Educationist MR Seetharam had filed a petition in the Karnataka High Court which raised questions regarding the criminal proceedings initiated against him by the Lokayukta police, stated a report in The New Indian Express. This petition was dismissed by the high court.
What are the criminal proceedings all about?
Lokayukta police had filed a chargesheet against MR Seetharam for granting a loan that was interest-free to the daughter of the accused, TN Chikkarayappa, to legalise the money earned illegally. The loan amounted to Rs 50 lakh.
The number one accused in the disproportionate assets case, TN Chikkarayappa, is currently facing charges for claims of gathering wealth and property in his name and in the name of his family members. This is to the tune of Rs 3.58 crore.
The order was passed by Justice M Nagaprasanna while rejecting Seetharam's petition against the order passed by the special court, taking cognisance of offences punishable under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC.
Who is Seetharam? What did he do?
Seetharam is the President of MS Ramaiah Education Society and he is accused number three in the case. The allegation against Seetharam is that he knows Chikkarayappa.
Intentionally to help the accused in legalising the money, Rs 50 lakh was transferred through a cheque in 2012 to MS Ramaiah Medical College for pursuing a medical course by Chikkarayappa's daughter.
"...The defence was never that Ramaiah Education Society had become defunct when the reply was submitted in April 2018 to the investigating agency. But when all details were sought, new reasons were given by the society of which Seetharam was president. The cheque for Rs 50 lakh is drawn in the name of the college with the signature of the petitioner, being the president of the society. It is, therefore, the provisions of Section 109 of the IPC would point at the petitioner," the judge said.
The counsel for the petitioner contended that no fault can be found with the petitioner as it was by way of a cheque that the amount was transferred and it was not a case where cash was given. The society had become defunct by the time the second notice came, and thus, no records related to the transaction could be traced.
