Karnataka High Court Restores Bribery Complaint Against Former CM Yediyurappa

The Karnataka High Court has restored a bribery complaint filed against former Chief Minister B.S. Yediyurappa, his son B.Y. Vijayendra and others alleging offences under Prevention of Corruption Act. A single judge bench of Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav partly allowed the petition filed by complainant Abraham T.J. and set aside the order dated July 8, 2021 passed by the Special Court set up for trying cases against Legislators. The bench held that the Complainant approaching the Governor for sanction for prosecution is of no legal significance, as he was not competent to seek for sanction. Thus, rejection of such request should have been ignored, as such request was not made either by the Police Officer or an Officer of Investigation Agency or other law enforcement Authorities; nor pursuant to the order of Court as contemplated under First Proviso to Section 19 of the PC Act."Thus, the rejection of sanction for prosecution would not come in the way of continuance of proceedings against Accused No.1 upon restoration of the complaint. Sanction as regards Accused No.1 would be an aspect for consideration at the appropriate stage as per law." Case Details: The complaint alleged that crores of rupees have been exchanged in Bengaluru allegedly in the name of the stalled project of BDA and work order was issued in favour of M/s.Ramalingam Construction Company Pvt. Ltd., a company owned by accused No.5 Chandrakanth Ramalingum and Rs.12.5 Crores was demanded by Yediyurappa's son, on his father's behalf.Further, It was alleged that accused No.7 Dr.G.C Prakash received Rs.12.5 Crores from accused No.8 K.Ravi on the assurance that the amount will be handed over to Yediyurappa, through his son Vijayendra.Another allegation was that Yediyurappa's grandson used influence to obtain contracts in the Government Departments and exerted pressure on the Governments for the advantage of accused No.5 in exchange for Rs.12.5 Crores, which was finally received by Yediyurappa.The third allegation against the former CM was that he and other co-accused indulged in corruption by using shell companies and Rs.3,41,00,000/- amount was transferred to the shell companies and in turn the said amount was transferred to the bank account of the companies owned by Yediyurappa's family members.The complainant also alleged that all the accused committed offences punishable under Secs.7, 8, 9, 10 and 13 of the PC Act, 1988 and Sections 383, 384, 415, 418, 420 r/w Sec.34 and Sec.120B of IPC and under Sections 27, 3 and 4 of the PML Act.Special Judge, referring to the judgment of Apex Court in Anil Kumar and Others v. M.K. Aiyappa and Another (2013) 10 SCC 705, recorded a finding that an order of reference for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. cannot be made without valid sanction under Section 19(1) of the P.C. Act.Findings:The bench said on a reading of Section 19(1) of P.C. Act and Section 197 of Cr.P.C. it is clear that no Court can take cognizance of offences as regards a public servant except with previous Sanction. Where the Magistrate is seeking to take cognizance of the Police Report in terms of Section 190(1)(b) of Cr.P.C, the sanction for prosecution is required. Section 19(1) of P.C. Act would also require sanction for prosecution before the Special Court takes cognizance of offences under Sections 7, 11, 13 and 15 of P.C. Act.However, where the Special Court seeks to take cognizance of an offence under Section 19 of P.C. Act on the basis of complaint of facts under Section 190(1)(a) of Cr.P.C. and follows the procedure laid down in Chapter-XV of Cr.P.C., the requirement of sanction is only at the stage where the Special Court has not dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of Cr.P.C. and the Court directs the Complainant to obtain sanction for prosecution to enable further proceeding by issuance of process to the accused persons under Section 204 of Cr.P.C. It then observed, "This is the procedure as laid down by virtue of Amendment Act 16 of 2018 by insertion of the proviso to Section 19(1) of the P.C. Act." It added, "Sanction for prosecution as contemplated under Section 19(1) of P.C. Act is required to be obtained where the Special Court takes cognizance of the offences on the basis of Police Report or prior to issuance of process to the accused persons under Section 204 of Cr.P.C., where the Special Judge has proceeded under Chapter XV as regards a Private Complaint."Referring to the reference made to a larger bench in the case of Manju Surana (supra) the bench noted the Court has clarified that the order of reference would not come in the way of ordering investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. i.e., the question of sanction for passing an order under Section 156 would not arise, as it is that very question that has been referred to the larger Bench and is still to be determined.Further it said, "Taking cognizance of offence would only be where cognizance is taken under Section 190 under Chapter-XIV of Cr.P.C. and...

Karnataka High Court Restores Bribery Complaint Against Former CM Yediyurappa

Mustafa Plumber

Tags