Gauri Lankesh Murder Case: Supreme Court Reserves Judgment On Sister's Plea Challenging Quashing Of KCOCA Charges Against Accused

The Supreme Court on Tuesday reserved its order in a plea filed by filmmaker Kavita Lankesh challenging Karnataka High Court judgement which quashed charges under Karnataka Control of Organised Crimes Act (KCOCA) against accused Mohan Nayak in the Gauri Lankesh murder case.Kavita Lankesh is the sister of Gauri Lankesh, who was shot dead in Bengaluru in 2017.A Bench comprising Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice CT Ravikumar reserved the orders after hearing detailed submissions made by Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, appearing for Kavita Lankesh and Advocate Basava Prabhu S Patil appearing for accused Mohan Nayak.The Bench also tentatively indicated that it is inclined to set aside the last part of the High Court's impugned order quashing the additional charge sheet filed in relation to offence under KCOCA against the accused Nayak.The first part of the impugned order quashed the order dated 14.08.2018 passed by Police Commissioner granting approval to invoke Section 3 of the Karnataka Control of Organized Crimes Act, 2000 for investigation against Nayak.The Bench orally observed that, "We are tentatively indicating that we are inclined to quash last part of the order...for prior approval- even if we uphold the finding of the order, the fact remains that nothing prevents investigating agencies to investigate factum of whether you are member of the syndicate or not and to present chargesheet after collating the material. And if that material is present, then chargesheet can proceed against you as well"With regard to the present accused Mohan Nayak, the Bench said "So far as you are concerned what has been given to you is a bonus, the chargesheet has also been quashed. We could have understood that High Court was to limit it to only that, in prior approval your name should not have been included. We could have understood that argument and reasoning, but not quashing of the chargesheet against you."Expressing its disapproval of High Court's order quashing the chargesheet, the Bench said "What was challenged was 14th August, 2018 order granting approval, the chargesheet wasn't challenged. High Court has understood the matter as only a challenge to the approval and allowed it and quashed chargesheet without analysing it.""At a subsequent stage you can challenge the charge sheet. That's a different matter. Nevertheless, High Court has quashed the charge sheet itself which is incorrect, which in excess of jurisdiction." the Bench told the Counsel appearing for Nayak."It's a very serious order to be passed, quashing chargesheet without analysing the chargesheet. Whether his role is mentioned in chargesheet or not, HC has not analysed it!" Justice Khanwilkar remarked." The High Court judgement so far quashing of chargesheet is concerned can be said to be assumptive one, straight way after dealing with approval part, High Court has quashed chargesheet. It is not quashed like this sir." Justice Dinesh Maheshwari said.Submissions on Behalf Of Petitioner:Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi for petitioner submitted before the Court that the short question that arises for consideration before the Court is with regard to the approval that was granted under Section 24(1) to invoke provision of KCOCA Act and cognisance taken thereon and the chargesheet filed.He added that the High Court has taken a view that Act is not applicable in so far as the accused is concerned, but the Court was in error in coming to conclusion that KCOCA wasn't applicable at all.Mr Ahmadi apprised the Court that the role imputed to the accused Mohan Nayak is that on basis of instructions of the accused Amol Kale, he took a house on rent in guise of running an acupressure clinic when the house was meant to accommodate members of syndicate and the accused harboured the actual assailant before and after the murder of Gauri Lankesh.Mr Ahmadi said " The High Court takes the view that even if the syndicate has committed other offences unless there are more than two cases which are pending against each of the two accused the provisions of KCOCA can't be against them. I submit that the view is not correct because according to provisions of the act, emphasis is laid upon the syndicate. The fact that all persons of that syndicate may or not be involved in earlier offence is completely immaterial. What is material is involvement of syndicate in two earlier offences.""So suppose a particular accused comes in at a later stage, even though its his first offence, the fact that he is part of the syndicate is enough to implicate him." Mr Ahmadi said."This is syndicate on what basis you are saying that." Bench said."That is the sum and substance of the allegations in the chargesheet." Mr Ahmadi said.Elaborating on the definition of "Organised Crimes" under the KCOCA act, Mr Ahmadi submitted that organised crime mean any continuing unlawful activity by an individual singly or jointly either as a member of an organised crime syndicate or on behalf of...

Gauri Lankesh Murder Case: Supreme Court Reserves Judgment On Sister's Plea Challenging Quashing Of KCOCA Charges Against Accused

Srishti Ojha

Tags