The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday refused to interfere in criminal proceedings, initiated against the former Chief Minister B.S. Yeddyurappa by the Special Lokayukta Court in two of the five cases related to alleged corruption in the process of denotification of land following private complaints by Sirajin Basha.
Dismissing two petitions of his and another by BJP MLA from Chickpet D. Hemachandra Sagar, who is an accused in one of the cases, the High Court said that they can raise these contentions, including absence of prima facie material against them, before the Special Lokayukta Court at the stage of framing of charges.
Verdict
In his verdict, Justice Anand Byrareddy observed, “When the complainant (Sirajin Basha) is yet to tender his evidence before framing of charges, the petitioners will have adequate opportunity to cross-examine the complainant and his witnesses with relation to material that are sought to be relied upon to support the case, and it is also open to the petitioners to be heard before framing of charges regarding legal issues as well as factual matters to seek discharge. When such an alternative remedy is available to the petitioners, it may not be justified in this court assuming the role of an appellant court and to interfere with the matter at this stage of proceedings.”
Pointing out that the High Court can exercise its extraordinary power under Article 227 of the Constitution only when trial courts fail to exercise their jurisdiction or exceed their jurisdiction causing prejudice to the accused, Mr. Byrareddy held that none of the action of the Special Lokayukta Court has either caused prejudice to Mr. Yeddyurappa or resulted in failure of justice.
“All proceedings are at nascent stage, and intricacies of several offences alleged and other aspects, as regards the absence of material to make out a case under the section 13(1)(d) and 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, need not be addressed in this proceedings, as it may unnecessarily prejudice the case of the petitioner, the merits or demerits of which is to be tested before the Special Lokayukta Court,” the High Court observed.
Referring to petitioner's legal contentions on absence of ingredients to establish or even to sustain a complaint for alleged offence of criminal breach of trust, Mr. Byrareddy said that this issue “is again a matter which require to be addressed with reference to the facts of the case and material, and that exercise has to be undertaken by the Special Lokayukta Court in framing the charges. It is premature for this court to form an opinion and to don the role of the trial court.”
On the Special Lokayukta Court's action of directly taking cognisance of offences against Mr. Yeddyurappa and others without ordering for an inquiry, the High Court said that this action has not prejudiced the petitioners, and dismissed their pleas while terming them as “being without merits”.
