY,H.J.,, AGED,ABOUT,57,YEARS,, DY.,S.,P.,-4,,CITY,POLICE,STATION,, KARNATAKA,LOKAYUKTHA,, BENGALURU,–,560,001., , REPRESENTED,BY,, SPECIAL,PUBLIC,PROSECUTOR,, HIGH,COURT,OF,KARNATAKA,, BENGALURU,–,560,001., ,,,,,,,...,RESPONDENTS, , (BY,SRI,LETHIF,B.,,SPL.PP), , ,,,,, THIS,CRIMINAL,PETITION,IS,FILED,UNDER,SECTION,528,OF, B.N.SS.,, PRAYING, TO, QUASH, THE, FIR, IN, CRIME, NO.31/2024, REGISTERED, FOR, THE, OFFENCES, P/U/S, 13(1)(b), READ, WITH, SECTION,13(2),OF,THE,PREVENTION,OF,CORRUPTION,ACT,,1988, STREGISTERED, BY, 1 , RESPONDENT, POLICE, (KARNATAKA, LOKAYUKTHA, POLICE, BENGALURU, CITY), AND, PENDING, ON, THE, FILE, OF, THE, COURT, OF, XXIII, ADDL., CITY, CIVIL, AND, SESSIONS, JUDGE,,BENGALURU,CITY., , , THIS, CRIMINAL, PETITION, HAVING, BEEN, HEARD, AND, RESERVED, FOR, ORDERS, ON, 07.07.2026,, COMING, ON, FOR, PRONOUNCEMENT,THIS,DAY,,THE,COURT,MADE,THE,FOLLOWING:-, CAV ORDER Petitioner - accused is before the Court calling in question registration of a crime in Crime No.31 of 2024 registered for offences punishable under Section 13(1)(b) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short), now pending before the XXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City. 2. Facts in brief, germane are as follows: - The petitioner at the relevant point of time was working as Deputy Controller in Legal Metrology Department having joined service in the year 1997. A preliminary enquiry is conducted on 10-07-2024 pursuant to the source report drawn by respondent No.2/Deputy Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayuktha on 01-06-2024. Based upon the said source information report and preliminary enquiry report, a crime comes to be registered in Crime No.31 of 2024 on 18-07-2024, for the afore-mentioned offences. Post registration of the crime, it appears that the Police secure a CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA search warrant and searched the residence of the petitioner on 19-07-2024. As per the source report, the assets, expenditure and income of the petitioner drawn depicted disproportionate assets to the tune of 155%. On registration of the crime, conduct of search and drawing up of mahazar, the petitioner approaches this Court in the subject petition calling in question the registration of the crime in Crime No.31 of 2024. 3. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court, earlier in these proceedings, had in terms of the order dated 19-03-2025 granted an interim order of stay in the subject petition, which is in operation even today. 4. Heard Sri Sandesh J.Chouta, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Lethif B, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. 5. Sri Sandesh J. Chouta, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the source report drawn was absolutely shoddy. He would contend that though preliminary enquiry was conducted in the case at hand, it was not a preliminary enquiry that needs to be conducted in cases of this kind. It is only an eyewash of a preliminary enquiry. Therefore, this Court must hold that the preliminary enquiry is not even conducted in the case at hand as t