Sri. B S Yeddyurappa vs Sri. Sirajin Basha on 31 January, 2012

[Cites 21, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri. B S Yeddyurappa vs Sri. Sirajin Basha on 31 January, 2012

Bench: Anand Byrareddy

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 5I"'bAY OF JANUARY 
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ,'--'\NAN.D 'I3Y.12H I{«Ej!:)_DY 

WRIT PETITION Nos. 32101 -- 32i1V03'*<IE 201  ( GIvI-R=ESI " 

Q/VV.

WRIT PETITION NOETS73/20 I 'I .(VG"M.%:RES) 

WRIT I>ETITI0N'No. 3"54:II%I <GI§I--REs)

IN W.I>.Nos.32I0I-32103QE2IIII   " 

SI'i.B.S.Ye(id3zuIap'pa, V

S/0.Sidd:il'ingap:ipa,  '

Aged 67,' yams,'     

Residing'-:<1tN0.l,-- V

RaCC-COLl1fS'3_R0v3dV;' _ . _ 

Banga1Q1'€ -- 5'6Q 0Ol.'   ...PETITIONER

 Jéi'y;Iku1ndI:WSA.PzIti1, Senior Counsel and Shri.Sandeep
':2 P;It'I1 ,. VAdy0I: ateév) .._

  '."SH.Sil'£ijilT;BaSh£l,
  S/r);.T.Ab'LI1 Razak.
"«_}_Ag¢ci°'gIbc)IIt 52 years,
,   "J.uStI"ce Lawers',
   N<f).64/I (Krishna Block),



I\)

Besides Fortis Hospital, 
1" Main, Sheshadripuram, 

Banga1o1'e~56()02O.  .._'§RESi5.QN'DvEN'FjV V

(By Sh1'i.Nitin.R, Advocate and Shri.B:iSiidVdes'i'i\§2art1,  2

for M/s.C.H.Hanumatharaya arid .AssoCia_te;:)

v, \'A 4,3 4.
>1' ,1' ., .g,,~

These Writ Petitions are 'filed Vi_l:1'I1CiiE:!'_ Artic1'e"sA2V26 and 227 of
the Constitution of India«.,_ :pray'i1ig;_to iq-uasihrthe private complaint
bearing P.C.R.No.3/2011 in Spv1'.'C'i.C__..N'of_1~56/2011 filed by the
respondent before the XXIII:'Ad'd.it»ion:ii_ CiityiCiVil and Sessions
Judge, Banga1ore'C_i'ty \/idﬁg Aiine'xu'1'e}_'-'A

IN  i    : 
 *     M
Sri.B.SiY.eddiyL1i'2.pipiii'--  

S/o.Sidda1ingappja. 
Agejd 67,years';  " V

 Rei:sidin.g ats_No.1i,"*-- ---------- 
 , Race-Coui'se'«Road,
  'Bpaiigzﬂore ;iv55o_001. ...PET1TIONER

 Shi~iiJi:2i*;/2ii<L1mar S.Pati1, Senior Counsel and Shri.Sandeep

Pati1..AdvoCate)

iiS1'i.HSi1'ajin Basha,
PS/o.T.Abu1 Razak.

Aged about 52 years,
'Justice Lawers',
No.64/1 (Krishna Block), 5



Besides Fortis Hospital,
1" Main, Sheshadripuram,  "   i'    7
Bangalore »~ 560 020.    .RES'PQNl).ENT1"_:

(By Shri.Nitin.R, Advocate and'"Shri.l3A.'Silddesh?ailaita;--vAdi;/ocatesC'

for M/s.C.H.Hanumatharaya and Asésociateslj   -- 

This Writ Petition is V:fil_ed._ ul?{_d€1"4'A_VITiiCi€_$ 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India prayingAtoC'q'uasli__.thenforder dated 23.8.2011
passed in PCR No«.4/20l.l""vid:eA'i1ne_xure--A"l5y XXIII Additional
City Civil and ;S€§f;1lhCIlS lifidge,-.i~Ba'ngal-oreCity wherein the learned
Judge has orcli'erecf_.t() 'iss1i_ei' .§urY1'lli{)ﬂS to the petitioner for the
offences pun_ishfab_,le u'i1der5.SeCt'ioiis"=l3(l)(d), l3(l)(ei) read with
13(2) of--P--..CA.VAc_t'ai1i:'l iiiideivtseciinng 406, 420 and 120-3 of Indian

l')lSJn€\}.i'.3$_I35AVZ1Cl*'8. 2 2
BETWEEDL' %    
D1'.D.H€11l£iC--]j1a1"1(lfa   
S/o.I;at"e _Dayan-an'd'Sagar,

 "   years,-- ---------- --« *
C Residing Ia: No.44/54,
 _ 30%'  Tila_l<"Nagar Extension,
C' }ay'a_na . __ '~ " ' ' "

Bangalore [--i2;5<{<) 041. ...PETITIONER

  (By Sl11fif1~Asliok Haranahalli, Senior Counsel and Shri.H.SriniVas
 Rao__and"Shri. Badri Vishal. Advocates for M/S.S1'lHlVaS and Badri,
" __As»so:;'iates)



AND:

1. State of Karnataka
Represented by Lokayukta Police 
M.S.Building, 1'
Dr.Anibedkar Veedhi,
Bangalore -- 560 001.

[Respondent No.1 deleted  _
as per order dated 16.9201  . I'

1. Sirajin Basha,  'I  '  

S/o.Late T.Abdu1 RazaAa1_<,:'  vi

Aged about V     

No.64/1,       

1"'   ,      I

Sheshad1'ipVui'a1§1;t,. 3 A V  * ._ 
Bangailioreng1;560"i§120."'~p\~._   _,.RESPONDENT

(By Shri,  for M/s.C.H.Hanumatharaya and
Associates') * I'  .. 

.u 1. 9, «'4 ~
I'

  Writ "P611-[.l.OFl is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the

 i:'Co_nistitutigon"'o__f India praying to call for the records in Special
   pending on the file of the XXIII Additional City
'Civ.i_i_;an"c1« Sessioiis Judge, Bangalore and etc;

T.hes'e'"W1'it Petitions are having been heard and reserved on

_  lO.()l.'2_Oi1.2 and coming on for pronouncement of orders this day,
1'  the,Coui*t delivered the fo1lowing:--



ORDER

These petitions are by the gsametxpetitioner ana__ common issues arise for c()1iside--::atio11,'-the S3l}l:C"A£l1'8.t.VllC8.lYd and disposed of together.

2. The facts leading are as follows:-

The pet§iti«onpe:y_1'. is of the State of Karnataka the Karnataka Legislative Asseiniblylill Janata Party (hereinafter referredllto " brevity) . The respondent is an advocate by professioln, who along with one K.Balaraj, had approaehie<l_lt'la_e Governor of Karnataka as on 28.12.2010, seeking grantrr or to prosecute the petitioner, who was then the Chief Mitiislter of the Karnataka State. In the representation hratle to the Governor of Karnataka, the petitioner and another had stated that they intended to move the designated Court of the Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to asghe PC Act' for brevity), by way of a private complaint, since their written co1r1pl.aiiit'W:'t*o, Superintendent of Police, Karnataka l_,_o.l<a_yL1kt_a,iiwa--si_':not*taken.on» file and no action was initiatec1i'1«,inspite of "their ~rfe~peated representations, apparently bec_a'u.se, the petitioner,'~--..whio named the accused, was fun;t.t.io'nviiig--._,as thefhiepfii Minister at that point of time and it respondent that this deterred the said authority"fi'o'ni, lacition. It the petitioner, his two sons wvere.,1iii'rne'd;:*--as third accused, respectively. The second' 'B-i.Y.Raghavendra is a Member of Pa1'liament.Liandi accused, namely, RN .Sohan Kurrga1", is the"qs_on-iin--law of the petitioner herein. The fifth namely, S.N.Krishnaiah Setty was a Member of the Leigislative it A,issev1nbly and a former Cabinet Minister, who had subseqi,.ierit.ly' relinquished the post in view of an inquiry launched bythe 'Central Bureau of Investigation and that accused no.9 was _.Minister for Home and Transport of the Government of ._.Karnataka. It was claimed that a few instances had come to their @ 7 notice, which were narrated in detail in a proposed Vco.i_n'p.l_aint, insofar as the acts of criminal conspiracy, criminal _b_i'each' fo.,f"ti.=é.__1_st,_ cheating, receiving illegal gratificat'1.on_ and"i"ar'na_ssin'g "wealth. disproportionate to the known sotirces "inco.rri'€,"»vhi.:i'li..iw¢re punishable under the Various-.._fS'e_ctions of the 'l_ii'('rian" Penal' Code./1887 (hereinafter ifor--br.ei\§Jityi) as well as the provisions of is --'._provisions of the Karnataka 1991 (hereinafter referred to ll By virtue of such acts of alleged that the pecuniary and his family members and others "ex.ceeded.s§'37l .24 Crore and therefore, it was claimed that . in order toensure prosecution against the petitioner, sanction as the PC Act and Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure l973 (hereinafter referred to ' the Cr.PC.' for brevity), was required and therefore, the proposed complaint alongwith a list of documents and witnesses in support of the charges against the accused, was submitted. The proposed 5 8 complaint appended to the representation is at Apnnextireiilﬂ.;l""~to.g the writ petition in WP 32101-103/'20--lyl.

complaint, there were twelve accused iii,£_11131»:3d., while 1'ii.(iicaltingvthat there are many other privatei"p.ersoi1si.

indirectly involved in and that those names would be It was stated in the proposedciomiliiaiiritthati the "petitioner was functioning as the l<arnatal<a from 30.5.2008.

Ear'lier7__he._wast'he~DepL1tyg'C-h1ef~iMinister and Minster of Finance in the Goveifiiineiit headedilay Shri H.D.Kumara Swamy, who was the»»'iC:h:ieti' the period from February 2006 to 9""

' In the proposed complaint, the following instances were alleged against the petitioner and others: ..l.[]a§§tal1C€ No.1 related to the alleged illegal withdrawal from i'--..acqu'isitio1i of lands in Survey No.55/2 at Rachenahalli for 0' ' ----pecuniary gain to the petitioner and his kith and kin. It was alleged that the Government of Karnataka had originally acquired 9 the lands in terms of Preliminary Notification issued by the Commissioner, Bangalore"Development Authority i (hereinafter referred to as ' the BDA'f'for'--brevity),._i '~p1'¢)p'o:sing'to acquire 3339 acres and 12 guntas_Viis'it_uated' in B-ang_alo.re"'N()'ith and East Taluks. respectively, fo1:--~-forniatioii o'f~..tli.€--'E Arkavathi Residential Layout, co'1rnpr=is'ingl';r 'i20OOl§r-,Vl1()'tlS€ sites. More specifically, lan-_;1" l]_l6{lS:Ul'ilVllg'~V::l gtuitas in land bearing Survey No._.5'3,i/'L.i__ "R.ac_he.iialr.I'all'y', Krishnarajapuram Hobli, Bang2ilo,i;e...tsEast"T'al_ul< altsomovne item included in the Notification 'alongwitih _ot'hei"'--lands. Notices were served on the land owners " _ti:e = .l5i.~elimi1iai"y Notification was widely _ pubylijeised thi'oughi:daily newspapers. One Panduranga had filed ,objections in respect of the proposed acquisition, No other person i"had'__file'd any obfjectiions. The said Panduranga was heard in public at R---acheiiiahally village. After considering the objections filed junder' Section 17 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, i '~l_i9'7-6"(hereinafter referred to ' the BDA Act' for brevity), it was V. .,,_decided at the meeting dated 3.2.2004 to request the Government 3 10 to accord sanction to issue Final Notification under .Sectio--ij*.sll8(3) of the BDA Act in respect of 2750 acres of land!' sanction was granted by an order date'd23';2..2C*.Q4,_. .wih-ichlwas duly A j published in the Karnataka Gazette a1id'.the_la1id in of Rachenahalli Village was The Khatedars and . "lands were Smt.Gowranima, Smt.Leela_v'z1tlli~vi,,.l"' and others. An award was pm that the acquisition attained finality and the acquisition tinder challenge. It is alleged that plli'Sl121I1l Notification referred to he1'einabovel;"S_.:l\l;Krishnaiah Setty, one of the accused, who was theni:'aij'Me"inbe1' Legislative Assembly, had obtained a Attorney in his favour in respect of 26 guntas of land in Stirveyi No.55/2 belonging to Gowrainma and another and on thev.s_:iine day, had obtained yet another Power of Attorney in i'espect of another extent of 26 guntas of land in Survey No.55/2 . __.belonging to Panduranga and others. These were registered 6 " Accordin y documents, copies of which were enclosed complaint. This, according to the co_inpl,ai11arits,Twas; .i.1i'*vi"olatvion"» of the PC Act and Sections 3 and <)f_'_Ati*1e 199,1' iilniptgpﬁithe strength of those powers of attorne_y, a sale"deede.'w'a,sexecuted on: 22.3.2006 in favour of accused no..,V2 and accused namely, B.Y.Vijayendra, son of and:nR...N.Sohan"lKumar, son- in-law of the petitioner, Yet another sale deed was of accused no.3, another s<)n€..RVaghavendr21. This was in respectarolllthe'.yftvrtndnsﬂqiri which was the subject matter acquis'it.iori.:'th2alt'..ij:ad""attained finality. Notwithstanding SuCh.CX€CL1Il0I1»O_flSa'l€ deeds, the erstwhile land owners had chosen «..,to "make.'"appl.i,cationsmon 13.9.2008, through the power of attorney 1 ho.ldei',.iaccusletlvno.5, S.N.Krishnaiah Setty, seeking that the land in =S__u1'v_e~y _Nlo,i55/2 be denotified as their families were in dire need of"-the said lands. This was apparently to ensure that while 0 --.concealing the sale transactions in favour of the accused persons aforesaid, the applications were sought to be made through the 5 land owners, for otherwise, any transferee, during the process of acquisition, would not be enabled to make any such application, It is fuither alleged that within eleven days the submission of the application,fthe-.Of'fice_lioci'i:.the .:D.ept1tyi'; i Commissioner (Land Aquisitionj), BDV/'5t.;_ issaid to' have a letter to the Principal Sec1'ei'ary-.to the..G'ovi'e1'n'meiriit, Urban Development Dep211'tineIit;...A_stat_i'ng_that they wereiiiini" receipt of a representation and on exai_ni"nat1oi_i of the irefco_1'el, it was found that the Pi'eli1ni1iai?_y FinallNotifications------had been issued as on 23.2.2004 iii'v..re's--p€t;ct oitiitl1.ei"si:i1i<l: but the award had not been passed', as ._p~erjile"t.ter dated._i24.._9.-2()O8. Acting on the said letter, the Section Oiff'1_ClC1jV had his notings on the relevant file that thezré, was no leg-a.lVimpedirnent to de--notify the lands in Survey ' No.55/2?,ioffRacheiialialli Village, since no award had been passed an»d'fu1"rhe'i5ﬁobiserved that the proposal could be submitted to the D€~IlClvlfl-CEtll()I1 Committee for further action and the file was 't't)i'warded to the Under Secretary, Urban Development __. D€p£1I'tl11Cl1l.

