Yogesh Gowda Murder: Karnataka High Court Upholds Transfer Of Case To CBI

The Karnataka High Court on Saturday dismissed a batch of petitions including that filed by former State Minister Vinay Kulkarni, challenging entrustment of the 2016 Yogesh Gowda Murder Case to CBI for further investigation.Yogesh Gowda was a member of the Dharwad Zilla Panchayat. He was allegedly killed in Dharwad by unidentified bike riders on June 15, 2016. Kulkarni is one of the accused in the case.In September 2019, the BJP-led Karnataka Government issued an order, permitting CBI to carry out further investigation in the case. Upholding the same, a division bench of Justice B. Veerappa and Justice N S Sanjay Gowda said,"By careful perusal of the provisions of Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is clear that it does not prohibit the Police from conducting further investigation nor does it impinge on the power of the State Government to entrust the matter to CBI for further investigation under Section 6 of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act (DSPE), 1946." It added, "In the present case, the State Government by the impugned Government Order has granted its consent and accordingly, the Central Government also ordered for the extension of the provisions of the DSPE Act by issuing a notification. Therefore, the order passed by the State Government entrusting the matter to CBI for further investigation is in accordance with law." Background: The investigation for murder of Yogesh Gowda, Member of Dharwad Zilla Panchayat was given over by the State Government to the CBI on September 6, 2019. The Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court while issuing notice in a plea filed by the first accused, Basavaraj Shivappa Muttagi, had earlier stayed the effect and operation of the GO. Being aggrieved, the CBI had preferred an appeal before the Top Court, which as an interim measure directed for staying the operation of the single-judge's order. This stay in the form of interim measure resulted in CBI conducting and carrying out the investigation. The CBI, after such investigation, filed a challan on May 2, 2020 and added 8 more persons in the array of accused. Cognizance in respect of the first Challan filed by the CBI was also taken on the same day. CBI had also filed further Challans adding four more persons, who happen to be public servants, as accused. Sanction to prosecute them was also obtained by the agency. The concerned court on June 7, 2021, took cognisance in respect of the said challans. Later, on August 11, 2021, the Supreme Court asked the High Court to dispose of the proceedings challenging the grant of permission by the State Government to CBI as early as possible and preferably within two months. Arguments of the Petitioners: Senior counsels representing different accused in the case primarily argued that, "The impugned order is passed by the State Government in the absence of any request by the family members of the deceased, it is nothing but political motivation." It was contended that the power to refer further investigation to different agencies does not come under the provisions of Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. The authority to conduct further investigation should be backed by material emerging from records necessitating the same and not merely on the ground that such authority exists, it was argued. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the State Government is opposed to fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence and as such, it is liable to be quashed, the counsels said. It was also their case that the provisions of Section 173(8) of CrPC cannot be exercised by a 'new agency' without the consent of the Court. Moreover, inspite of the opinion of the Commissioner of Police that there is no reason for entrusting the matter to the CBI, the State Government has proceeded to pass an unreasonable order in violation of Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was also contended that "Once the trial has commenced, there cannot be further investigation conducted on 06.09.2019 by new agency after completion of trial as it is impermissible and thereby Annexures-A and B are null and void in the eye of law." Arguments by the State: The state counsels on the other hand contended that provisions of Section 6 of the DSPE Act permits a central agency to investigate an offence having taken place in the said territory with the consent of the State Government. It is an "ordinary exercise of executive powers" by the State Government. This ordinary exercise of executive power is an independent power which can be exercised at any stage by the State Government and will not have any impact or create any imbalance in the federal structure, it was argued. Further, it was said, "Further investigation into any criminal offence is a statutory right of the police. It is, in fact, a right coupled with the duty not only in the interest of the victim, but also in...

Yogesh Gowda Murder: Karnataka High Court Upholds Transfer Of Case To CBI

Mustafa Plumber

"A defect or illegality in the investigation, however serious, has no direct bearing on the competence or the procedure relating to cognizance or trial", the court observed.

Tags