Supreme Court Extends Stay On Further Lokayukta Proceedings Against Former Karnataka CM Yediyurappa

At the request of Senior Advocate, Mr. Siddharth Dave, representing Yediyurappa, a Bench comprising Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and Hima Kohli impleaded the State Government and issued notice to it. The Bench that though the dispute was between private parties the assistance of the State would be beneficial in the matter.

On 23rd September, the Supreme Court had issued notice in the matter and stayed further proceedings by the Lokayukta in respect of Yediyurappa. On Monday, the Bench extended the interim protection until further orders.

On the previous occasion Mr. Dave and Senior Advocate, Mr. Mukul Rohagti appearing on behalf of Yediyurappa had argued that the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act) requires prior sanction before conducting any inquiry, enquiry or investigation of offences relatable to recommendations made or decision taken by public servant in discharge of official functions or duties. The Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent had submitted that where the Special Court seeks to take cognizance of an offence under Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act on the basis of complaint of facts under Section 190(1)(a) of Cr.P.C. and follows the procedure laid down in Chapter-XV of Cr.P.C., the requirement of sanction is only at the stage where the Special Court has not dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of Cr.P.C. and the Court directs the complainant to obtain sanction for prosecution to enable further proceedings by issuance of process to the accused persons under Section 204 of Cr.P.C. Insofar as offences under Sections 8, 9 and 10 of P.C. Act, in light of the Amendment in 2018 to Section 19(1), no previous sanction is required.

Background

The complaint alleged that crores of rupees have been exchanged in Bengaluru allegedly in the name of the stalled project of BDA and work order was issued in favour of M/s.Ramalingam Construction Company Pvt. Ltd., a company owned by accused No.5 Chandrakanth Ramalingum and Rs.12.5 Crores was demanded by Yediyurappa's son, on his father's behalf.

Further, It was alleged that accused No.7 Dr.G.C Prakash received Rs.12.5 Crores from accused No.8 K.Ravi on the assurance that the amount will be handed over to Yediyurappa, through his son Vijayendra.

The third allegation against the former CM was that he and other co-accused indulged in corruption by using shell companies and Rs.3,41,00,000/- amount was transferred to the shell companies and in turn the said amount was transferred to the bank account of the companies owned by Yediyurappa's family members.

Special Judge, referring to the judgment of Apex Court in Anil Kumar and Others v. M.K. Aiyappa and Another (2013) 10 SCC 705, recorded a finding that an order of reference for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. cannot be made without valid sanction under Section 19(1) of the P.C. Act.

A single judge of the High Court had partly allowed the petition filed by complainant Abraham T.J. and set aside the order dated July 8, 2021 passed by the Special Court set up for trying cases against Legislators.

[Case Title: BS Yediyurappa v Abraham TJ And Ors. SLP(Crl) No. 8675/2022]