O' n.

13 The Under Secretary, in turn, had concurred with the observations of the Section Officer and had further stated»th'at'after obtaining recommendation of the competent C()n~iinitte,e',"ntihei'i"ile*. could be sent to the Chief Minister fo'1""approv'al. _.Flow_eyer,'.wsiiice i the Joint Secretary had issued a note tio.__irnrnediat'e_-lay"place'thefile before the Chief Minister, it orders. That note was theiiistreingth of the said note, the file was Minister, who passed an aciduiisitiion proceedings in the light of department. The that accused no.1, the petitioner being awai'e__of_the, _l2irids,h'a.vi1ig been purchased by his sons and son»--iin-laiw and i"i'I1___Ql'(1€I' to favour them, had bypassed the iestablished;proc.edure for de--notification of the lands. It is, therefore,poirited out by the complainants that it was apparent from 'thel material available that the real beneficiary of the de~ ."]"i'0,[l_iflC£lilOIl was not the applicant, but the accused referred to as ,._.hereinabove.

6 Pursuant to the order by the petitionei', '

3.11.2008, followed - de--notifying :"the1'_i_siaid 'land l,'111:"gi;j};1e.g£ioh. Thereafter, it is stated that 'theasons "and of the' petitioner, through their atito'1'ne_:y'i holder, one R.P.Deepak, had stibinitted_ail:repi1fese1'1~t,ati~o_n dated 26.2.2009, seeking conversion of No.55/2 of Rachenahalli fiioiri non--agricultural -

residential usei' Diepu't,yConimissioner, Bangalore DistriCtV;iltolWholin addressed, ironically was the Add'1r1oo_a1' La11'ir.l';~Aeq.uis.:i:tio11. Officer in the BDA, who had prepared the"~D1'aft respect of the said land, Considered '"~.__the ._'1fep1'e_sen,tatit)n°an.d----«ha(1 granted permission for conversion of 'thei"l-a11d.__lf1<o'miilagricultural status to non--agricultural residential p'ur.p'oses,i ﬁvjithiili a period of ten days from the date of the 'V represeiiitation. Thereafter, the land, to the extent of 1 acre, was »_so1.;l._bytl1e sons and son--in-law of the petitioner in favour of M/s i_ Elouth West Mining Limited for a sale consideration of R320 2 . __Ci~o1~e under sale deeds dated 22.1 1.2010. 23» The above sequence of events, accordingoitoii complainants, indicated a criminal conspirac.y to illegality pu.1}k:liase 6 the lands, which were under acquisitionjin violation. of°t--he..Vlia'w and the petitioner and other acc-I,rs'ed, who,were'?public'"servants' during the period and sovmepof 'whowere public servants during the pe1'ioidiiio't' thus committed overt-acts, the provisions of the PC Act; Vth"atLiV_the accused had committed offences 6' with 420, 463, 465, 468, 47] of the rec a11diVilr3{3.)_ra11d*l.i3'(.1_)((1li and 13(l)(e) of the PC Act and Sections 3 .,and_ 4 of 1 "Act.

.ii'°Instan.ce 110:2' rel-a't'es to allegation of illegal withdrawal from at Rachenahalli in Survey No.56. According toethe ctimpliainiants, land measuring 16 guntas in Survey No.56 of Raclienahalli Village was owned by one K.K.Kurnar, L.Rajanna, L.R3--niacli211id1'a and Ljanardhana. This item of land was part of the acquisition proceedings referred to in Instance No.1 above. 6 The above persons are said to have filed their"0bj:ectioiis<.to acquisition and no other person '».had_-~f.ijledaa..any" obj'e.cti»~€:}ns. Notwithstanding the same, é'he«--.._acqui-sition proc:ee_diiig§s had» attained finality and a C()I]]p€I1S2t1'lllO"I1v'(Jf_g?l6,.22.,866/-- iicame to be awarded for the land 1ne;.as"u_1'ir;g ;¥.,acreV,¢6."guntas and necessary entries were mad_e as 1iega.r_d's the gland iiaving Vested with the BDA free from"alljenci1niibranc'es.'" = Howeveij"aftervthe"is.s.cuaac:e ofithe Preliminary Notification dated 3'.'Z'.'20C);3j;gant1ifi-;Fiiizil "Notification dated 232.2004 and the award d.fate--d' l..7'Ll2i)'Cl4',l .Kiis_hn_aiali Setty, one of the accused, had made an app_lica_tio'n_ to the Commissioner. BDA, seelcing (16-H()Ill'l€Irl'[lOI1 of 16 guntas of land in Survey No.56 of »Rachen,ah«:1il«i.:V.illage, claiming that the land belonged to him and it HWas-.essential1y;;.required for his family and requested that the land be denotiii i edl The Deputy Commissioner, in turn, by a letter dated sent a report to the Principal Secretary, Urban V. ._I3evelopment Department, indicating that the land measuring 1 2?

l7 acre 6 guntas had been notified, as stated above and out.'of:'t«h_e~asaid extent, 30 guntas were denotified as per Gove1'nme'i';t Qi9dei""rl;at'ed*», 4.5.2007 in favour of one M/s Ma'nyatha for establishment of IT and BT Park made a representation for Section Officer, liowevein./.&_inz1(ié"'"a~ file that was forwarded to l'1lIIl,AV'lIl(llC2ltAll1Vg:" impediment to de--notify the in respect of the land and to be placed before the De--1iotification'i'Co.1ii1nittee"-...and file was forwarded to the Under s§cr:'<§+itai~yi, agreed with the Section Officer. Btttﬁthe 'Principal.Secretary, who was directed to submit the file 't_o"the ..(:l'iief:l\/l_i_niste1', had placed it before the Chief Minister bypassing l;De--notification Committee. The Joint Secretary had instructed the Deputy Secretary, BDA, to furnish a second report in_re'f$pect of the said land. In the second report submitted by the pg p_Iii)eputy Sec1'eta1'y, it was indicated that though acquisition proceedings had been completed, possession of the land had not 5 18 been physically taken by the BDA. Joint"'Secretariyatalging. cue from that observation, had opined that m¢ie_'was<ng legal impediment to de-notify the landas physiical possession wastnot', taken of the same. The file was p'lac:ed*bef.ore the Chief Minister, who in turn, passe_d the the opinion expressed that there was demotify the land and accoi*ding];y,'ﬂiiistriietedl.:t'he'~.concerned' to drop the land acquisition of the said land. The complainantslwoiildiifiseek'-to"poirit"ontthat Krishnaiah Setty, one of the accii-S¢d.4i_w';1s of the land at any point of time and tlie1'efor'e, ide-riotificatrioii at his instance by the petitioner and the .»ftlftll€l' conve.rs'1_onA.of the land from agricultural to non- .agricult_ural -.pu~rposes, on the basis of a representation made by ll'-;ri'i§;.1inai'ali_~_vS__e'tty"on 1.4.2009 and an order so converting the land dated 2.5i.200'9, was patently illegal. So was the subsequent sale to comp'a*ny called M/s Davalagiri Property Developers Private it Limited (hereinafter referred to as ' the DPDPL' for brevity) , .. Wwliich was named as an accused in the complaint and in which, 8 19 sons and son-in-law of the petitioner were holding".1/5%-«.o'f shares and were directors of the company, ha_viirg..'purchased ii same under a sale deed dated 6.5.2009 for :11. :'saie. c'onsidei1fa.t_io;; of ?60,()O,()00, which continues to heil'd_iiby the.ve.oiripa11y'3 complainants have, therefore, iiivoked identicalip'1'ovis§ions of law as in the case of I1istance'no._l,'.to hold'-Vti:vat"tihe accused are guilty 011; offences punishable _.u.nder the.,vai'ious~--iSections referred to I]lSlaI}CiCii"21.Q:i3_...p€l'[a1:lI1S:.'IQ "illegal allotment of Site no.1 in Raj lIlE1l'1£'1'i"'V.ilti'S',:. EXl'Ql'.Sl(3~ﬂ: to acc~us.ed'i no.3, one of the sons of the petitioner and Site.'hr).2,iii-the said extension to one Smt. Bharathi Shetty, a M"e~inbe1'_C;_f tiieilgegislative Council by the petitioner in "v..his'i:icapaeity't. as tliefirief Minister of the State. According to the c'onipla_i'n.ants;this was in violation of the Bangalore Development Aiu-t,ho1'i_ty~iQiiiiliotiiieiit of Sites) Rules, 1984 (hereinafter referred to To/ls ' tliev...li984 Rules' for brevity')-i as the son of the Petitioner did not_,fall under the category, under which he was purportedly ._.allotted the site, since he was already holding a site measuring 3 50'x80' purchased under a registerecldocunient» datedi'lCZ¢7.2.:Ql)t4 from M/s Manyata P1'o1noter's-.__P1'ivat.e i"l,in1i.t,::d' 'and he constructed a three--storied house giteri Ac_cuaied.iino.3, one of the sons of the petitioner:beiiig'aHiVMtenibei1of l3airliai1ne1it and a public servant, had thus conrrnititeddishonest intention and accused bosition in order to Show unduei'favioi1i'.itolhi.a _ Avd--decl_t'oi_thiiégyiit iaistated'--t.hat.~the land in Survey No.22/5 ineastiiing =31 belonged to one Shri Muniswamappaty SintI;'l"l1iné.makka, Shri Doddavenkatarayappa, Shri._Ch1kl<appan-aipba, and Shri Munichinnaiah, which was VBDA as per Final Notification dated 2.8.1978 and subsequently in the year 1982 and l983.

In the year-.l.«i988, 21 guntas, out of 33 guntas of land in Survey 34"»V.'No;.22/4"»-anti 21 guntas, out of 31 guntas of land in Survey were transferred by the BDA to the NTI Society, which .. formed a layout adjoining the land in those survey numbers. There was remaining extent of 12 guntas of land in Survey inference can be drawn that only at the instanceofi:the"petitioner,g the above sites were formed and registration of the lease-cum-sale 21_greeirieiit'*i)11 i i It is further alleged that Stiit..it:l:3il121_rathiii a2§Miember of the Legislative Council V litei_thie'Bharatliyziiilzinata Party and a sitting MLC _.o_f"th'e,iii__1'fep1'esentation, was promoted by the site bearing No.50 measuring 5il)ix8lj)77 "i'n5'..Rajinah'a-l.__Vilas Extension [1 Stage, Fourth Block, as "p't",1T_l2illjl~:O[IlliiCf'..jl'i'¥ d'ate'd il5.i6';'3(:)t"i9 by the BDA in terms of a Government'Ordieriiilatedg:Z8_,i2';Z0O9 issued in respect of allotment of stray site"::.._'in '_Gi'l Category. lnspite of the same, Smt.Shetty had apprrjiachetil the ipevtitiorier for allotment of Site no.2, adjoining Site form6d'~..in the aforesaid 22 guntas of land which was "'a.vaii_lali3l'e ii'i_i.,Raj:'iriahal Vilas Extension Il Stage, and this was duly approved' bylthe petitioner. It is alleged by the complainants that :"'Sn1t.Shet--ty had made an application along with an affidavit dated ii -20;.6.i2()O9 seeking allotment of the said site and incidentally, the u _gvai'fidavits filed by accused no.3, the son of the petitioner and 3 Ix) DJ Smt.Shetty, were sworn to before the_sam_e Notaryl tl'urther,=-thel ~ to lease-cum--sale deed in respect of Site,no;'1Zrwaslicdulyexecutediand registered on 29.10.2009 and possessiortn-..wasV hande§dv.0yer}on the' very same day. Subsequently, bo>:.hll'ac_cused..no;3; son of the petitioner and Smt.Shetr_y../hzid separately, seeking permission to sell before the expiry of the lease he to have been placed before the applications however, were rejected'siI'1'c--e:i'igwasxfiiimpermissible"under the Rules to immediately sell thelre_af'te1'.' have made a representation to the Commissioner,BDA,'fo1'e..a'inalga1nation of their respective sites which was also 'reje_c_ted. It is further alleged that both accused li5p1nt.'Sh_etty had applied for sanction of plans, which was i'e1u1y_giegﬁtela 15.5.2010 and 28.6.2010, respectively. The p1'o'pose.d"l1ouses were identical as per identical plans submitted. same Architect had prepared both the plans and both the ' -.ho-uses were constructed by the same contractor and the stages of .__cbnstruction progressed simultaneously till the site was % 2010.

