Karnataka High Court allows plea to restore corruption case against BS Yediyurappa in land privatization case [Read Order]

The Karnataka High Court, on March 17, directed a special court to reinstate an old case against Chief Minister of the Karnataka, BS Yediyurappa and twelve others, which had been previously dropped by a Sessions Court in 2016..In its order for taking up the case against Yediyurappa, Justice John Michael Cunha said, .“The Special Court is directed to take cognizance of the offences made out in the chargesheet against respondent Nos.10 and 11(named as accused Nos.1 and 2 in the charge sheet) and proceed in accordance with law”..The plea for reinstatement of the old case was filed in 2016 by activist Alam Pasha.Pasha was the original complainant in the anti-corruption case filed in 2012 against Yediyurappa, BJP leader and then minister Katta Subramanya Naidu and others. Pasha argued before the High Court that the sessions court had wrongly dropped the case in 2016 by citing a closure report filed by the police.The allegations raised against Yediyurappa and Naidu were that they used their positions to allow the release of over 24 acres of government-acquired land in north Bengaluru to private persons, causing a loss to the State exchequer in the bargain. The release of the land also involved illegal gratification, the 2012 complaint against Yediyurappa and others had alleged.The Lokayukta police, following investigations, had filed a final report dropping the cases against nine persons named in the case since no evidence could be collected against them and a filed a chargesheet against Yediyurappa and Naidu.Despite the police charge sheet, the sessions court went on to drop the entire case on the basis of the closure report filed against nine others in the case, contended the petitioner. It was submitted that the sessions court order is illegal and perverse on the face of it. Adding on, it was contended that the Special Judge had no jurisdiction to dismiss the complaint while considering the ‘B’ summary report submitted by the Investigating Agency. In this regard, reliance was also placed on the Supreme Court decision in the case of Hardeep Singh vs State of Punjab and others.The respondents, on the other hand, resisted the petition. .In its order, the Bench went on to say that the special Court's order cannot be sustained under law since the order has was passed while considering a 'B Summary report against accused no 1 to 9 and not Yediyurappa. .“I am of the clear view that the impugned order is indefensible and cannot be sustained under law or on the facts of this case for the following reasons: Firstly, the impugned order has been passed by the learned Special Judge while considering the ‘B’ Summary report submitted by the Investigating Agency insofar as accused No.1 to 9 are concerned,” the Court said. .Further, the Court also observed that the special court did not consider the final report submitted against accused no 1 to 9 and no order was passed accepting or rejecting that report. .“A perusal of the impugned order on the face of it reveals that the learned Special Judge has not considered the final report filed by respondent No.13 in so far accused Nos.1 to 9 are concerned and no order has been passed either rejecting or accepting the report insofar as accused Nos.1 to 9 are concerned,” the Court stated. .The Court, though accepted that Yedirurappa and Naidu were not named in the FIR and no order was passed by the court under section 156(3) CrPC. However, once the charge sheet is filed, the magistrate or the court has no other option than to take cognizance of the offence alleged in the charge sheet and proceed in accordance with law, the High Court said. Further, in the light of various decisions, the High Court failed to concur with the reasoning of the special judge that there were no in the complaint against the two accused. ."In the light of this legal position, the reasoning of the learned Special Judge that there were no allegations in the complaint against the charge sheeted accused Sri. B.S. Yeddiyurappa and Sri. Katta Subramanya Naidu and therefore, no cognizance could be taken against them being contrary to the settled principles of law, cannot be sustained. Likewise, the reasoning of the Special Court that for want of affidavit filed in support of the allegations, the original complaint itself has to be dismissed is based on the misconception of rudiments of law and misreading the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivatsava’s case.".With these observations, the Court allowed the petition and set aside the 2016 order of the Special Court. .[Read Order]