The peculiar tribunal had earlier directed the Lokayukta constabulary to reopen and analyse the bribery lawsuit against Siddaramaiah. (Photo: X/ @siddaramaiah)
A peculiar tribunal for cases against elected representatives precocious accepted a closure study filed by the Karnataka Lokayukta constabulary successful a lawsuit wherever a Bengaluru BJP person accused Chief Minister Siddaramaiah of receiving a Rs 1.3 crore bribe for the assignment of a steward astatine the Bengaluru Turf Club during his erstwhile tenure arsenic the CM.
“The closure study filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta, Bengaluru dated 12.9.2024 is hereby accepted,” the peculiar tribunal ruled connected January 18.
“To sum up it is noticed that though the records bespeak that Accused No.1 Mr Siddaramaiah had received a sum of Rs 1,30,00,000/- from Accused No.2 L Vivekananda the aforesaid cannot beryllium held to beryllium an enactment of quid pro quo towards his information arsenic Steward of BTC,” the tribunal said.
The peculiar tribunal had earlier directed the Lokayukta constabulary to reopen and analyse the bribery lawsuit against Siddaramaiah.
In a backstage ailment filed with the tribunal successful November 2022, BJP person and erstwhile councillor N R Ramesh alleged that Siddaramaiah accepted Rs 1.3 crore successful bribes from his person L Vivekananda successful 2015 to name him arsenic a steward and committee subordinate astatine the Bangalore Turf Club during Siddaramaiah’s 2013-2018 tenure arsenic Karnataka main minister.
Siddaramaiah maintained that the sum was obtained arsenic a indebtedness and was disclosed successful his predetermination affidavit. In 2023, aft Siddaramaiah became Karnataka main curate for the 2nd time, the Lokayukta constabulary submitted a closure study which was opposed by the BJP person starring the tribunal to nonstop the Lokayukta constabulary to behaviour a caller probe.
While yet accepting the ‘B’ study of the Lokayukta constabulary for closure of the lawsuit against the Karnataka main curate earlier this month, the peculiar tribunal indicated that the probe had not unearthed immoderate grounds to suggest corruption successful the indebtedness fixed to Siddaramaiah.
“Further the tribunal has cautiously appreciated the provisions of Section 7 and Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on with the settled judgement of the Hon’ble Apex tribunal which would intelligibly bespeak that the enactment of nominating Accused No.2 arsenic Steward does not magnitude to obtaining undue vantage oregon amerciable gratification,” the tribunal ruled.
“Under the circumstances, determination are nary materials to proceed against accused No.1 Sri Siddaramaiah and accused No.2 Sri L. Vivekananda and the Closure Report filed by the Investigating Agency is to beryllium accepted,” it further said.
“In the closure report, it has been submitted that during the play 1998-99, the accused No.2 L. Vivekananda had acted arsenic Steward of Mysore Turf Club and besides aboriginal connected helium was nominated arsenic Steward successful the twelvemonth 2003-04 to Bangalore Turf Club and thereafter, helium was again nominated arsenic Steward to Bangalore Turf Club,” the tribunal pointed out.
“All the aforesaid aspects would bespeak that helium was not a novice who was nominated by the Government by exercising their discretionary powerfulness arbitrarily. It indicates that Accused No.2 was different eligible to beryllium appointed to the station of Steward and nary arbitrariness tin beryllium pointed retired successful this regard,” the peculiar tribunal said.
“The accused No.2 has specifically stated that helium had lent the magnitude arsenic an involvement escaped loan, which is besides depicted successful his IT returns. Since, helium had each eligibility to beryllium nominated to the station of Stewardship and besides for the crushed that it was Honorary Post done which nary amerciable gratification oregon summation could person been achieved, it is not a lawsuit to pull the rigors of Sec. 7, 8 oregon 13 of PC (Prevention of Corruption) Act,” the peculiar tribunal concluded.