It is further stated that yet:"=pan:o_itihe1' ll'l'€ig'LI.li:2l:i;--l:[.y surrendered by accused no.3 during the third o'f,Octoberq committed by the petitioner w'a:;.uo'i'~de1'ing" de-notiific'a.tio*nwinade in C favour of one G.Selva Kuniar 'oftheiland..to~an extent of 14432 Square Feet in Survey.A.?i.£2;'.5_V of Nagashettihalli Village, which vvas' ea1'1itarl{ediif()ir: space and civic amenities as:_we~ll__ denotified in favour of a personvwho:'wias_' of the balance area and whose Ljlairn the Civil Court as well as this Couit, ha(l.__been ii'ejec«te--rl: was a rank trespasser without any legal ;right and-.the"documents set up by him were declared as .i"'fraud1i.leEni1' byzthe The petitioner, being fully aware of this if ~fac.t;,~ resident of the same area for more than fifteen yearsiaiid 'having been brought to his attention by one Anil *._Lad cltzrini-g the tenure of the petitioner as the Deputy Chief i"--iM.inist;ei', this de-notification was more or less during the same 3 Nagavara Village, in favour of a House Building Soc:-iety: lu.1:lt)'--v\/if as, Vyalikaval House Building Co-operative.S'ocietyll.l" ll It is stated that one Akktamina andlothershacliiapproached, the BDA with an application ()nl""4;l;fl;20()9,lto a road measuring l8 metres to l0 in the said layout. The that from an examination oE_'the"A;1jec(w1'd.g, is as Akkamma in existence; s'ti?;'jl1lllla'---duhiousSapplication, it is alleged that petiltionlei', who had approved the amalgalmatlion was a total extent of 32572 Square Feet',"u.an" oyijderlltol that effect was issued on 29.3.2010 by This am2tl~gai'nation, including the sites, totalled 265702 ilfor which the BDA had collected the layout bettellrmentl'charges amounting to ?7.2 Crore during the year 2009 at ll1C'~1'€(;_]Ll6St of Akkamma even though there is no record to indicate that Akkamma was the owner of Site numbers 1 to l(). llfhellsaid Society was to handover the road area to BDA under a S relinquishment deed before the release Qpfany s.i't"e"s'_third--parti_es'." .p By virtue of the aforesaid aniz1lga1i1atio'iL .. merged with the aforesaid sitessalt-appaltrysum of feet. This, the complainants wash' conspiracy between the petitioner, 'C.0'1np1"ilsiini4§ of his sons and son--in--law and the L ii _ It is l'UF[l":l..€}":'«lvll'.(.'.g€C'l:"{hill Society had engaged the services? idol". ,fPartner M/s Sree Shakti sold Site nos.6./8 and l() measuri'r.1g app;'0Xirrratelty3.0272 Square Feet and another area of land n1easui'si._ng 5 " No.87/2a and 9 guntas of land _ in S,.Li§i$"vley~ No.8;//'3. to one Smt.B.Parvathi and others, under four s§»n_30.4.2o08 and 5.5.2008, which was totally in l'CQIl1if_1_'£l.iV€'f1:flQll1 Societ)/'s allotment Rules, on the pretext of having g'iVen" land in lieu of payment due to the developer. :'"TAhepi'eafte--r, Smt.B.Par\/athi and others are said to have sold those ll :"l1_L£'O"t1.l_' other' items of land on 6.5.2008 to one B.G.Channappa. Shri __Klanial Pasha, Shekarappa and Dhanya Kumar. The complainants 6 seek to urge that Akkamma was a fictitious p€1"S.GZ-1 Vairicl was not the owner of the land in Site N0s.6.8__angl_lliQ. and": the behest of the petitioner that the 18 metre wide roa,d7.w:as ieariinarkeds with the sites at the instance of the.non--exist'ent'"A--l{kainma and the above transactions were,e'ffected;"'Flhisj iyfiirtheryevident from the fact that Channappa, Kamal ;_Pas"ha*ai1d__Shelcaiappa have sold Site no.lO to Dpoiéiimirier deed"_daVted'}lvi8.6.2Ol(). This is a private limited'"c.orn_pany and" the *.dinectoirs are the two sons of the p€tlfl0I1€'1""3.|1dV'hl'S.iSQ.l2rlII':l£i\N'. 'T-his.vw<)ul(l categorically establish that tl1e:"'gi'and desig'i'i.s4oi?.ginaaligaiination of the public road with the aforesaid site,nos.V il~__to'.lC'«w21s that of the petitioner and his family m€v_lTl'b€IS; with the cl.e,_arvintention of taking over the 18 metre wide 'iioa'd.in_ciear_Violation of the law and by misuse of his official position. ' A"c.co:rding to the complainants, the approximate loss that has ioccluijred to the State is in the area of ?24.26 Crore and the appareiit' gain to the aforesaid company would be about ?l6.26 ._CrQr:e.

S Instance no. 5 relates to the illc-iggal 2_1Allt)jtn'ien't'A(>el7__a'siteito one R. P. Shankar said to be the inaternal uncle-- of they.pe.tAit'io'11ei"7s"son=-.L in-law. It is alleged that the petititiner while iuncitiiioiniiig the leader of Opposition 'on 31 pinadeia' repi'esentation to the then Chief : recommending the allotment of V" Chief Minister, in turn, is saidyto Principal Secretary, Departrnent this regard to grant a house site. _he._ turn, issued a direction to the Comm.issio_n'eii, Bi>'AiIa-.: pc.;}ipV1ette1~ dated 24.5.2005. On 28.6.2005, the Q'}~,.i5.f M"in.iSter'is 'said to have issued a direction to the

---,-_Con3niisAsione1', B'DA;"'to allot a site bearing no. 33A in HSR Layout. An allotment letter was accordingly issued on l7.6'.'2005 said Shankar, subject to a condition that the same was not alienable for a period often years. Possession of the site vyzis*~.deliyerecl to him on 1 1.8.2005.

In violation of the above condition of non--alienation within ii .. ._t__lie lease period, the said Shankar had conveyed the said site in 5 30 favour of his sister Smt. Vinodha Nataraj, the mothei*vo_f. S€).l].--ii in--law of the petitioner, by way of l.;3_l0'.i2007. This transfer was duly regularized at the i'nstaI1ceiofthe" sa'i.'d*S1nt.y Vinodha, on her representation the petitioner assuming tlile._.of'ficc"of as per the Transfer Certificate iss 1 0.2008.

Even though; been regularized on the undertal;;i'ngg_««.of"iivSImt: she would not effect any further igthe (:1[Ii'il].gv"iIi1€ lease period, she had executed in favour of the son--in--law of the petitioéneij. iTl1iis'.t1'ans;fe1' was again regularized by the BDA as origlii4;'9.20l0,"total violation of the Rules. Incidentally, the ,s'0n-in--law., ,vvh_o is arrayed as an accused, is said to be the owner of «several h;o_use"properties in Bangalore . 4' Iristai'ice no.6 relates to the de--notification of land in survey ,0no;.,.8l/3"measuring 2 acres 5 guntas of Arakere village Bangalore 0' --,.sout_h5talL1k and the subsequent purchase of the same by persons as if .0 Wbéenamidars of the family members of the petitioner. 5 It is stated that the BDA had issued__ a final".

notification dated 8.9.1987 and 28.7.11-:9«9(.i:'."1'espeetivel'y1Surideritphe BDA Act, in respect of land"measuring 2 iV.3'1.....guiitas in' Survey 110.81/3 of Arakere. AI1___§1iW.a._I'('..._»W21S "passed in respect of the same as on 28.7.l99()"ar{d_ was :notil'ie:d tinder' Section 16(2) as on 16.6.1994.

One land measuring 2 acres f1'O11.l:VvOI3::1€i sale deed dated 15.4.1998. She liad" to the petitioner dated 21.6.2010 stating possession of the above extent of the afo1_'esaid'"landVa.n'd that "the revenue records stood in her name. p_ Tha"t'~ihowe\/er, the'*'kl1_a_t_e.dar was shown as one Jayarama Reddy. It furtlieif claimed that the said land was needed by her to eke out hence the same ought to be dropped from the acq"u.isiti__on proceedings. The said representation was forwarded to the Principal Secretary Urban Development Department on 1' It is said that a report was called for from the BDA as 1 .6 the status of the lands.

5.;

to Further a similar representation was made by :_(_t)I1i€i"li\../l"\',--\.l__1:i'e1*'t'.':._T_iiij_v in respect of 3] guntas of land in survey nQ_8_i. ii and was similarly dealt with.

The BDA had submitteda re_port,iidated. 27;7'.i?.}(:)»l_Q,V narrating. the stages of acquisition p1'oceediiigs,v had coifnplied with and the fact that the stood BDA.

The Under. Secre,ti~*ry? ts.t1a:i;ii'4ie.iieieiai the file that the acquisition hence the question of was incidentally noted that the land' had remaine'd and the layout was not formed over the same; that the land owners continued in possession ._()IN*"'£h6'7 saime and had also not claimed the ,.4.,corripieri{sation_in of the land. The file was then placed 1 ~.. before p'etrtiojne r.

The pfetitioiiei', in his capacity as the Chief Minister had passed-aii order to the effect as only 21 guntas of land had been i' --,.u'tili_1Zed in the total extent of land acquired, namely, 2 acres 31 .. __guntas. the remaining vacant land which had not been utilized for 5 33 the purpose of formation of the layout be released in fa;«v"mii"««_of_the applicants as a special case and on humanitarian--*.rl:g'rovu.nd'si Thei':

land was duly denotified as per order dareas 7.s.e2<)iaf if ii' It is stated that an extent of iguntas the .7. iacresilof land, which was denotified as was a deed dated ll.8.20lO in"ti:;;ivp0ui*iwife of one M. Manjunath who is of the petitioner.

Similarly was executed in favour Ilt._Ais._ pointed out that the petitioner has actively fa"ci.l'itatVedithe1appa_rently illegal transactions, which were

- V. p_ othV_e'r~3,wisie not possib__l_e_, .

V _li'n.tstan'c.ei"'no. 7 relates to de--notification of 9 guntas of land in l and 14 guntas of land in survey no. 10/ l lF of Lotteggollahalli, Bangalore North Taluk in favour of R.Ashok, ._presjefntly the Minister for Home and Transport of the Government ii V. Karnataka. It is stated that the BDA had issued Preliminary and Final Notifications dated 3g.l978 and 2.8.1978, respectively, in 34 respect of acquisition of lands for the formation of Vil-as A Extension Il Stage, comprising of (:ight_Aivillag'e_s'.=__ 'Theiiiabgove extent of land in the above survey niirnbers were also in{;luded.j After complying with all otheriiiifoiriii;a_luities'~ajnotifiicatioii under Section 16 (2) was (')I]~i_i:il that one Muniswamappa arid the khatedars of the is said to have sold the in the year 1963, who in turn litid of one Gullamma, as on 26.4.l9:7'34 Thus of the said land as on the date of the _Pi'elii*ni1iaii_v'Not~ifiic~¢itio1i. After her demise, her sons are SOlcli"i[l'vi€....l._3'l1(l to R.Ashok, as on 26.2.2003, when he ..Member___of the Legislative Assembly. Sheds had been coi'is.t1*L1ct'ed~.,on;"the said lands, which the BDA removed as on 25i'6.20.09, -treating the land as BDA property.

stated that on 16.10.2009 one G.Shamanna and others liasdifnade representation to the petitioner claiming that out of 18 .. __guntas of land acquired in survey no.l0/1, belonging to their % Q.) L!) family BDA had utilized only 9 guntas for forming the ring road and the re1naini'n'g~.9p gLintasii'c-ould t_hus"?be ' released in their favour. The said; re.presentatio.n _wa:s'«._.t'hu.s fraudulent as the land had al1'eady_be_e11 so'ld_in faiv-oLi'r._o'frR.'Ashol<.V d On the said rep1'esentatio_n the BDA to obtain a report as to the was confirmed that out of 18 guntas oflarid and the remainder was not that in view of the notificatmny uiiidliei' been issued, the same may not be la,yai«lz1bl/eiiiforv.beit1iE%"fleno'titiied and released in favour of the land ownieisgw N the legal impediment being brought to atet.entiori',.twhe petitioner who had directed the file to be had passed an order approving the de-

"'no'tii_fication3_of.i_"tl'ie aforesaid land. Accordingly, an order dated 3l.'l«2.2(}_'{)9.v§/as passed de--notifying 9 guntas of land in Survey No.lO/lain favour ofl\/Iuniswamappa.

