Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

14. Ex.P.1, is the certified copy of private complaint filed by the accused herein, under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. before the Court of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC at Mandya. In Ex.P.1, it is averred that the complainant being aggrieved by the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Cauvery dispute in civil appeal No.2456/2007 has preferred the complaint and the accused persons thereon were fully aware that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has no right to adjudicate Cauvery dispute, because as per Article 262 of the Constitution, only the Parliament has got right to consider the same. It is further averred in the complaint that in view of the same, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has no power to admit any interstate water dispute, in spite of that accused Nos.4 to 9 approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court pertaining to Kavery water dispute in the above said civil appeal and accused Nos.1 to 3 being the Hon'ble Justices of the Supreme Court have passed the order of 5.9.2016 directing the State of Karnataka to release 15 cusecs of water per day for ten days which is nothing but abusing the process of law and the said act of accused persons amounts to an offence under Section 219 of IPC namely, corruptly making and pronouncing the order, verdict or decision in a judicial proceeding which he knows to be contrary to law, accused Nos.1 to 3 knowing fully well the said settled law have passed the above said order.

18. On the side of the accused, the accused himself has been examined as D.W.1. In his examination in chief, the accused (D.W.1) admits he filing a private complaint in PCR No.736/2016 before the Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dvn.) and JMFC, Mandya against nine persons and dismissal of the same by the Civil Judge. He has further deposed that the accused persons in the complaint knowing fully well that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has no power to adjudicate the dispute regarding Cauvery water in terms of Article 262 of Constitution of India and only the Parliament has got power to consider the same, have committed the offence under Section 219 of IPC. He says aggrieved by the order of dismissal of his complaint, he preferred a Criminal Revision Petition No.162/2016 before the IV Additional Sessions and District Judge, Mandya, which was also dismissed by the order dated 30.11.2016. The accused has further deposed that since he had complained against the scandal in the Court to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of Karnataka, the present proceedings are initiated against him. He states that he has also made allegations of corruption against the Hon'ble Chief Minister and another Minister and for that reason, the High Court advocates and others are prosecuting him. He does not intend to cause any disrespect to the Court or to the judges.

19. The appraisal of the oral evidence of the aforesaid parties adduced in this proceeding and the contents of the private complaint filed before the JMFC Court at Mandya, shows that the accused herein, who was the complainant in the said private complaint has made the allegation that as per Article 262 of the Indian Constitution, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has no power to adjudicate the water dispute of the inter State, in spite of that, illegally passed the order dated 5.9.2016 in Civil appeal No.2456/2014 and it is nothing but the abuse of process of law and the said act of the accused persons amounts to an offence under Section 219 of IPC. As per the said Section, in a judicial proceedings corruptly making and pronouncing an order, verdict or decision knowing the same to be contrary to law amounts to an offence and according to him, the accused persons in the said private complaint despite being fully aware of such well the settled law have passed the said order and hence it amounts to offence under section 219 of IPC.

26. We have also perused the provision under Section 219 of IPC, which reads as under:

" 219. Public servant in judicial proceeding corruptly making repot, etc, contrary to law. - Whoever, being a public servant, corruptly or maliciously makes or pronounces in any stage of a judicial proceeding, any repot, order, verdict, or decision which he knows to be contrary to law, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both. "