Bengaluru Court Dismisses Private Complaint Against Chief Minister BS Yediyurappa & Other Public Servants For Want Of Sanction To Prosecute

In the absence of sanction for prosecution, a special court in Bengaluru on Thursday dismissed a private complaint filed against Chief Minister BS Yediyurappa, his son BY Vijayendra and others, alleging offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Indian Penal Code and seeking to refer the complaint to any Investigating Agency to register a FIR and conduct investigation. Special Judge B. Jayantha Kumar dismissed the complaint filed by Abraham TJ, President of the Karnataka Anti-Graft and Environmental Forum. The court in its order said "Private complaint filed by the complainant under Sec.200 of Cr.P.C., and interim application filed by the complainant under Sec.156(3) of Cr.P.C., are not maintainable in the absence of valid sanction and accordingly dismissed." 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 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 the 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. Findings: "I have gone through the materials placed by the complainant and analyzed the submissions made by the complainant. No doubt there are some material to refer the complaint for investigation under Sec.156(3) of Cr.P.C.," the Judge observed at the outset.However, it was noted that an order directing investigation under Section156(3) of CrPC cannot be passed in relation to public servant in the absence of valid sanction.The special court noted "In this case, the allegations of corruption mainly revolve around accused No.1. It is pertinent to note that during the course of argument, Public Prosecutor has presented a memo signed by Sri.D.Rajendra, Dy.S.P., ACB, Bengaluru City and produced xerox copy of the order signed by Sri N.Shivakumar, Under Secretary to Governor (Admin) and in the said letter, it is said that Hon'ble Governor by order dated 23.06.2021 has been pleased to reject the request of the complainant for sanction for prosecution of the Chief Minister of Karnataka." Accordingly it opined "Keeping in view of all these aspects and considering the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, I am of the opinion that there is no room for doubt that the requirement of Sanction is a condition precedent for directing investigation under Sec.156(3) Cr.P.C, which in the present case has not been obtained by the complainant with respect to the accused No.1, 6 and 7, who are public servants." Reliance was placed on Anil Kumar & Ors. v. MK Aiyappa & Anr., (2013)10 SCC 705. In this case, the Top Court had observed,"Sub-section (3) of Section 19 has an object to achieve, which applies in circumstances where a Special Judge has already rendered a finding, sentence or order. In such an event, it shall not be reversed or altered by a court in appeal, confirmation or revision on the ground of absence of sanction. That does not mean that the requirement to obtain sanction is not a mandatory requirement. Once it is noticed that there was no previous sanction, as already indicated in various judgments referred to herein above, the Magistrate cannot order investigation against a public servant while invoking powers under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C."The Special court thus held "Hence, I hold that the complaint filed by the complainant praying for referring the same for investigation under Sec.156(3) of Cr.P.C., and interim application filed by the complainant under Sec.156(3) of Cr.P.C., are liable to be dismissed for want of valid sanction."Case Title: Abraham TJ v. BS Yediyurappa & Ors.Click Here To Download OrderRead Order

Bengaluru Court Dismisses Private Complaint Against Chief Minister BS Yediyurappa & Other Public Servants For Want Of Sanction To Prosecute

Mustafa Plumber

Tags