" An identical modus was adopted in so far as land in Survey .t 10/11F was concerned. This item of land was also purchased 5 by R. Ashok under a sale deed dated 12.11.2()e07e.i:"'..Th'e;pe'tititiitar* had passed an order to de--notify the land to 'a.ni"exterit_o'f_el.4i"gnntias of land and accordingly an ordereswas on 1' Instance no.8 relates to ot'.i.pe.gti1.tiafy M/s Bhagath Homes Priva.tee 1irn.i't'etl...ii._:a iconipariiy'p*ron'ibted by the kith and kin of the petitiioiner.' said company was i1icorpo1'at_e(1--::as..eon capital of ?500 lakh. company was 31 lakh as on .'T;l1£: c.o:1npt1iiiy'*~---w.a.sl initially promoted by Smt. Mariakaifa Prema 'aridiSnit:._T'eja'swi11i Raghavendra, the daughters~ in-law of the petitioiier. = The son--in--1aw, Shri Sohan Kumar was indntitiedatas a with effect from 14.10.2008. The paid-up was ?2l0,000 as on 1.3.2010. The main object of the i"C_()'ni_pany:'w,ast.iVvnd'icated as development of landed properties and inv"e'st1iie'iit-.ii1 properties to earn rental income. The assets ' 4"-.e""pt1rchas'e--d have been treated as fixed assets. The complainants 1 :.cl'ain.r that the total investments in fixed assets as per the audited 1 .. Jfinattcttti statement as on 31.3.2009 was ?467.22 lakh. Z It is stated that during the financial year yithe company has received advances from M/s _Sri_ii'~-BalaN1*i'Krupa ' Enterprises, the proprietor being Krishna_iah'rVS'ettyA 'a1_1_d'--.from_one Praveen Chandra. The £1ClVaI1CV€'S.SO reCe_ived are~no.t:irelatabile tom» any projects undertaken by complainants therefore allege that Of illegal gratification indirectly ti'ansferredvi'faveui'~i:iig--i.tiiei.i--petitioner. Further"E_heii}:iompany a sum of ?2 crore from one reflected as share application inoneyiiii financial statement of the compaiiyfoi' the Subsequently, the amount has been.u--tilized"forallotriient of one lakh equity shares to Sohan i"v..Ku'ma1'oiie lak'h"'ieqLiity shares to B.V.Brahmara, a close i._.rlelatiive_jofuthe peititioner. The reason for such advances, according to 'the compilgaiiiants is nothing but illegal gratification received by the petitioner through the medium of the above company and its W.directors, for favours granted by him. The details of which are T .. ,_sltated under. It is claimed that one Gundappa and Venkatamma é were the owners in possession of lancliin Survey no, of'Aga'ra village, Bangalore South TalL1l<,Vmeasur__in'g_2 acres a'nd=5i iguntasi, The BDA had issued P1'elimi11a1'y'v.ai"rdFinalinotiﬁégltiioztisiiitinder the BDA Act, as on l5.l2.lv98é1 a11c&li"l'5i...l_:2.l98o, respectively, for the purpose of acquisition of above, for the formation of the 1'es'ideiiiti.al in Tgaiiyaalore. The award amount towartll's in court, as there was said__toVibe2%1- land owners of the above lands. f is said to have been taken on 30.6.1988. __A pnoti.fica:tioiii'~..tinde'i' Section 16(2) of the BDA Act, was also issued on 2}] .

acquisii't'ioii...w21s questioned by the land owners before the'courts«.and"'thie same were pending in various stages. BDA, to form the layout and Sites bearing no.l5l7 to formed in the land acquired from the above land ._ow:nei's. "The owners' sustained efforts from inception to have the T l:_in"cls'de~iiotified had been futile. The De-notification Committee u ._c__onstituted by the Government in the year 2003 , had rejected the S 39 claim of the owners as per order dated 9.6.2004. _l;i'(i--wfeVV\.I..le_i'1§I'with the petitioner assuming the office of the ChieffMi'riister, the Principal Secretary Urban Develo'pme_nti.:'Depa11n'ient.:f-si.__at=a;ttlie instance of the petitioner, is sa_id--._to have cztlled 'Al;O:I'v«..{;1_"1'6ipOIT respect of the said lands by .ll]€'.S:a'A11]V¢l:5day' as pa letter dated 23.l().20()9:' _V approved by the Commissioner _ H lPlrincipal Secretary, UDD, on 2€')4.ll possession of the said the Engineering Section of the but layout plan, the aforementioned sites, had been ._shown to have been formed. There were however sevie1'al:"Asiieds.and other construction on the said property as on the It was also stated that there was a writ petition in 'WP v~.1:706ii<l)/2006 and a civil suit in os 16827/2006 which were

2 in courts relating to the said lands. Based on the said the petitioner had passed an order to de--notify the land. In furtherance of the same, a Government Order was duly issued on 6.1.2010. It is stated mire complainants that the petitioner had 40 opined that in View of an order of temporary i1'*g'__u11(:t'iQn' in the pending suit, possession of the land-hadreniained_wi'th the land i owners and therefore there was no impe.dirne11t'~to--rlve;n(;fifTyi"the land. This according to the --e{jmplain'a11_ts' "a._v"1'nis'lieading interpretation of the actual ci;#Q.;:inj§.tai1»::gAes. ii the land owners had immediatelyi"'appliedffdi' of the land in question for norifagrihcultu1'al"pu:i~poses_and duly accorded on 22.2.2010. :~hig: i6b0() square feet of land was coriyey 1311: .i2()lO for '{'l .76 Crore and a11otl1e1*_:_'feet under a sale deed dated 5.3.2010i"f91~ _a "ilakh, in favour of M/s Elyon DeVe_lope_rs Private"Ltd.i"represented by its Director S. S. Ugendar. ii"The'2'actua'l rnarket value of the land so conveyed according to the was ?74.5() crore. Hence, the complainants would concultidev, thejainottiit paid to the above company, Bhagath Homes, Hwas illegal gratification as the petitioner had facilitated the illegal de--_1_1o?;il'ication and subsequent transfer. .5 classification was cancelled and the lands reVe1'tecl,"las vagi'iellult,u'i'all'x lands. There after to facilitate the procurement.'lof ' purposes of the Society-- the lands were7.se'iectiVe_l'y,classiiiiedlas residential zone ~ the entire exe1'c--i.sle~~according to thell"eo'mplainants was engineered by the vpetitio1ieti*"aln'd. l{rishnaiahv--.Setfy. It is in consideration of the fzivloiliiis' -the petitioner that illegal gratificatiofn Setty to the petitioner thrc)'u'gl]V if} i the--v.r.eais()n for Praveen Chandra to pay anladvanceoif c1=o_i'e...'_to Bhagath Homes and 33.5 crore to DPDPL , was"illelg2tl'l"gAi'2:»tification indirectly paid to the petitioner, as isiisought tonibeédenionstrated with reference to the following . c'ircurnstanceis;._ Iti:s*~..s_tated""that Praveen Chandra was allotted the following items lands by KIADB :

z'7v(.)i:' acres at Machenahalli -- Honnavile Industrial Area, S.hirnoga District in favour of M/s Ramamurthy Minerals and 8 in 43 Metals P. Ltd, with Praveen Chandra being its.pro:rnoteif'director, as per letter dated 4--l--2007 ;

Another 30 acres of land in the same i1l1dAulsti'ial 'area in favour of the same company o1i'ithe~.sfamei'day.. _ ' ., The petitioner had._al's0 g.ranted wmining lease for Iron ore and Manganese ore in an veuxtent :l3Z';30'hect~ares in Ramajjana halli Kaval and;*'Ma:lVltapuiia_ vigllaggesg iHo"sad__Lii'iga Taluk, Chitradurga District, ini" fz1\_fC)'t1r'l.lo--.f'. l3'ié';;vleevn.':Ai--Chandra as per order dated 30.9.2Q09and.:irQtiliE§};itioin'slatedil_l2;"1(l2()1().

Instance no.9, ac_C"oi:;ding to the complainants, related to the peCi1i%liary~ advantagelv'i'eer:ived by DPDPL. The said company was :lincoi*po_ra:ted_onv27.3.2006 with an authorized Capital of $500 lakh. capital of the company was ?5l,5l,OOO as on 3li.3.,_20(_).9; Tlie company was promoted by the two sons of the V"wpClIl[lOl1§l":'3.lOl1g with his son--in--law and one Ashok Kumar. The had no major projects on hand. The company had 5 44 however, invested in properties and the same were treate_d~ as fiixeclp assets and this was at ?407.67 lakh '.3.,2l009L During the year 2007-08, ?2 crore paii(l'.,l)y..<:>1ie"

Developers, a partnership firm o1'*.y§/'liiych one__Pi'alg:ashl"Shet'ty0 was a' partner. And during the,.--year lakh was received from the same in the financial statements of the coiripanyr T also received advances _t.l;i?;;' ,lproprieto1' of which was These amounts are obviougiiy notitowai:ds«.ar1y.:iseit_vice's rendered by the company, and can only the gratification for favours shown by the 'petitioner-.» U complainants cite the following instances to Vsubpstantiate theallegatioitz 00 Gowda was the khatedar in respect of lands at Hebb._alav_Amajnil<e1'e in Survey No. 6/2A and 6/2 measuring 1 acre 0' "36 guntas and 23 guntas. respectively. And one Ramaiah was the A in respect of land in survey no. 6/2B of the same village 0 0 waslabove, measuring 23 guntas.

6 45 The BDA had notified the above lands ioittierqi items of land for the formation of the 'Ill Stage; Bangalore per preliminary and final notificatiionsh.

20.1.1995, respectively. An z1wa'rdi1'"or 'passed on 11.10.2005. Inspite,thati'ithei...iland'3._Aaforementioned were converted for no1i--agi'ici1ltt1;ral 'Was Purchased by Trishul Developers'ftiiideif dated 30.10.2004.

After such a Writ petition in WP 25702/20051,. _'c'l1alleif1;gin;g-.9 the acquiisition proceedings. That petitionlwas In the meanwhile a sum of 32.75 croreis ti'ansiferre_d"asu..'tcominission and 375 lakh as advance to DEDP1, and an application to the petitioner seeking de- .not.i_ficatioin ofthe said lands. The petitioner had, in turn, secured A"the'*-c_0ncc11.*i'ieid per letter dated 4.8.2008, by-passing the De- notifi.cat:'.__on-Committee and as the Chairman of the High Level ' _iCom1nit'tee constituted under the Karnataka Industries Facilitation i"iAct,._ has cleared the purported project of Trishul Developers so Wtoiestablish a 5 Star hotel, serviced apartments and office space, in (5 3% 46 the Very same land, as per order dated thereafter ordered to be withdrawnlifroni theg"'i.acqu--isition proceedings as per order dated if Further, an extent of 33 guntaspof land' in 21/.3' of Kempapura village which to said lands of Hebbal Amanikere haslbeiehn acquisition on the order of the petiti_oner, justified by the petitioner on_ Section 16(2) of the BDA this was in the face of other glsaringl:ina'tei'iali.to .ind.i_'cate that notwithstanding the possible absence of at notifigciaitioni'under' Section 16(2), the vesting of the land uiider the ac,quis"i.tio'ii proceedings was complete in all The colrnplainants had thus contended that the co- _in'ci:d'enc'e,_ofi"the"--actions of the petitioner and the simultaneous by DPDPL is difficult to be considered as anythingbut illegal gratification.

(Z 49 from Dr Shetty under a sale deed dated consideration of 33.75 Crore , when the actual rnar-:ket_va_lue'wasln excess of ?54.45 Crore. L L L L L A P A L Instance no.1] relates tolllliithiei acqulilsiitioinllloflllfgiininovable property for the benet'itlo:f. Private Limited of land in vSurvey_r_1oi' -37:/'lZZio._iiP;-achenahally . The complainants statefitlliat Solutions Pvt. Ltd. was a 3llll,§6;v2005 with an authorized capital of of the company was 31.50 lakh. "Phe were Smt. N amrata Shilpi and Smt. S.Y... U1nad.evii--V_itl'ieiil daughter of the petitioner. Both the held 75UO.....sha1"es each. Smt. Shilpi also represented SOA.Ma_ti~'ix;'So'ftware Pvt. Ltd, as a Director on behalf of Bhagath Homes held 277930 equity shares of SOA 'V Matriixz "Haericle, there was a direct connection between all the three companies.

Z> S.S. Ugendar had advanced 8_,S.L.llI_] ofA.sh-a_rei'7 application money to Bhagath Homes. ;"'Thisaccordiﬁg"teA.go'i'?1t_he complainants was illegal g1'atificat'i*o_Vn forland me'zrsuri'ng_2 acres guntas of Agara village being_idenotifiediiag..i:ali'eady narrated hereinabove. _ _ _ M M It is alleged that Ugendar are actually acting; "foiriii.ith.e_.___petiitioner and are his benamidars purchase of denotified land through~'a'(letuifct Zone Advisors Pvt. Ltd, which tapkenio til]. 24.6.2009, by purchasing lO00O paid up sharesiiiie It is also ial'leged the complainants that one Smt. Suguna, .wife_ cfVil?.ecl4c:1'y.vVeei'ann21 and her family members were major iib.en5e__fji:ci'arii'e.s_ oif*'ile--noti1"ication of large tracts of land. The coniplait1arits~i"'had indicated in tabular form the particulars of the Vi'"land , the "date of final notification for acquisition, the date of de- A' -notification and order , as well as , the subsequent purchaser after up Hthie de--notification.

Z ' 57/1.

2. 04/1'--

2 . /: I l Name Sy. No. Extent Date of de-- l Date of Name ofthe Value Name ofthe of one denotiﬁ n0tifieatio11 issue 0fl"111al actual oftlie.» party who has village ed in and order notit"1cz1tion beneficiaries p:Qpe1't~.._ subsequently acres no N }aa§§'p_eat '*pL1rehase the "t'l'1e_' '~ _l_an_d for a _ .111arl<tetl 9 _e0nSi_derati0n Value. 7' ~ 7* 'T 1123.

