Karnataka High Court
Vinod B vs B S Yeddyurappa on 4 November, 2020
Author: John Michael Cunha
Bench: John Michael Cunha
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.198/2017
BETWEEN:
Vinod B.,
S/o. late Sri. Ommen Baby,
Aged about 52 years,
Advocate,
Office and residence at:
'Beena Villa' (Upstairs),
Kuvempu Road,
Shivamogga - 577 201. ...Petitioner
(By Sri. M.S. Shyam Sundar, Advocate)
AND:
1. B.S. Yeddyurappa,
S/o. Late Sri. Bookanakere Siddalingappa,
Aged about 72 years,
Former Chief Minister of Karnataka
And present Member of Parliament
Representing Shivamogga Constituency,
Resident of 'Race View Cottage',
Race Course Road,
Bengaluru.
Also at: Malerakeri,
Shikaripura Town,
Shikaripura Taluk,
Shivamogga District - 577 201.
2
2. B.Y. Raghavendra,
S/o. B.S. Yeddyurappa,
Aged about 43 years,
Director of Dhavalagiri Properties
Developers Private Limited,
Vijayanagar Extension,
2nd Stage, Magadi Road,
Bengaluru - 560 013.
Member of Legislative Assembly
Representing Shikaripura of
Shivamogga District,
Resident of Malerakeri,
Shikaripura Town, Shikaripura Taluk,
Shivamogga District,
Also at "Mythri", III Stage,
2nd Block, 7th Cross,
Vinobanagar Extension,
Shivamogga - 577 201.
3. B.K. Somashekar,
S/o. Late Sri. B.R. Krishnamurthy,
Aged about 70 years,
Resident of HIG-47,
K.H.B. Colony, Kallahalli,
Vinobanagar Extension,
Shivamogga,
Also at House No.1143,
22nd Cross, 2nd Stage,
Banashankari Extension,
Bengaluru - 560 027.
4. Adilakshmamma,
W/o. Late Sri. B.R. Krishna Murthy,
Aged about 89 years,
Resident of HIG-47,
KHB Colony,
Kallahalli, Vinobanagar Extension,
3
Shivamogga - 577 201.
5. B.S. Umadevi,
W/o. B.K. Somashekar,
Aged about 62 years,
Resident of HIG-47
KHB Colony,
Kallahalli, Vinobanagar Extension,
Shivamogga.
Also at House No.1143,
22nd Cross, 2nd Stage,
Banashankari Extension,
Bengaluru - 560 027.
6. B.K. Radhamani,
D/o. Late Sri. B.R. Krishna Murthy,
Aged about 72 years,
Resident of 'Srinidhi',
5th Cross, Rajendranagar Extension,
Shivamogga - 577 201.
7. H.V. Manjunath,
S/o. late H. Veerabhadrappa,
Aged 52 years,
R/o "Mathrushree"
C/o Ganga Nilaya,
14th Cross, 60 Ft. Road,
Vinobanagar,
Shivamogga - 577 202. ...Respondents
(By Sri. C.V. Nagesh, Senior Advocate for
Sri. Sandeep Patil, Advocate for R1 and R2,
Sri. Channabasappa S. Nandihal, Advocate for R3,
R4 & R5,
Sri. Honnappa S., Advocate for R7)
This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section
397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C praying to call for the records and set
aside the order dated 29.12.2016 dismissing the Private
4
Complaint in Special (CC) 02/2016 dated 26.12.2013 on the
file of the Court of the Principal District & Sessions Judge
and the Special Court for Lokayuktha at Shivamogga and
revise the same by allowing it.
This Criminal Revision Petition coming on for
Admission, this day, the Court through video conference
made the following:
ORDER
Learned counsel for petitioner - Sri. M.S. Shyam Sundar, has filed a memo. The contents of the memo reads as under:
"The petitioner respectfully submits as hereunder:
1. The petitioner is the complainant while the respondents are the accused in the complaint registered as PCR No.29/2012 and which was pending on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge and Special Court for Lokayuktha Cases at Shimoga.
