The High Court directed the special court to take cognizance of the crimes against the Chief Minister of Karnataka, and proceeded on the basis of the charge sheet filed by the Lokayukta police in 2012.
Finding fault with the special court order refusing to take action against Chief Minister BS Yeddyurappa in the 10-year-old illegal land reclamation case, the High Court of Karnataka directed the special court to take cognizance of the crimes against him, and further Based on the charge sheet filed by the Lokayukta police in 2012 for the proceedings.
The High Court also directed the special court to take cognizance of the offense against former minister Katta Subramanya Naidu in another illegal land reclamation case as per the charge sheet.
Read this also. High court dismisses Yeddyurappa’s plea to dismiss proceedings in illegal land disposal case
Justice John Michael Cunha delivered the verdict on March 17, while one from Bengaluru, A. Alam Pasha filed the petition. The petitioner had on July 25, 2016 questioned the special court’s order to proceed against Mr. Yeddyurappa and Mr. Naidu on the basis of the charge sheet.
Mr. Pasha had filed a private complaint for alleged corruption against the then minister Murugesh Nirani and eight others in 2011 and the special court ordered the Lokayukta police to investigate.
However, in May 2012, the Lokayukta police filed a “B” report on the nine persons named in the complaint, stating that no evidence was found against them, but a charge sheet was filed against Mr. Yeddyurappa and Mr. Naidu It was said that this was illegal and corrupt work came out of the records obtained from inspection during the investigation.
Read this also. As a relief for Yeddyurappa, the Supreme Court is up against arrest in a corruption case
In the charge sheet, Mr. Yeddyurappa was accused of illegally marking 20 acres of land in Hovinayakanahalli village, Jala Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk. Mr. Naidu was accused of illegally representing 4 acres of 6 acres of land in Makankuppe village, Nellamangala taluk, Bengaluru rural district. Both were accused of causing loss of crores of rupees to the government exchequer by misusing their positions and illegally denying land acquired for industrial purposes.
‘No conscience ‘
“When the charge sheet was filed before the special court alleging the commission of cognizable offenses under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the special court has no discretion to ignore and select the nefarious cognizable offense on the face of record The accused did not make allegations of cognizable offenses in the complaint or in the FIR on defective grounds, ”observed Justice Cunha.
“I think the special court was oblivious to the fact that it was dealing with allegations related to the violation of the provisions of the PC Act, which was enacted with the beneficial object of eradicating corruption in public life,” Justice Sinha said.
Meanwhile, the High Court directed the special court to examine the “B” report, stating that no evidence could be found against Mr. Nirani and eight others as the special court while declaring to accept the charge “B.” No order was passed on the report. bed sheet.
Cover for petitioner
As Mr Pasha’s lawyer told the court that the complainant was “a threat to his life”, the court directed the police to provide him with the necessary protection as required by law, while asking him to approach the judicial court.
.
Leave a Reply