7 lakhs) .9 2 1 4 S 67 "-7 _ V "9' Rachen 79/4 0~10~8 03.11.2008 23.2.2004 snir.st1"n;1141a 1540 M/s Manyata ahally UDD 372_ *.._vReddy" H Realty for MNX 2(108=~.. ' .0 daughter of $40.50 Lakhs ~ 0 i. .:R.edd,y vide sale deed 1 V'»ejera11'.11a no 2699 dated 1* * 9' V' '1 7' 29.7.2010 '03f}=1'.13O()8._=.__ _ M/s Manyata 79/4 0~l0--8x 5:.UDD 370 v.23._.2.'2004 Smt 540 Realty for

-------- ~ _ Sangeetha 340.50 Lakhs 7" 7 V _ Reddy Vide sale deed

6 " daughter of no 2699 dated 1' Reddy 29.7.2010 _ _ I ' , Veeranna Rachen 07/1. 0-24 " .03.-17i.2()'(-)8 ' Smt. 1200 ahally._ 78/8,51' UDD 368 23.2.2004 Shankunatha ' 178/1'0. " A. MNX2008 la Reddy Rachen 39/2b_ 7.6.2010 23.2.2004 Doddappa 9276 Smt.R.Suguna ahally 2 ~. X 6 ~ 6' UDD 456 Smt. w/0 Sri.Reddy

50./4' 0" ''v.'l§/INX 2009 Yashodamm Veeranna 20 51/3, a. and Guntas in . 5l/ll" R.Suguna Sy.N0.5l/l ' 055/ l 54 Hemachandra Sagar, who was a sitting MLA officialgg position to ensure that possession of the_a1'oresa'id' landgwas__not taken over by the BDA .

It is stated that by Tailettterhidatedd:'l2l:6iZ(}(t)§, Di.' Hemachandra Sagar, on behalf of-Ma.h*athm_a Gandhi Vidhya Peeth Trust had requested the peti'tio'ner_to:::le:notify'the above said land on the ground 1'equired-jto.provide residential quarters for Students and th.__ 'D_ay-antand Sagar Institutions, giving the impyreissioii..y_ltl1a*:;,__the be--l.on_ged to the said Trust. The petitioner in turnfobtainsl'a.re'p.ort from the BDA , where it is noted that the land had l;ee'i:.lA'acV(i'ui1'ed but no layout was formed as on The"'p.e_titlione_r promptly proceeds to order that the land in dropped from the proceedings.

15.10.2009, the Sahyadri Health Care is inco'rporatedV.l~'with Dr. Hemachandra Sagar as a major share A iholdei', along with the two sons of the petitioner as the other share holcleiis. A sum of ?3.35 is received from Sagar Health Care as T .0 _Ms_l§are application money. This according to the complainants was 3 55 not consistent with the fact that the authorized capital» Health Care was only 35 lakh and it w.£1$ﬂfL1lly<"paid:iupilasvioii date of incorporation itself. It is therefojre A.apptarent:l'that:i"ti--he'?1the above amount received fi'o1n7S'a.gar Health C"ai*e.ﬂ'.v.as .§illegz:lf gratification towards the 'favour petitioner in de- notifying the said item of 2 lnstance relates de-notification of land in survey by the petitioner for the gain through another. It is stated that the 1 acre 7 guntas was notified along with lot-he1~.land_s i1°oi' 'a.iéiiqL1isitic>n under the BDA Act, for the pp formai'tioni'ofvthei iB--TJ\_/l___I.V Stage layout. It is stated that the said proceedings lltldvbeell completed in all respects by 5.8.2000. In so far asthe' al)fove',land was concerned, it was utilized to form a civic aineiiity area» and was assigned site no. 4A, 4B and 4C. 00 transpires that one Saira Education Society had applied and was allotted a civic amenity site in the AECS layout, @ 56 Kundalahalli, measuring about 27(l{)""'g.q1iz11"tf 1neltre's,lf()fr, the' purpose of establishment of an educatioiial in'stitu.tion,"per allotment letter dated 29.] l.2002«..V:_lT.hough had' been paid, the site had not been ha.n:cl¢.;l_t)"J_e1*.

Subsequently, the alternative civic amenity site bearing no. on 21.3.2007 to the said Sticietyi issued along with delivery of 1: s'aidlt§t Society had also put up construction h. V lzadi applications for the allotment of otherpycivvic ari;e_nity...site's to deserving bodies. The said Society ,.i_hadv-.rni'ad_e,an Agappliciation in respect of an adjoining site bearing Lino.' B."'--v7lﬁhi.s"xvas.allotted by the BDA pursuant to the application. A lease agree._1nenlt was executed as on 10.4.2008. In? " the meanwhile one Kamakshamma of ii i4"'-0lg"Devarachil<l<anahalli filed a civil suit in OS 25020 /2008, claiming to'be:'the owner of the land in its former state in Survey no. 51/l .0 sought injunctory reliefs against the above Society from (3 57 putting up construction. She had earlier representations that had been igno1'e~;i""b'y.the authoriitiews-.as ' acquisition proceedings had attained fii:.alit.y." The said Kamakshamma imade aireprensentation to the petitioner during April over the land.

He had in turn sought ad-'report from the BDA about the land.{_" 'plaVc'e(j'..1gei"ore the petitioner on 3.5.2010, acquisition, inexplicably the particulars o_f"al'l_otrne.nt -andvthe subsequent lease of the land in favour of'the"Soc'iety aforesaid was not mentioned in the report. The pe.titione"I' ._theife'fc)19e observed that the land had remained "awithout:}bei'ng dexi/e"'l'opVed though the surrounding area was _deVelocp"e--cl_ 'and.._the1*efo1*e passed an order directing de--notification ofrthe land iriieasurfing 1 acre 7 guntas in favour of the applicant. A 'x__notificatio;n dated 26.5.2010 was accordingly issued. 2 ii the next day Smt kamakshamma and her sons and others sold two parcels of the said denotified land, measuring 7 6 6l pecuniary benefit on them for favours i'eceiv_ed.,through "the medium of the petitioner.

It is alleged under a dubious reint_al'--a_greeme1nt'ex~ect1te--dflinV favour of the petitioner in respect..,§5f,prerriises' at 80 feet' road, ill Stage, V Block,»l§ajrnaha'lilvilas-»_Extens'ion,V-iéangalore , on 1.8.2006, when the petlitioner£y;§i's Chief Minister, a rental advance oféxltlie pieiitlioner. Though no monthly as assets' aindlliabilities statement of the petitioner from out of the advance over the l-'.43 lakh is still reflected in the assets £1I1(l'lwl_21'l)lll[l€5l at 31.3.2010. It is claimed by the complainants that the transaction was only intended to transfer the aboveiarh'(>11n't..t&o the ipetitioner. The Developer never occupied the the period. It was continuously under the occupation. of=_the petitioner and his family. if if also alleged that a firm, Akarsh Properties has the

-- promotei's of Adarsh Developers its partners and DPDPL the Z other partner which has invested purchase ofthe following 2- 0 0 0 0 0 0

(ii) When the petitioner Deputy Chief Minister on i.io'fi.._thie"=promotersi of Adarsh Developers, on behalf of which, he was a partner, pu1'chas'eda.rie'oinine1€ci'aii measuring 4738 Square Feet %3§v8§()i0 lakh under a sale deed dated pending for having been unde1'vaIued and 55.02 lakh.

(_iil)".Ti1€V'iS-?1'iTV1C firm purchased yet another commercial Khata No.l34/134/128 measuring 8750 Square 1 iunderyvia deed dated 9.6.2006 at a total purchase cost of ?'1.i5';57 1ai<h;j__ "Yet another property bearing No.134/131/226 and iiii'Add0"V.».i:propei'tyi"hearing No.150, totally measuring 10,123 Square Feet .0 deed dated 1182006 for a total consideration of £

(iv) Property bearing measuring ll2() Square Feet tog_ether7with builtl'it,n.g" in A;sho1<ia.p Circle. ShimOga City for a ctiiisideratioii i (V) Property No. measuring 11alk2h(l Square Feet in of ?25.l6 It is nos.(iV) and (V) above, the members had induced M/s Limited, represented by one G.Janardana it agreement with the property owners on 5-.7.200o_ ands 'to repay loans contracted on the said h/'opeiijty 'by the 'owners of the property to ING Vysya Bank, ViBr-aiich_ and the loans were duly cleared by the said ii"e.r_1tii'it.y_,.i the transfer had taken place in favour of the aforesaid'.firrn, which has acted as affront for the petitioner and _'"l1.iisifa1riilwy¢members to acquire the said properties. This is further _ eVi--de.nt from the subsequent circumstance that the partner .. .,_K§arunesli has repaid about 344.00 lakh, which was the money ts 64 advanced towards the clearance of the loans afo1;e_said'--to.ithe account of M/s Obalapuram Mining Company Lin1ite»tl.i The amount tallies with the sale consideration. _ i ' "

It is further stated that tire said"iKia'i'L1neshv,i5pai"tneri:';of*the*up aforesaid firm had sold item no.l Square Feet and Item no.3 to DPDPL for lakh under a sale deed dated undervalued. It was the difference in stamp duty. being sold at such an alai'minVg-lyi' apparently by way of illegal gratification to the Vpetitioiier through the medium of the company i' '=..held..bya._his 'sons and""son~in--law for favours apparently granted to Companies. It is also stated that the said Kar'aunes_h executed yet another sale deed dated 28.11.2007 in Vi'respect"a--oif item no.(v) above, to the son of the petitioner "'Ra'g'niavendra for a consideration of ?7.50 lakh, against a purchase if "cost of ?l7.56 lakh, whereas the market value of the property was more than 3 59.00 lakhghis wrongful gain caused to 65 Raghavendra would exceed :<'40.00lal\ﬁh. ltd further"-poiiitedw.out that the said Karunesh has alsoisold oiiiev other tpropeirty b:_3aring°. No.l37/135/129 and property li'ite;;a;ii undeit._a*saleildeed dated 28.11.2008 measuring toithe of the petitioner Raghavendra "{7.55 lakh against the purchase is Vfcivgzigiiiiiiintended to provide wrongful gaginlllio exceeds ?65.00 lakh.

Karunesh under a sale deed dated l4.l2.2(f)Q9.,_ Khata No.l3l/l3l/226 measuring 5362 sqtiai:¢'Feet forital'saleiicriiisideration of (25.50 Lakh, which was grossly ui1dei'v.a.E'--ued_ and the actual value was ?lO7.0() lakh .,and motive for suchunder-valuation and sale at a grossly low i'n.:ordev::to--.pass on the illegal gratification, which would be moA19e---than'i'."_"2. Crore.

FL1.ithe.r«f under the chairmanship of Murugesh R Nirani, a ' "'-.V"Single W---ihdow Clearance Committee approved the construction Star hotel with 108 room facility in the above parcels of =..p1'llT1€ commercial property in the heart of Shimoga City. The @ rm 1 66 entire investment in the purchase of the prope1'ties"Was'j~indicated__as'" . having been provided by the said Karun:esh:' coin'pfliain'a1ﬁ_ts also allege of huge sums of rno'n.ey having gbeen".pai.dmtC$ Smt.,:* Shobha Karandlaje, in a sum of lal<h' from interest free advances to Bhag2i't*--..i_il%iQntes of undervalued property to DPDPL. that the illegal gratification to'--tlie_ his family members and his close in return for the official favours ashown "to,_-.A_dazfshGroup of Companies, which are detailed as followszi V i if 2

(ii) iili1.ii'[l'.6 l6'l'ﬂ_Sta;ti::' High Level Clearance Committee meeti.iigiiv'i1*1elVd l:.2008 under the chairmanship of the of land, from Karnataka Industrial Areas of Bandikodigehalli and Singanahalli

-V lndustri2{~l:JA1eiia, Devanahalli Taluk, situated at 2 Kilometres from International Airport, was allotted to set up an Eiecriiimc Hardware Park. Software Park and Jewellery Park to __A.da1'sh Group of Companies.

3 67

(ii) At the behest of the petitioner, who was then ~t_lie Chief Minister, the Karnataka Udyog Mitra, 23.5.2006, has approved allotmeri'tiiiio't'l"25'i..'ac.resg':'of:landiatI Machenahalli, Shimoga Industrial Area, of Kariiatakat Industrial Areas Development to Technology Park. I I I

(iii) Though the Committee approved the of Information Technology ii m and commercial comple':geg;t I did not proceed as per the approved pr.oposal,._bt1_t"with an intention to make immediate ended....up«'setting up a purely residential project "high end villas and other residential buildings, wli.ereas_the'ilxlaster Plan envisaged only Information Technology activitiygii' But, Aclarsh Developers succeeded in obtaining a I =.n'iod.i'fied sanctioned plan. This was possible only on account of I " ~-the nexus between the said developer and the petitioner and his family.

