Another Setback To CM Yediyurappa As Karnataka High Court Refuses To Quash Corruption Case Against Him

In another setback to Chief Minister B S Yediyurappa, the Karnataka High Court on Tuesday refused to quash an First Information Report (FIR) filed against him in the alleged illegal land de-notification case. The bench also imposed a cost of Rs 25,000 on him. A single bench of Justice John Michael Cunha, while dismissing the petition on Tuesday, said: "Since the allegations made in the complaint and the documents produced in support thereof prima-facie disclose the ingredients of the alleged offences under P.C. Act as well as under IPC, the investigation therein cannot be stalled as sought for by the petitioner." The case relates to the denotification of 1.11 acre land at Gangenahalli, which is part of the Matadahalli layout in RT Nagar in the city in which former Chief Minister H D Kumaraswamy and others are also accused. Based on a complaint by social activist Jayakumar Hiremath, the Lokayukta police had on 05.05.2015 registered a case under sections 13(1)(c), 13(1) (d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sections 409, 413, 420, 120(b) r/w 34 IPC and sections 3 and 4 of The Karnataka Land (Restriction on Transfer) Act, 1991.On December 23, 2020 the high court had refused to quash another criminal complaint registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act, against Chief Minister B S Yediyurappa, who is alleged of de-notifying parcels of land and allotting it to entrepreneurs, during his tenure as the Deputy Chief Minister of the state, between February 2006 and October 2007.Yediyurappa's arguments Senior Advocate C V Nagesh appearing for the petitioner had argued that the prosecution launched against the petitioner is illegal and an abuse of process of Court; that the allegations made in the complaint even if accepted on their face value do not constitute the ingredients of the offences insofar as the petitioner is concerned. Further, the petitioner ordered for de-notification based on the notings put up by the officials pursuant to the powers vested in him under section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act and as such no illegalities or malafides could be imputed to the petitioner especially when the facts disclose that order was made in discharge of the official duties and the power vested with the petitioner. It was also submitted that the "Doctrine of Public Trust", though enjoins upon the Government, to protect resources for the enjoyment of the general public and to permit their use for providing ownership or commercial purpose, but this Doctrine cannot be invoked to fasten criminal liability against the ministers and public servants entrusted with public duties. Prosecution opposed the plea: Special Public Prosecutor Venkatesh. S Arabatti, pointed that the complaint in question is demonstrative of abuse of power by two Chief Ministers who not only ignored the law and the legal principles, but also deliberately and with dishonest intention de-notified the lands which had been acquired by the Government decades ago and which had vested with the State in terms of Land Acquisition Act, 1984. He further said that the de-notified lands were sold by the mother-in-law of H.D. Kumaraswamy to her own son and brother-in-law of H.D. Kumaraswamy based on the de-notified ordered by the petitioner which smacks of a well designed conspiracy to make unlawful gain. It squarely attracts the offence under section 13(1) (c), 13(1) (d) r/w 13(2) of PC Act and sections 409, 418, 420, 120(b) and section 24 of IPC. The court went through the land file notings and observed that "In the light of the notings at paras 33 to 37, the petitioner could not have ordered for de-notification of the subject lands. The order at para 39 on the face of it is indefensible. There is nothing in para 39 to suggest that the petitioner had ordered for de-notification based on the notings put up by the officials in exercise of the power under section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act on satisfaction that the land has not vested with the Government." It added "The question as to whether the said order was passed by the petitioner by abuse of power or in furtherance of the common object of the conspiracy need to be ascertained only after a thorough investigation." Complainant sought to withdraw from case; HC did not permit During the hearing the petitioner moved an application seeking amendment of the petition so as to urge a further ground to quash the criminal proceedings in view of the insertion of section 17A to the PC Act. Though this was opposed by the prosecution, contending that section 17A of the amended PC Act was not applicable to the facts of the case since the case was registered much prior to the amended PC Act came into force. However, the complainant Hiremath filed a memo dated 09.12.2020 seeking leave to withdraw the petition on the ground that in view of the insertion of section 17A of the PC Act, respondent No.2 is left ...

Another Setback To CM Yediyurappa As Karnataka High Court Refuses To Quash Corruption Case Against Him

Mustafa Plumber

Tags