Karnataka High Court Refuses To Quash Corruption Case Against Yediyurappa; Deprecates Laxity In Investigation

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday refused to quash a 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. A single bench of Justice John Michael Cunha refused to quash the FIR dated 21.12.2015 registered by the Karnataka Lokayukta Police for the offence under sections 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, based on a private complaint filed by Vasudeva Reddy. The bench pulled up the police for delay in investigation against Yeddyurappa. It said "The circumstances clearly indicate that the delay is intentional and deliberate." However, it refrained from saying that "Respondent No.1 has succumbed to the pressure of the petitioner, who has been holding the position of the Chief Minister of the State of Karnataka." The court opined "Respondent No.1, being an independent and impartial body entrusted with the duty to investigate into the misconduct of the public servants objectively cannot give rise to an impression in the mind of the general public that it is playing into the hands of the political bigwigs." It added "In the circumstances of the case, having regard to the fact that the investigation is still in progress, I refrain from directing any action against the Lokayukta Police entrusted with the investigation, lest it would prejudice the investigation. However, the laxity in conducting the investigation in the instant case is deprecated and the Lokayukta Court is directed to keep watch over the investigation ordered by the Criminal Courts in respect of the misconduct of public servants and MPs and MLAs involved in the commission of criminal offences." Senior Advocate C V Nagesh appearing for Yeddyurappa had contended that, in respect of the very same FIR, accused No.1 Raghunath Vishwanath Deshpande had preferred W.P.No.8885/2015 and the High Court vide order dated 09.10.2015 quashed the FIR and in view of this order, investigation against the petitioner based on the very same FIR is illegal and amounts to abuse of process of court. The court rejected this ground stating that "From the reading of the complaint, I find that distinct and separate allegations are made against the petitioner. This allegation prima facie discloses a cognizance offence insofar as the petitioner is concerned which needs to be investigated." Further it was contended that order of reference is bad for non-production of sanction under section 197 Cr.P.C., and section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The bench held that this also does not merit acceptance. It said "Petitioner having ceased to hold the office of Deputy Chief Minister which he was holding as on the date of commission of the alleged offence, there is no requirement of obtaining prior sanction. This view is resoundingly reiterated in Abhay Singh Chautala vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2011) 7 SCC 141. In the light of this settled legal position, the argument of the learned Senior Counsel for petitioner that the order of reference made by learned Special Judge is bad for non-production of sanction under section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is rejected." The court relied on the judgement passed in the case of H.D.KUMARASWAMY vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA, By Lokayukta Police, and rejected the contention raised by the petitioner that requirement of sanction under section 197 Cr.P.C., was not followed. The court said "Insofar as the requirement of sanction under section 197 Cr.P.C., is concerned, the section bars cognizance and not the investigation. This plea, therefore, is liable to be rejected outright as premature." Case Details: B S YEDDYURAPPA And STATE OF KARNATAKA Case NO: WRIT PETITION NO.5043 OF 2019 Coram: JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA Date of Order: December 22, 2020 Appearance: Senior Advocate C.V.NAGESH, A/W Advocate SANDEEP PATIL for petitioner. Special PP VENKATESH S ARBATTI, FOR R1; Advocate K.V.DHANANJAY, ADVOCATE FOR R2 Click here to read/download the order

Karnataka High Court Refuses To Quash Corruption Case Against Yediyurappa; Deprecates Laxity In Investigation

Mustafa Plumber

Tags