Special court in Karnataka discharges former legislator Madal’s son in graft case

Bengaluru: Two years after Lokayukta police arrested Prashant Madal, son of former MLA Madal Veerupakshappa, on graft charges, a special court for cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act in the city discharged him and co-accused Surendra S, a staffer from a private firm.
Prashant was arrested in March 2023, allegedly while accepting a bribe of Rs 40 lakh to facilitate tender allotment, release of purchase orders, and processing of payments from Karnataka Soaps and Detergents Ltd (KSDL) to Shreyas Kashyap, who was associated with Chemixil Corporation as a partner. Kashyap's firm was supplying perfumery materials to KSDL, of which Prashant's father, Madal Virupakshappa, was the chairman.
Passing the orders on April 7, 2025, special judge KM Radhakrishna observed that the investigation officer has enquired with KSDL officials. "Their statements under Sections 161 and 164 of CrPC would never reveal the tenders and purchase orders were issued at the influence and interference of Prashant. Instead, they claim to have discharged their duty without giving scope for interference of others," the judge said.
"Therefore, the absence of the basic requirement to attract the offence under the PC Act against Prashant is obvious. In the circumstance, the recovered tainted money cannot be connected to the crime nor be construed to be an undue advantage as alleged by the prosecution," the court said. Further, the court pointed out that the third accused, Surendra was a private firm staffer and not an associate of Prashant as specified in the charge sheet.
"I am to hold that there exist no grounds to frame the charge and proceed against accused persons for offences punishable under Section 7(A) and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act," stated Judge Radhakrishna on April 7, whilst approving the discharge applications submitted by both accused individuals. The court ordered Rs 40 lakh be seized by the state following the appeal period, provided the state has already compensated the complainant with an equivalent amount," the court observed.