HC directs special court to hear graft case against BSY

Activist T J Abraham had lodged the complaint alleging that Yediyurappa and his family had taken bribe from Ramalingam Construction Company and other shell companies in return for awarding BDA contracts.

The Karnataka high court on Wednesday restored a private complaint against former chief minister and senior Bharatiya Janata Party leader BS Yediyurappa and his family members, accusing them of ‘taking bribe’ for awarding government contracts.

Former Karnataka CM B S Yediyurappa (HT PHOTO)

A sessions court had dismissed a plea seeking a probe into corruption allegations against Yediyurappa as the then governor had refused to sanction it. Activist T J Abraham had lodged the complaint alleging that Yediyurappa and his family had taken bribe from Ramalingam Construction Company and other shell companies in return for awarding Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) contracts. He had sought a special investigation team (SIT) investigation into the charges.

Others named in the complaint are Yediyurappa’s son B Y Vijayendra, grandson Shashidar Maradi, son-in-law Sanjay Sree, Chandrakanth Ramalingam, current BDA chairperson and MLA S T Somashekar, IAS officer G C Prakash, K Ravi and Virupakshappa.

After the sessions court dismissed the complaint on July 8, 2021, saying it was “not maintainable in the absence of valid sanction,” the complainant approached the high court.

Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav had heard the matter and reserved the order. The judgement was pronounced on Wednesday.

Allowing the petition in part, the HC set aside the order of the sessions court.“The special court may proceed from the stage post presentation of Private Complaint.” “The rejection of the sanction for prosecution would not come in the way of continuance of proceedings against the Accused No.1 (Yediyurappa) upon restoration of the complaint,” the judge said.

The governor’s rejection of sanction has to be ignored, the high court said, as such a request is to be made by a police officer of an investigation agency and not by the complainant.

Hence, T J Abraham approaching the governor for sanction was of no legal significance and the sessions court need not have rejected the complaint due to that reason, the HC noted. The complainant had sought the special court to take cognizance of the alleged crimes under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.However, the judge said the special court has no authority to take cognizance under the PMLA Act and the complainant has to go through proper procedure.