Demand to change case Investigation Officer, Mysuru Lokayukta SP T.J. Udesh, rejected
Bengaluru: An Additional City Civil and Sessions Court in Bengaluru has directed the Karnataka Lokayukta to complete the investigation into the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA) — now Mysuru Development Authority (MDA) — case within two months.
The Court has also rejected a plea seeking a change of T.J. Udesh, the Investigating Officer in the case, who is also the Mysuru Lokayukta Superintendent of Police (SP).
The Court has not issued any order regarding the ‘B’ Report submitted by the Lokayukta. The Court has stated that a decision on the ‘B’ Report will be made only after the investigation is complete.
Chief Minister Siddaramaiah has been named as Accused No. 1 and his wife, B.M. Parvathi as Accused No. 2 in the case. The complaint was filed by Mysuru-based RTI activist Snehamayi Krishna, who had challenged the clean chit earlier granted to Siddaramaiah and his family, and sought a change of investigator.
In its order, the Court stated: “The application filed by the complainant under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. requesting the Court to direct the investigating agency, i.e., Karnataka Lokayukta, to change the investigating officer, is hereby rejected.”
It further added: “Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the investigating agency is hereby directed to complete the investigation as expeditiously as possible and within an outer limit of two months from today, without seeking any further extension of time to file the comprehensive report.”
The Court has fixed Nov. 15 as the deadline for submission of the final report and has directed that the order be immediately communicated to the investigating agency. During Thursday’s hearing, the complainant appeared in person, while the Special Public Prosecutor represented both the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the Karnataka Lokayukta.
The MUDA case pertains to the alleged illegal allotment of 14 residential sites to the Chief Minister’s wife under a 50:50 ratio scheme, in lieu of 3.16 acres of land that she received as a gift from her brother, the third accused. It is alleged that she did not hold legal title to this land.