3 69

Instance no.16 pertains to Nagarabhavi..v--i.1.1§ige measuring.' about 5 acres 13 guntas acquired for the 1'Q_1'111:i1ti1QI1.:i()1i-Nétgilfﬁlllhaﬁ/1 1 Stage layout in violation of the _ordersRof'the ap.eix.coLi'rt ci"i:n.(il"1l1€dV High Court of Karnataka. stated" that Hangalorei Development Authority foraequisition to an extent of 1210 acres, includiiig which belonged to one Smt.1-1uc.hamij:iz1 l\Iagarabhavi layout. Prior to the her family members are said to to sell 6 acres of land in Survey No.77 to f<ura1 District Co--operative Central Bank Employees the year 1981. However, in view of the if acquisition proceedings, the sale transaction did not _H-uchamma did not choose to file objections to the she appear before the competent authority and did "not ..__cha.11eiige the amount of compensation awarded. The 'i"g'"award passed on 12.5.1988. However, since there was a _i'dispu.t*e between her and the aforesaid Society, the matter of if .6 hpvpayment of compensation was referred under Section 30 of the 6 71 allot 5 acres of land in Survey No.78. The0._jle.ga'l--.:heirsviiof, Huchamma made a representation tofthe_prej-/iiousiAChief'Minister and the Governor during the Pi'esident"'rs rule in~itl2eViiyea1"; 2iO()8'.j Their request had been turned on' "that the acquisition proceedings atta'irie_d With the petitioner coming to power as the reopened the file based on a Swarny, MLA ffOm Mudigere Inspite of a file noting to the effect to de--notify the lands after the acqiivisit'ion attained finality, on the directions of the petitii"o.ner,_ eiidio1"sie:i.':ient was made that he had directed to talqefiactioii asi'perl1*Liles. Accordingly, the legal heirs were iinforrned .tliat"t.here was no provision to de--notify the lands. The "'leg'ail lie'irs"'h_adi.i'filed one more writ petition for a direction to the State GQ_veitnrneiit and BDA to consider their applications for de- b i"'ngotificatvi.o:n. That petition was dismissed on 20.4.2009 on the gr'o.11n.d that possession had been taken in the year 1988 itself. to _HThat order was confirmed by a Division Bench. Notwithstanding E the same, Yet another representation was made on"'4...i9.l7~008 to the petitioner. On the basis of that repi'es::ntat'io.n, 'a repoirt was' 'sought from the BDA. The Urban Devieilopinieint reiterated its earlier stand thatlt.he~...matte1'sV had i'avtta«i.__ne--d...finality.L' However, the petitioner has noted____in'».the,file per the report of the BDA, revenue sites «haveb%ee;r1'i'ogi'medy and other religious places and commercial placcs_ha.v'e. gopm'e."up"i*n."the land in question and that the'Speci:i:l'ih .;_eave the petitioner before the Suprenje 'CoL:ii.:_vvas p'endin'g,_:'iiisp§ite of the same having been disniissed andthewpetitiloner..._furtner noted that the land owners have under=tal<en to forego "th_e'compensation in respect of the land acquigreld by for formation of the road in respect of land v:'1neaisui'ihg _2'a.ci~es 30 guntas and further stated that the lands to an "'e.xte_ifitof:°<5_ l3 guntas in Survey No.78 of Nagarabhavi I Stage may denotitied. Objections having been raised as to the _."propriety of the procedure, a legal opinion is said to have been 'obtained from the Advocate General of Karnatal<a, on the basis of i .. __\_2_vhicli, the petitioner continued to justify his action. 5 instance No.17 pertains to alleged illegal acquisition in turn for illegal g1'atificatiion"b.yﬂ the .petiti.one1'ﬁ? Itfis i alleged that the petitioner had passed'.__oidei's wit_-hdrawing."from acquisition an extent of 221 total market value of which wouxld Croi'e*irr"violatio11 of Section 48 of the Land "(hereinafte1' referred to as ' the LA for the procedure conten1plated"i;i" produced a list of the said lélflds'-'v§llllll€tvli€&:1i:_i£l and contend that from T2iblC*1Axl'~_'lH" therein were the subject matter of Final awards were passed and approved aiidppjliiyseical possessioiilwas taken and this was evidenced by the Ziissuaiiceiof_ja>.Notificatio1i under Section 16(2) of the LA Act. A'Therefoiée';--«._thef-question of de-notifying or withdrawing from acq"u.isiti,_or'1was not possible. In almost all cases, it is evident that hV.diunspcriipulous real estate developers, politicians and others had i =obtai.ned authorisation from the original land owners and entered V. .,,_i:ito illegal transactions with them, whereby the so--called rights of E 74 the original land owners were sought to be urgedV_iri.Vsiec:uring dc; notification of the lands in question. a_res;ult_g o'faV._(_liree.t_g 'n¢;q;;. between such unscrupulous elements andthe p€7[gif.i()l]i€i':, w*houhas;, favoured them, in ensuring that thejl'2inds return for illegal gratification, which was 'roiutledei.throughvarious means through his family members ;_a'nd allied);-r()(1i1.s' operandi has been uniform inualimost Cllearfly'estahlliishing the role of the petitioner V were highlighted in much detail the alongwith the representation made to Governor, in turn, by order dated 2l.Ql}r2()l.l, has to the following instances out of the liaboye on Twhichvthe complainants had proposed to file a complaint. _ il"Alleig'ation regarding de--notification of 1 acre 12 guntas of 'izind,.__'in-Survey no.55/2 of Rachenahalli, Krishnarajapuram l'"Hobli, Pangalore.

" -_ i?(2) De-notification of lo guntas of land in Survey No.56 of __R§achenalialli Village, Krishnarajapuram Hobli, Bangalore. 6 75 (3) Illegal allotment of Site no.1'inRaiginahalii§(il.asl:ll--i--Sta'ge,lS Bangalore in favour of the petition.e'rf_'si'son though he was not eligible. S I S A (4) Illegal amalgamation 4.7972 Square Feet in Vyalikaval if:/'ﬁozoperative Society, Nagawara withvS_i:te.__Nos:t'l"'to' the BDA and the subsequent 'thje__sit_es by the DPDPL.

(5) a_cres_§5 guntas of land in Survey no.8l/3l;_(>l'._ /\.ijai{e:*e_vi"Vgil'la_ge--.__long after the publication of the Notification undei'=Se"ctioni"l--.6(Zi) of the LA Act. As also 1 acre 75 giintas sold to the Close associates of the petitioner.

llillegal deianotification of land measuring 9 guntas in and 14 guntas in Survey no.lO/11F of Lott4e:golla.hal'liiVillage, Bangalore North Taluk.

"{7}i3De--notification of land measuring 2 acres 5 guntas in no. 149 of Agara village, Begur Hobli on 6.1.2010 after the Section l6(2) Notification was issued and two portions of the land €£ 76 measuring 16000 Square Feet and 5000"'S-QLl'211'(§: ve1,.yu{"

ultimately being sold to M/s Bhagat Privat~e (8) '$3 Crore paid to Bliagat Homes Priv'03te{._Limired and' ?2.50 Crores to DPDPL, 'both ﬁ:1'()Illi)I€d by the family members of the Apet"it_iorﬁ1er;_gfor~--ol7fi:C~ial favours shown to Krishnaiah Shettyof for favours shown in "eon've1ig;_1'i33n ﬁof:Vagr'ie--ultui'al lands in Anekal Taluk nieasurign '0 ° 03 0 to the tune of ?2.50 Crore by Limited and 33.50 Crores by DPDPL i'ecxe'ix./ed by'v-the--._beti'tioner's family from Praveen Chandra "V,_'fOI'..':fffVQLll'S .Vshown"to....hini in granting mining leases and land in 'in,dustri~a_l'area.'"~ ., ._ "'...__«(l'0'l'_*v_.Deuiotification of 33 guntas of land in Survey No.21/3 of l'<-einp'a'pura, 1 acre 36 guntas in Survey no.6/2A, 23 guntas in _f'SL1i'\j'ey V'N¢o.6/2C and 23 guntas in Survey no.6/2B in Hebbala S";A:'1'nmanike1*e to benefit one Prakash Shetty of M/s Trishul V. .,t_D0evelope1's, who in turn, had paid monies to M/s DPDPL. 5 77 (l 1) Illegal de--n0tifiCati0n of land ineasu1'ing:'*l 25 guntas in Survey No.15/l and 15/24S1fir:'amdpura'Vi'llage'forl' the benefit of M/s Besto Infrastructt1red"Banlgail0rePrivgite (12) De-notification of Slurvey other V items of Rachenahalli village, cQve'ring<.an ext'ent_0Vf;39 acres, of which 1 acre 23.2 guntaslwvas.suldfiii fét'Zl:1;f'()_f M/s Health Zone Advisers (India) Private Liliiitéjd. vvhieh Washeld by the members of the petitionelrfs _ (13) De;n-0ti;fiCaltib'n ll of land in Survey No.1/21 of Uttai:aha_ll.i V'}.l1;a.ge'V01iu.the___request of Dr.Hemachandra Sagar and the subsequent lti'alns.t;ei:s"between M/s Sagar Healthcare and Diagnosﬁes Pri'-vaVteVllLinV?ited and M/s Sahyadri Healthcare and l?ris_vate Limited.

ll PeC~:1n~~ia1'y advantage obtained by the members of the peti»ti__bne_r~' from Adarsh Developers.

De-notification of 5 acres l3 guntas of land in Survey dne._78";of N agarabhavi village.

5 78 The Governor, after listing of..tl°ie...above trim; outdotf 'the' instances narrated by the complainai's.ts,iiopinedk "t'h_a't thee"-~abi0ve instances would amount to Olf€l'iC§3S under Seciti()nﬂ*4(l5--'iof the!' Indian Penal Code (hereinafter relieired to ll3C'ljfo1' brevity) and Section l3(l)(d) ofVaiitd_'..l;o'und that prima facie had been made out prosecution of the petitioner alleged ':ofl'e'nic:es°andijaccordingly accorded sanction uiider 'Act and under Section 197 of the pidaited i";'ll2()l l .

éilliilltli sanction order, the complainant Sirajin Basliativxlio was notijoiiied by the other complainant who had..«5initially iap'p1'o_a__ched the Governor, filed five private .icompiai_Vntspon-2l.1.2011 and subsequent thereto. On 26.2.2011, of the Special Judge under Chapter 2 of the PCi"Act v--jjtool:"cognizance in respect of the offences mentioned in i v.i'Oil1vC of the private complaints and proceeded to record the sworn ii rst'a--t.e.ment of the complainant and his witness. On 8.8.2011, the V. _,v_trial court issued summons to the accused including the petitioner 8 79 to appear before the court on 27.8.20];

the present petition in WP 32l()l--l':()3/2_Ol:iil No.3/2011 is the complaint wh_ic}.1__ is the isusbjectiiiii1a.t.tei~_}or' the"

present petition That co1iiplai1_1_tT'i-s.:_restrictedito following instances that were detaiiediii the ;.'propo}§_ed'Complaint. in respect of sanction was sought "

(ll) Illeigali:.1'de;11ol'--ificat1ion}oi"land--*imeasu1'ing 2 acres 5 guntas in Village, Kasaba Hobli, Banga10re"Sot1.Iil?1,Tailiiili'. 'i i'.IllCig3:lii'elf-:llOil'flC.cllilQI1. of land in Survey No.51/l of Devara Childzana halli by iia'e.,c=ii'L1sed no.1. Illegal "de:__I_1Qtificatio1i of Survey No.42/1--A2, 42/4-A2 ofﬁeddalahalli village by the petitioner.

being aggrieved by the trial court taking cogni7,a1'i--ce,"several accused persons apart from the petitioner in saboxie complaint had filed a Criminal petition before this court 't:._nder;Sectio1i 482 of the Cr.PC. This Couit heard the matter at 'V Hvleshgth and by an O1'(l€1' dated 21.7.2011 dismissed all the petitions, Z PC Act, the procedure prescribed unde1i.,Spectio_n"5'of'_t'he"sa'id Aicti," » _ which is to be followed by that prescribed in the Cr.P.C. for ..*;he.__.triallllo_fllv/a1'rq~¥il Magistrates. When the process under Section 204 and on the next stage in cases instituted oth_e1'wiseAVthVan..V would be under Chapter XIX-Eps" ogliithep*--cr;iJ;e. :fseeuoo.lV7244 of the Cr.P.C. prescribes to hear the prosecution and talilelllllialle behalf of the prosecution. Tl1e1'eafte.If, 'under. :Cr..P.C, the accused has a right to argue for disch'arge'._an~.:'l "i.-{the court is satisfied that no case is madekoutp'against"t'he....accused, the accused is discharged. If not 'und'e.1jSectio:1_i24_6 Cr.P.C, the Magistrate frames charges against tl1--ei.a.ccL1sed";--.. lnltlhis regard, the provisions contained in Chapter:

xvii or'r:iietC}.P.c. are to be followed. Sections 218 to 224 of the :"Cr.VP.C. relate to joinder ofcharges. Therefore, it is clear that it is onlyxafter framing of charges against the accused that the court .s _.Vwlould proceed to consider joinder of charges and decide, for r 84 proposed complaint before the sanctioning autl1orityi"arexarraignied.p 2 as accused. Therefore, the theory of cjriminal}conspiracy'between the petitioner and the named persons in the piioplosed corgiplaintg having been, prima f(1t'i€, thel"s.ancit-iloiiihig authority takes on significance. iiiitﬂp whollylil illegal and improper to have named other in:_tliejt:ioi'.nplaints before the court. This Jsplittinfé up of the proposed and would hence suffer from wa11t"of. theiicolurt having taken cognizance of such lc.t)n';pla'ints;:lf\p-Massw:ho:l:ly__iinperinissible. The would also contend that the following.instanc.e_slwould establish and demonstrate the injustice V:and_xp;'ej.iadice"«caused to the petitioner on account of the splitting " up the ico.inpil'§iiiits.

