Savvy Thakur
Published on: November 1, 2022 at 20:03 IST
On Monday, the Supreme Court added the State of Karnataka to the proceedings challenging the Karnataka High Court’s decision to reinstate a bribery complaint that had been filed against former Chief Minister B.S. Yediyurappa, his son B.Y. Vijayendra, and others for violations of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
A Bench consisting of Justices DY Chandrachud and Hima Kohli impleaded the State Government and issued notice to it at the request of Senior Advocate Mr. Siddharth Dave, who was representing Yediyurappa.
The bench said that although the debate was between confidential gatherings, the help of the State would be useful regarding this situation.
The Supreme Court issued a notice in the matter on September 23 and halted the Lokayukta’s subsequent actions regarding Yediyurappa.
The Bench extended the interim protection until further orders were issued on Monday.
Mr. Dave and Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, who represented Yediyurappa, had previously made the argument that the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act) requires prior approval before conducting any inquiry, inquiry, or investigation of offenses related to recommendations made or decisions made by public servants in the performance of official duties.
The respondent’s attorney argued that when the Special Court seeks to take cognizance of a crime under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act on the basis of a complaint of facts under Section 190(1)(a) of the CrPC and adheres to Chapter XV of CrPC, the sanction requirement only arises when the Special Court has not dismissed the complaint in accordance with Section 203 of the CrPC.
In accordance with Section 204 of the CrPC, the Section 203 of the CrPC and the Court instruct the complainant to obtain sanction for prosecution in order to facilitate further proceedings by issuing process to the accused.
In light of the 2018 amendment to Section 19(1), no prior sanction is required for violations of Sections 8, 9, and 10 of the PC Act.
Background
According to the complaint, a work order was issued in favor of M/s. Ramalingam Construction Company Pvt. Ltd., and crores of rupees were exchanged in Bengaluru, allegedly in the name of the BDA’s stalled project.
Ramalingam Construction Company Pvt. Ltd., a company owned by accused No. 5 Chandrakanth Ramalingum, and Yediyurappa’s son demanded Rs. 12.5 billion on behalf of his father.
Additionally, No. 7 was alleged to be the accused Dr. G.C. Prakash received Rs. 12.5 crores from K.Ravi, the eighth accused, with the promise that Yediyurappa would receive the funds through his son Vijayendra.
The third accusation leveled against the former chief minister was that he and other co-accused engaged in corruption by transferring money to shell companies and then to Yediyurappa’s family members’ bank accounts through those shell companies.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Anil Kumar and Others vs. M.K. Aiyappa and Another (2013) 10 SCC 705, Special Judge noted that an order of reference for investigation under Section 156(3) of the CrPC.
According to Section 19(1) of the P.C. Act, the P.C. cannot be made without a valid sanction.
A single High Court judge had partially granted the petition of complainant Abraham T.J. and overturned the order of the Special Court, which was set up to try cases against legislators, dated July 8, 2021.