2. In the complaint so filed by him, the complainant has sought for action needed against the accused for an offence which is made penal under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for the violation of the provisions of Section 13(1)(c)(d) and (e) of the said Act and under Section 120-B and 420 of the Indian Panel Code as well as for the 5 violations of the provisions of the Land Reforms Act, contending inter alia that:
(i) Some of the accused who owned and possessed certain extent of lands in certain Survey Numbers and which are situated within the cognizance of the Deputy Commissioner, Shimoga District, for reasons set out in the application filed by them before the Deputy Commissioner, sought for an order in exercise of the jurisdiction vested in him under Section 95(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, inasmuch as, for an order of diversion of the lands. The Deputy Commissioner, Shimoga District, after examining the issue that was placed before him through the application and after following the requisite procedure and on being satisfied about the genuineness of the request and their entitlement, in exercise of the jurisdiction vested in him under Rule 108 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, passed an order granting the request made by the applicants subject to certain terms and conditions that are incorporated in the Order. The applicants before the Deputy Commissioner thus got the benefit needed to set up an Industrial Establishment. However, for more than one reason, the applicants without setting up the Industrial Establishment, sold the lands to some third party buyers who have also been arrayed as accused in the case and that the acquisition of the lands by the 6 third party purchasers is also in violation of the provisions of the Land Reforms Act;
(ii) The order passed by the authority concerned which has enured to the benefit of the land owners is obviously on account of the pressure which came to be exerted upon it by certain public servants. The persons who have exerted pressure upon the authority concerned in the matter have also been arrayed as accused in the case. However, to the exclusion of the public servant who passed the Order which Order has enured to the benefit of the land owners, the complaint is filed seeking action for offences that are made penal under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for the violation of the provisions of Section 13(1)(c)(d) and (e) of the said Act and under Section 120(B), 420 of the Indian Penal Code as well as for the violation of the provisions of the Land Reforms Act.
3. The issue with regard to the issue of process against the accused and the non-obtaining of the sanction for prosecution in view of the fact that the complainant has sought for action against some of the accused who are public servants for an offence which is made penal under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act came up for consideration before this Hon'ble Court in Writ Petition No.38135/2012 and other connected matters as well 7 as in Criminal Revision Petition No.224/2014 and other connected matters.
(a) Having heard the parties to the Petition, this Hon'ble Court while setting-at-naught the order passed by the trial Court in taking cognizance of the offence complained against the accused and issuance of process against the accused for their appearance in the case before the Court, remitted the matter to the trial Court for a fresh look from the stage of presentation of the complaint.
4. The trial Court, however, after examining the record of the case and following the procedure contemplated under Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure in exercise of the jurisdiction vested in it,, has chosen to dismiss the complaint on the ground that no offence that is made penal under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for the violation of the provisions of Section 13(1)(c)(d) and (e) of the said Act is committed by the accused. The trial Court also observed that, from the averments made by the complainant in the compliant, the sworn statement that is recorded as well as the documents filed by the complainant, it is not possible for the Court to take the say that the offence as complained against the accused in the case is made out.
5. The acts of omissions and commissions attributed to the accused in the case to the exclusion 8 of certain authorities whose orders have enured to the benefit of the accused, according to the complainant, would tantamount to an offence which is made penal under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
6. Without going into the merits of the matter and the findings recorded by the trial Court, prosecution for an offence which is made penal under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act by a public servant warrants sanction under Section 19 of the said Act, irrespective of the fact as to whether the public servant is still in service or not. It is so for the reason that the act came to be amended during the year 2018. Even if the impugned order were to be set aside and the matter were to be remitted back to the trial Court, the trial Court would be required to take cognizance of the offence complained in the complaint and thereafter, proceed with the matter further. In the absence of the petitioner having the advantage of an order of sanction by the appropriate authority as contemplated under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the proceedings that would be recorded in the case may again be stalled on account of the fact that the complainant has not obtained the requisite sanction for prosecution of the accused.
7. In this view of the matter, the complainant has been advised not to invite a finding at 9 the hands of this Hon'ble Court on the merits of the matter and to seek for the sanction needed at the hands of the appropriate authority and thereafter, to present a fresh complaint before the trial Court for action needed against the accused.
Therefore, the petitioner above named, humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to read and record this memo and to permit him to withdraw the complaint filed by him before the trial Court with liberty to file a fresh complaint after obtaining sanction for prosecution at the hands of the appropriate authority as contemplated under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act as well as under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and further be pleased to dispose of the above Criminal Petition by granting such liberty, in the ends of justice."
Memo is placed on record.
In view of the said memo, Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of as withdrawn. Liberty is reserved as prayed for.
Sd/-
JUDGE SV