(af_}'O.ti.:t'he five complaints that were filed, the learned Trial ii zfc.lti:' that an inquiry under section 202 of the Cr.PC was to be conducted by the Lokayuktha Police, but in two ll .V __o_tlher complains, one of which the subject matter of the present Té 85 writ petition, namely PCR 3/2011 and PCR 4/zei were issued by the Court. In PCR_ recording of the sworn statement of 'the ;corrlplainant' \yas7ypetii,a_to be completed. In PCR 3/201 l7a-n__d PC'R_4/2011;:'i'i't.1jie._Vttt;ti:jtidgef rejected the bail application of tlie*.pietitioner'and had. remanded him to judicial custodyf bail ;1ptplica.tionS were filed before this court and though bail gran_teijl il'l"'PCP.IVV3Iii2Ol 1, yet in PCR 4/2011 bail had resulted in the petitioner being --:i_n§judiCi'al eyen' after he was granted bail in one case. 'Therefore, lIii';'£-_.pOil1E€d out that if a single complaint were to be filed 'the' aj1"=o1'e'said. incongruities were not only have been A.aVoideid"; have facilitated a proper and a i"'compreliesnsi"ve inquiriy spanning all the allegations. It is i.coiiteineled..oVthvaVt tthesplitting of the complaints was a deliberate and mali_cioL1s.actg,on the part of the complainant resulting in an unjust V">d€pI'lVEli'lC')il:"1 of liberty to the petitioner by virtue of the baseless V' ' -- iall.ega't«ioiis.

3 86 The learned Senior Advocate contends thatfthe made in the complaint do not, .;)r"i;Lr.z.cz& f.?jzc'ie,i"tdi'scilose. 'the' commission of any offence by theijpei':.i_tioner§' The iparirniary allegations against the petitioner a.te'j.n 1'elation toordezis by the petitioner in the Listial. the Cloveriimeiit relating to de--notificationViol'-icgertiaiini la.ndsvii.i.Ii_'1i__'exercise of power under Section f'~1:Li.:i: none of such orders passed by in question by anyone seeking to make out a case against the v.pgetition'er, alleged that such lands which were the stgbject matt'er__of de-'notification have been immediately sold by the orig.inal'l~and owners and it is alleged that the petitioner is be--1iefi.tted'through the other accused, who are interchangeably j describedtrasi 'henchmen', 'benamidars' or kith and kin; The Vﬁzlileigieixl nexus between the petitioner and the other accused is purely on the basis of a presumption, which the complainant wants the court to accept as being tenable. The complainant himself does not claim cghave any personal knowledge of the 88 cannot be subject matter of proceedings before""the::fCo'urt=ot' if Special Judge.

Secondly, no property was,_ever le.ntrusted,»to the petitioner', while discharging his functions lVl.'lﬂlS:lA€li': hence, the primary ingredient of an bffenciiilpuiiiislljiaplei.underlSection 405 of the IPC was not fulfilled commission of criminal b1'eacl::of_'trL1s:t_'onthat court having taken cognizance S of the text of the said Sectionil'wo't1ld a general provision applicable to the public at.._lai"ge,llbut'Ait deliberately ousted two categories of persons 'who ha've_tem;po1'a1'y custody of properties, such as .wharfingers-gory warehouse keepers and clerks, who are under Section 407 of the [PC and public sei*v"antsv--..'eiitrusted with or having dominion over Property as _iienv.me1'a'i'ed under Section 409 of IPC. The allegation that an 'offence under Section 405 of the IPC is said to have been if u _Mc_oinmitted by the petitioner during his tenure as the Chief Minister 5 89 of the State, would, therefore, not be applicable to thegpet-itio.ne1'. In any event, Section 405 does not prescribe punfiisliffi-e_nt.r.V The punishment is prescribed under Section 4()fj andvno sanction is" » accorded under the said provision.

also would not apply to the petiti_oher. i";:5i"pv<>i11tedoutii that it cannot be said that hisV.ic*:rpfac.ity~-.as the'CvhiefilMinister of the State, he had doininion_'ove.r in the sense in which it is coiiternplatedgunderthe refleV_var1t"provision nor can it be said that ui1deTr_~._va'ny1l'_Vother__law:-'Ssuchgabsolute dominion over property" e_v'e.r llvested..w'--ith t'ne....Chief Minister. It is further contended that i11so.far a£a.tl'ie.lal_legatio1i of criminal misconduct by a public servantv wo-I:1ld._vre'q,uiii'e that the petitioner must have used coijftipt3and__illegai«means to obtain for himself or for any other person valuable thing or advantage and must have abused his pos_itionV_aslaV_ public servant and must have obtained such benefit while"hol~di11g office as a public servant. It is the settled legal ,,,.f_po_siti'o1i that the expression "obtains" would include the .t yvelxpression "demand". Therefore, to constitute an offence under 3 90 Section l3(l)(d), a demand made by the petitioi1_er'vvas:";s'ii2c iicgurz i' mm to make the same punishable. lie1'e'i::.. no r:ef7e_renc.e"to any such demand made by the petitioner to any peI'suOI1i'at There is also no allegation th;1t'..,,/iiflqis demarrdillegaili gratification. the same lias been prov'ide:ljtc)._anyiother"p:e1'son. It is further contended that insolar 'lthie misconduct by a public servant ijefeiencie l'3(:iili(ie) of the PC Act is concerned, required to constitute an offenceta itfpro lnainel

(a) tl1at7tlie" a'ccr1sied:'s.hal.l 'public servant;

(b) there which there shall be an estimated ..a§3seti'amassed'--byy a public servant;

.(¢,« , there shalilibe expenditure incurred by a public servant ; i'(.r,1)l'.--tlfiei9'e «s'_h.alizbe" a known source of income estimated to have "'been__"earri'ed by the public servant ;

T'(e)_The'w--piublic servant should fail to account satisfactorily the V'-excess of expenditure and asset over the known source of income.

6 lt is only then that an offence punishable underthef'said~.p1'ovisiion would arise.

In the instant case, there was no: ma.te1*ial pp'ifoid'uCed':.4by, the complainant before the saricti(>ni'nsg""authorityVinsfhisfegard. But surprisingly, sanction had.' beerit"':iccso'rr1eic1_p and the same lacuna, which is glaringly present (in theii'pro_ceed_i1ig's. before the lower court would ainr3uii't.to {abuse:}of'..V ipvi"o<:essi':of law and a serious infirmity.

l.t"is~ --furtheri'contended thatwthe orders of de--notification cannot 'be 2 Collstlliiediildssi'"CQfHr1;1iSSiO11 of an offence of criminal misconduct definedfunder'Section l3(l)(d) of the PC Act. An CSSC.3?ll,l'ftl._ ingredient" in an offence punishable under the said sectioii tliegfactuni of demand and receipt of illegal gratification by;-a S36-1'V';"'211]l,. In the absence of this basic allegation, no p1'o-s._ecu_tionf=fo1' the commission of offence could have been initiated... " There is no denial of the power that was Vested in the i' --,,P'e.ti_ti*o11e1' as the Chief Minister of the State to pass the orders of _.die--notification and passing of such orders cannot be termed to be é 92 abuse of his office and as being against public'"in--te'rest:. 'On,_th'eA other hand, the land which was acqu.ir'ed-~-iiort ha'viir.1g'- be<%:'i1.___p't&;ta to use for the purpose which it was accliuired. th4:"'saA1ne lias beeii; reconveyed to the original ow1iersV.._and_ there_ is "no 'payment of compensation. There is'he'nce no loss-.to_the State exchequer and on more than onevcount, punishable under Section the all maintainable.

Insofar as the under' Section l3(l)(e) of the PC an offence by a public il"*serv'a11't, in possession of property disproportionatetoit.heiknoyi-"ii sources of income, which he cannot . _ satisf-;;1cto1'ily ac.co--unt_ for. The proposed complaint filed before the .Governor,ofithe State did not disclose any such allegation ifi'attiractin'g:t'he_ pijoyisioris of Section l3(l )( e) of the PC Act and it is also..1na:_erial"i"itliat such an allegation should be period specific. lt ihicanp thu;~3----ibe said that the ingredients of an offence punishable if -.under Section l3(l)(e) were totally absent in the Court having .. _,V_pi'oceeded to take cognizance of such an offence. It is also 5 pointed out that in the proposed complaint before.__thefGo'kerrior;V'. the respondent had specifically s<l)ug:htito"pros--ecute.ith€ petitioner A T for offences punishable under Sectionl'l__3ljl)i(d) rejad "withi of the PC Act and Sections 463, and of the IPC. The said sanctioning aL1tVhoi'it'ywhas_exercisedpower under Section 19 of the PC ActllasilwAel'le_a:s»lSelctio_11.:l'97 of the Cr.PC. and has accorded sanction "pi'o:§eVc'1ite._'the_ vpietitlioner for offences punishable Sections l3(l)(d) and l3(l)(e)__o_fV not granted for offences punishable__ proiv-isio.iis of the IPC. Therefore, the court below is opposed to Section 197 of the Cr.P.;C: _It is ialsolpoliiited out that summons has been issued to the in respect HoliSections 3 and 4 of the l99l Act. A plain a*-.readilnglof.vtheasaid sections would indicate that it pertains to a pe1';son whovsie land is the subject matter of acquisition proceedings A and prohibits any transfer of such land by him and if there is A' -,cont_1<avention such person is punishable under Section 9 of the .. ___l;l991 Act. It is inexplicable as to how the said sections would 3 94 apply to the petitioner and therefore, the petitione'i:----caninevegi9---~bie.g held responsible for any offences un.der.t_he said iisecjtions.,_i_which"

renders the procedure invalid. It is also t.hz1tith"e..oiider issuing summons is in violation o_f"t~.l.ie expressVmandate-Vo.f Section V 202 of the Cr.PC. It is ;_poi1itedy.cuit"thatit obAligato1'y on the part of the Magistrate to process and to conduct an inquiry eitheirby the police, when any of the. ii jurisdiction of that Magistra__teV.vi' were shown to be residing'tiutsiideitiie._:i:uris'd.ictio11 of the Trial Judge insofar as the complaint matter of the present petition is cong(:e1'netdt, the i'TAr_iVal Judge was required to postpone the issuance of._gsunirnonsi)~._v This mandatory requirement not having been "'foll'ovve'di;'xvou.ldrender the proceedings invalid. A,pa;Ti.:i'rom the above, the learned Senior Advocate would Vi seek to*tal<e this court through the voluminous record and point out A' the. specific instances, while either the complaint is sought to be .. _(li€1T1()I1StraI€d as being self--contradictory or being wholly 5 incorrect, as the basis for such a complaint was__mislea--d'jnglatiidsg other inﬁrmities, highlighted with 1'ef_etieI1_ce tothe'"rriatei'ial.wl2ic'h . 1 is already available on record and w.ot15i'd=e1nph_as~izie tlliat..pii?1.stlie court below had proceeded with "prudence and l'iadiVV.e;<-a.rruiied the"

record closely, it would have come conclusion that no prima facie the petitioner as alleged. The learned place reliance on a large number. of the matter in support of l'1lS~.VCi£iS€l;._: V» i 4lQOn'-tlie «the learned counsel Shri Nitin .R, for the respondent would7.zehe'mently oppose the petition on several firstlyimpoiiited out that the petitioner has failed to V referto"or'produce forty documents, which were part of Annexure-- A oi1itheit'illej_'oflthe Court of the Special Judge and on the basis of j which, the impugned order has been passed. The same are sought to'"---be produced as Volume--l along with the statement of iobjections. lt is further contended that there is also suppression of 5 96 215 documents annexed to the proposed c()1i1pla--i:,ht, the sanctioning authority and the sam.e~»ar.e sought' ii[(3.ib€ii}31ft){]uC§3(li ' . i as Volumes-2 to 4 to the Statement It is further pointed out 'tha"t_the sworn. statement,"recordedS' by the Special Judge, of__the 1'€SV]3'ii(i:)llI:1A'£l_€'l'i{_»_vZ1S in PCR 3/2011 is also suppressed;ﬁiThe.re forthcoming as to why those docttmentps have this court. This conduct on ght away disentitle is that the petitioner had approached this court inlan in WP 25915/2011 wherein the petitio1'iei' had d.ire'Ct'ly indirectly raised the same issues and that petiition:""?whiic.h is pending final disposal before a Division Bench, t.he'_peitivt.io--ne1' precluded from raising the said contentions in the present petitioii.

lt- also contended that the petitioner has an alternative A' --_1'erneidy before the very Court of the Special Judge, in terms of Sections 244 and 245 of the Cr.P.C. and hence, the present petition 3 97 is misconceived and on principle, the petitio.nei1"woulddnot be entitled to seek any relief before this"-._coL1rt.:f.;AThereﬁ extraordinary circumstance or a to be made out in invoking, juri.sidiic'tioi1t«his courtﬂivliicli alone would entitle the petitioner either under Ar_tp:_@'227 of Article 482 of the It is under Article 227 of has been invoked herein is definediand to seeing that an inferior court or tribunal'functionsii limits of its authority, and not to correctian error' apparen': on the face of the record much less an Zierror ()f'iila.v»n%"'ffherefore, the petitioner cannot seek to do what he ::"_ui*ide1' the Cr.P.C. in Chapter--XIX or treat the juri:s«dict,.i'oi1_of this court under Article 227 on the same lines as its 2 appellate.jurisdiction.

