The Supreme Court will hear cases on February 28 against former Karnataka CM B.S. Yediyurappa, accused of de-notifying land for private benefit. The legal debate centers on whether fresh complaints can proceed against a public servant after the dismissal of earlier ones due to a lack of prosecution sanction. The Karnataka High Court’s 2021 decision to restore a dismissed complaint is under scrutiny, with arguments highlighting the amended Prevention of Corruption Act and its implications for public servants who have left office.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India has set February 28 as the date to hear cases related to alleged corruption against former Karnataka Chief Minister B. S. Yediyurappa. These cases involve accusations of de-notifying land to benefit private parties.
A bench comprising Justices J. B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra said it will consider whether a second complaint can be lodged against a former public servant for alleged offenses committed during their tenure, even after the dismissal of the first complaint due to a lack of prosecution sanction.
Senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, representing Yediyurappa, argued that the Karnataka High Court should not have revived the criminal case against his client. He cited the 2018 amendment to the Prevention of Corruption Act, which requires prior sanction for prosecution.
According to Luthra, the initial private complaint was filed in 2012 by A. Alam Pasha, alleging that Yediyurappa, during his first term as Chief Minister, de-notified acquired land to benefit private parties.
“The 2012 complaint was dismissed because there was no prior sanction to prosecute the BJP leader,”
-he stated.
This dismissal had become final. However, in 2014, after Yediyurappa left office, a similar second complaint was filed. The trial court dismissed it in 2016, again citing the absence of prior sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
On January 5, 2021, the Karnataka High Court partially accepted Pasha’s petition and overturned the trial court’s 2016 order regarding three of the four accused, including Yediyurappa. It restored the criminal complaint for further proceedings in the trial court.
Luthra pointed out that the High Court ruled that the dismissal of the earlier complaint for want of sanction would not prevent the filing of the 2014 complaint after Yediyurappa left office.
The bench expressed difficulty in distinguishing the facts of each case and directed Luthra to frame the legal questions and submit concise notes for clarity. Luthra explained that there were five sets of cases involving Yediyurappa, with the primary case arising from the High Court’s January 5, 2021, order.
Senior advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for the Karnataka government, requested the court to allow the state to present its arguments since the matter involved a legal question. Luthra opposed the involvement of the state, arguing that the case originated from a private complaint and did not involve the government.
Nevertheless, the bench permitted the Karnataka government to make submissions, but only on legal questions.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG), also sought permission to present arguments, which the court granted. A total of nine petitions involving Yediyurappa were listed, but one was withdrawn as it had become irrelevant.
In a related development, on January 27, 2021, the Supreme Court had protected Yediyurappa and former Industries Minister Murugesh Nirani from arrest in a case involving alleged forgery related to the withdrawal of land approval.
In his appeal, Yediyurappa questioned whether the court could proceed under the Prevention of Corruption Act against a public servant without prior sanction, merely because the public servant had left office. This question arose in light of the amended provisions of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
ALSO READ: Karnataka Govt. To High Court: “BS Yediyurappa Should Face Trial in POCSO Act Case”
Yediyurappa expressed his dissatisfaction with the January 5, 2021, High Court verdict, stating that it had “erroneously” allowed Pasha’s petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). He argued that the High Court disregarded the “well-reasoned” order of August 26, 2016, by the special judge, which had dismissed the complaint due to the absence of the required prior sanction.
He further argued that the High Court’s decision was contrary to established law and the amended provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. According to him, Pasha had intentionally delayed filing the complaint until he left office, thus abusing the legal process.
“By allowing the complainant to circumvent the statutory protection granted to public servants, the High Court made this protection meaningless,”
-Yediyurappa argued.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Ex-Karnataka CM Yediyurappa
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
