In a significant anti-corruption verdict, a special court in Bengaluru has sentenced former Managing Director of the Karnataka Council for Technological Upgradation (KCTU), V Muniyappa (72), to three years of imprisonment and imposed a fine of ₹4.5 crore for possessing disproportionate assets.
The judgment was delivered by the XXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Court and Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, following a case initiated by the Karnataka Lokayukta.
Assets far exceeded known income
According to the prosecution, Muniyappa accumulated assets worth ₹5.45 crore and incurred expenditure of ₹1.88 crore between December 1982 and July 2014. Against a legitimate income of ₹2.42 crore, the court determined disproportionate assets of ₹4.13 crore — amounting to 170.38 per cent excess.
The case stemmed from a Lokayukta raid conducted in 2014, which uncovered significant financial irregularities.
Court rejects defence claims
Muniyappa’s counsel argued that several properties were part of a joint family estate. However, the court rejected this claim, observing that it lacked credible evidence and appeared to be a constructed defence.
The court further noted that a lawsuit filed by the accused’s brother seemed orchestrated to create a misleading paper trail, thereby weakening the defence.
Strong message against corruption
In a firm observation, the court emphasised the need for strict punishment in corruption cases, noting the deep-rooted nature of such offences in the system. It stated that leniency would not serve justice, especially in socio-economic crimes affecting public trust.
The judge underscored that stringent punishment serves as a deterrent to public officials engaging in corrupt practices.
Lapses in investigation flagged
While delivering the verdict, the court also pointed out lapses in the investigation process. It highlighted issues such as delays, lack of supervision, and inconsistent handling of cases by multiple officers.
The court has issued notices to the investigating officials, directing them to submit explanations within 20 days on why disciplinary action should not be initiated.