Section 465 of the Cr.P.C. restricts the scope of ii u __lI--'i[€l'f€1'€[1C€ by this court in respect of orders passed by the lower § 98 court, including the orders such takin'gcog1i'iz21m:e'and issuzince 9 of summons. The only exception is iwyhereiithe petitioner" _iis_abl._e to demonstrate that there WOLll('l..v_"l)"(:'.' failure (3fA'i'11iiiwhicili event alone, that this court rnaypdeeifn. iitafit to irrterfere. ln other words, non-interference would the 1'Lile':L,'lh_e1'e is no failure of justice insofar as the petitio'11»er:"is coiicernedsince his rights are in tact and havebeen;1itpi9e:;ei'-ved the._ilCiwer--VVcourt and the statutory right, including the complainant and his witriesses not taken away. Therefore, the petitioner' question the facts and circumstances with vrefererice to the material documents that are court biel'o*w; would necessarily have to be tested before at the appropriate stage, which stage is yet to be reaclied andi'jthe1~efo1'e, the learned counsel would submit that the ~V petition to be rejected on that ground alone. ' Insofar as the contention that there is violation of the i 'niandiate under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. in the court below not ii to _hlaving postponed the proceedings in View of some of the accused 5 99 residing outside its jurisdiction is concerned, it is'7p__oint_evdioutthatV' it is now settled position of law that'ides'pi.t¢ 'theof th'e}«'wo'1'd "shall" in Section 202 in respect of reference for _-i,nv'estigati'on'or inquiry, the decision whether or not is left to the disci'etionvof_.the g.c'(3ui.t,'~and_.'on th'a't~se"oEre alone, a higher court cannot interfere reference must be made, since the crti1'>;.__of' stage was whether or not theie.-'.vas siiffiCie.rrtg'igijou11d:I'i7o1jproceeding insofar as the lower couiftv C0m€"ded than at any INC.

in a cofnplaii'iti,bas.ed_: oral evidence, such reference may indeed be not be so where the prosecution is initiated entirely onthe basis of documentary evidence. Therefore, .not_,orily'1h_ere'i.s illegality, it cannot even be termed as irregularity z,.o1i.the" pait'C;f,"tt~he lower court to have chosen not to make such refe-iferice~onVff~he facts of the case.

"lnSof'z1i* as the aspects relating to sanction and its legality Vgartd waiit of such sanction is concerned, the matter is entirely Z seized before a Division Bench of this court _i.n----the'vpe'ndii1g wii«t.. petition.

Furthermore, one of the/accuse(lAinV« the very fcaselthaving, tested the legality of the in a' ~.c_ri'1nihall;§petition in Crl.P.2038/2011 befoI'e~t:l'iis cc_-unitlr'el.y.ingioni the law laid down by the apex Court, given a finding upholding the it is doubtful whether all on that ground. Insofar the prnnary'objeeition'iiegarding-splitting up of the case into five different coniplaliiitljs-,..g4it».is"e,o'ii--ttended that there is no illegality on the part of'the c;olni;plainant} On the other hand, the complainant WOLlll;lllIil~'g€ would have been perfectly legal if the .compla_inarit_liad chosen to file l5 separate criminal cases, in illrespepct"'of»,_l5',;"'c.oinplztints. However, being guided by the pi'of"V"*-isio--__ns under Section 219 and for convenience sake, 15 h elornplaints or instances have been grouped into five and separately i' On this aspect of the matter, this COUIT has taken note of l .. situation and has observed that there was no illegality in such 3 The learned counsel would also seek"to:'t.akeffth,is cotlljt through the voluminous record to ju,stify"t'he ezllegations Viriadeland T V to counter the infirrnities which are is«oug,ht to the petitioner and the learned counsel also 'plac.esi"~.relia1iice ona large number of authorities in st1.p--po1*t_o'l3..t'lie responde1it's case.

5. In the related wi:.iiri,peiiiii§;§s eiiiiiw5?_3is7513/201i and wp 35418/201 and accused No.11.

1'espectiveliy.'.__ the impugned order, by taitieniicogiiizance of a complaint by the i'espondent and has issued summons, for offences punishabglie tinder the various provisions of the Indian and iiithe--provisions of the PC Act. Incidentally, the irisctance,s"it:h'at.i'were cited in the proposed complaint, that were subiinitteidialcifig with the request for sanction to prosecute the petiition'e,r,.are the subject matter of a complaint before the lower 'com, but having been restricted to certain instances. The grounds which the petitioner w accused no.1 has sought to challenge the 3 IO8 whatsoever, as alleged by the respondent--coinplainanti "been paid into M/s. Sahyadri Health Care and Diagincsticis Limited, amounting to ?3.35 Crore by'"him.or'l.his_.cotnpany§IHe'ncei,j' since there is no payment made, qLiiestioini'of plrczyiicjab.iwould not arise. The hollowness of tiieivpjlizespondentis is further established by the perusal of sta.te:'rr1ent._.of obje-ctionii filed before this Court, wherein at isstated as under:- V 'the. veryfiiivyestirienti ?2__5 l' khs byil3etitioner towards share capitzil 'by P_eitiitVione"r'~ilii Sahyadri Health Care llll "ancl.xDiz1gnE:js't'icsi"Pvt. Ltc;l..}"'is'ithe pecuniary advantage created the l?cit'i--t;io'ii-ci' and in turn favorable orders of i ..de-:1otific.ati'on' are 'pztissed' is..t_cor1tende--d--Atliat the respondent, unable to establish the V sallegauoin complaint that an amount of ?3.35 Crore has been "pai'das '(][~.i'ii'i:<':! gfro qua is now attempting to suggest that an amount of ?l'2...5il"Lali<hs has been invested to secure the pecuniary advantage. It is further contended that insofar as the allegation of "irregularity concerning de--notification of the land is concerned, the 5 111 efforts by the learned Senior Counsel to canvass points of law and to highlight the factual circumstances in their en*d.e'a.vo--r11' to pursuade the court to exercise its power, to at._:naiu'ght"--ttl'ie proceedings before the Court of tliewSpecial--i_ludge,'i:.underfthe-.AI5Cj if Act, has had little effect in having regard to the stage of court and the involved faCfS of the cases, it has onlygbeen the trial court in order to decide: 'b-eritaken of the complaints and in the to issue summons to the accused __that the consequences of such action, on the the' which may have produced results that fﬁiave caused" rnucli hardship and inconvenience to accused no.1 ' 'tliesevcoinpilaints, the fact remains that to accept the case of the petiitionersfit would require this court to form a different opinion as re~gards the facts and circumstances alleged against the petiit'i_:')i1e1"s, different from the opinion formed by the lower Court Z 116 splitting up of the complaints, since the sanction had b'eeni"obt'ayined on the basis that the offences alleged were so inelxtrieablyllin_ked;.__V any splitting up results in the very fo'undat.ion.«of;a1leg.ations being 7. eroded, and this could be canvassed be.foi'\eithe the framing of charges, but the iiir1ei::onve11iei1ie.e thatis caused by virtue of they cannot be equated with the failure of of justice. There is no p1'()hib'iti.oniirii. and this cannot be a ground on which pioceedingsiicanibe said to be vitiated. On the other hand,'givein"'the~ volurne 'of material and the involved facts i and ci1'cL1rns._tances; _iti\v()'uld§be entirely unwieldy in dealing with a single complaint" 'relat_i_t1g to all the offences alleged. In any event, 'as"'the proceredings are at a nascent stage, the intricacies of the several off'e3n_Ce;s alleged and other aspects, as regards the absence of allegations as would be material to make out offences ,,/f_pi1.niijshable under Sections l3(l)(d) and l3(l\)(e) of the PC Act .. __etc,., which have been canvassed at length, need not be addressed in these proceedings as it may unnecessarily prejudice the case of the same illegal. The learned Senior Advocate 'w_ou.lcl.,:therefore; contend that the entire allegationswcentering on 'the; fa1'.--feti'chedj theory of the complainant, pervading respect of which, the co1i1plaints"'~:1i*e filed? iVn_cludi'n_g"'tVhe"lpi'ese'nt; would hardly make out any the Added to this, the complainant ' :vnot.ip'v'p¥ossessing any personal knowledge of the vseve:ra--l'-vinstancteisp, ionilyiiiseeking to proceed on the basispofi he by recourse to the provisions 2005, is entirely unfair and unjust _pe'i¥t.itio.nie'r..__ _ There may'._be-subsitance in the above contention that as the o1'ders.._.a_nd directions issued by the petitioner in the V Vusualp Course~ _C!)l7l)L1Sll]CSS of the Government not having been the 'subject of any proceedings before any Court of law, the samecannot be termed as illegal at this point of time. However, it isiithe complainants case that the abuse of office and breach of ii*trusit could not have been committed openly and in a transparent 3 119 manner. Therefore, it remains to be established =bef()i'e. the court, below that the strength of the circtinhstantigalj.evide'nc.ei'i-3'suifficient i' to bring home the charges. Tl1e_san1e"rem--ai1is the lower court and to negate th'e,ivo»lL11ninoLi_s iné;:eii;;:1lll;§¢intii1g in that direction in a stiinniztry 1'esultiinla failure of justice. As already pointed.out§jtihei before the lower court are at examine the case threadbare aiidiito oh the several instances that are the theg"cioihp'iain'Ls, is not warranted. In any event, lit would petitioner to question the material that is sought and to place his case before the court to iaclvance *the_ contention before the lower court that there is no lpririirzp _f(z"c>i_e case. This can be said even in respect of the i_11'c_i_dental".c_on.tetitions that the several de--notification proceedings had'---bee_fn'initiated much before the time when the petitioner held the ofice of the Chief Minister. And funher that, no order or ' (ii-iie.c'tio11 issued by the petitioner is unilateral or arbitrary and has always been preceded by reports and opinions obtained from the K 120 competent departments. The furthermlegal content_ion"~as'regardsu the absence of the ingredients to estabflishii or'~eVe_ri' to a complaint for an alleged offence-V..V_of "trust concerned, is again a rnatter, wrhicihp_:reiq~:»1'iresto'be addressed with reference to the facts of available. That exercise is yet«toVp:y:-be below in framing the charges; 'premature for this court to form the lower court in doing so.

The sarneuczlni 't-he"'conte11tion as regards the absence of the ingredients "toconstitute offences punishable under Sections it i1t3;<il)(cir} :iand"«l._3(l)(e) of the PC Act. . the contention that the court below has acted in Vioilatigyiof'iSection 202 of the Cr.PC is concerned, the learned in Senior Advocate may be right in pointing out that the tenor of Section 202 Cr.PC appears to be mandatory insofar as it lays down that in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction, the Magistrate shall postpone thegpsue of process against the accused and either inquire into the case himself or direct an to be made by a Police Officer. But however, it--i's"t--o:i3e keptpirr __vi'ew that the well-recognised rule of construe-t.ion is,that"the=procedural prescriptions are meant for doing sublsta;n'1ial of the procedural provisions result in hearing or causes prejudice to be treated as directory notwithstandingtihep gljatltlire of the provision enumerated proceedings. In the instant that the petitioners have been the court below not having complileduwitlh'theisaiidprovision. Therefore, it would always matter whether by":-such iion--compliance, there is miscarriage of ju'sti{cei..for prejudicehas been caused to an accused in the non- 'coiripliancei"wit'l§ the same. This by itself, would not vitiate the p1'oceediii'0es1._iii the case on hand.

Insofar as accused no.ll, who is one of the petitioners ii'-herein in the related writ petition, the thrust of the petition is to 6 V the effect that from the material on record _.~w(3_ul.di'demonsitirateh. that the said petitioner had no coiinection 'with._th-'e' -allegetl'ti'ansferi.__ of monies into the account of M/s7._Sia'h_yadri ilealtli Care, and Diagnostics Private Limited. the 'othe.r_"hz1nd,ii"i a closer examination of the recordg W()1ll'Cl"l1€t:'Vi9r revealed"that"the petitioner had not furnished complete'do'cu.i?rtentsitrtovsubstantiate the charge and that there was o_ther_'i1nate1iial4onf;¢¢ct)rd,to indicate that the said amount was" entities, as detailed in the petition rio prima facie case made out a contention which can Very well be exaniihedllby the'ii¢.t)urt'_.below and which stage is yet to arrive, sincgieiithe petitioner --:accused no.ll is yet to be heard before , 'fraimng._ofeharges. It is open to the petitioner to urge this ._co1iten'tion,_atithe appropriate time. As already stated, the facts and ciiifct1r*.1s"t2inces of the present cases are such that this court can ° .ohardly'=address the material on record, when the trial court is yet to "doso for purposes of framing of charge. Since the procedure _;i'equires the Court of the Special Judge under the PC Act, to deal 5 i\\ with the complaints as a warrant case and as poi..nt--ed o__utfb,y the learned Senior Advocate Shri Patil, himself,_ would apply. Section 244 Cr.PC rea'dis"as'unde1':--.y « " 244. Evidence for prosecui--i()n: (il)'--Wl1en_l'_:

wairantcase instituted otherw.i.se:A' than on a poiice_i'ep.ort. the accused appears <)__r:i~'s brriiught a'Magistrate, the Magistrate shall proceed-I to the and take all such evidence i1'r.lSlilppOI"t of the p1'OS€C'_LVll§liQ11, 4 I V V ll ( lNi:1gi:st'i;llVteiin'i--ayr_ oi; the application of the i.i")'IH()3'~3CnLV.ll.l:s?)l],.lilsiflue ':1.:s'utn1no'i'1's"toll any of its witnesses l¥dire._ct*ingVliiar._to'ratt'end'-o_1' to produce any document or other"thing.'7_ ii 4 Though froﬁra' reading of the above section, it is not 'lindiicatecl"that_the complainant and his witnesses can be cross~ ex_ainined'a.s*ia matter of right, by the accused, there is enough case» law from the earliest point of time, laying down that the .Selc'tion does not prohibit such cross~examination and the court 'should not refuse to allow cross~examination of the prosecution é role of an appellate court and to interfere with at-.-th~is stage of the proceedings. It is reiterated tha.t'lt'h'is.:coti'rt has _be"e'n taken through these proceedings at:'».lengtho.3.hoe:1gh.l in lti1lr:e"es..t1l'ti;;'?1lat6 analysis these were matters, .Wh_ich could vtyelrlniilnatieci summarily, on the above appearance of Senior Advocates in compelvltihellcourt to View a matter with circumspectioinor that there may be significant ori consideration. This was cleaily » l V V dismissed as being without merit.

Sd/-' .....

n'\/__ V

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court