Bangalore: Criminal cases filed against CM

DHNS

• Over to courts: BJP, BSY weigh legal options to challenge governor’s sanction

 

Bangalore, 23 January 2011: A day after Governor H R Bhardwaj accorded sanction to prosecute Chief Minister B S Yeddyurappa, two advocates, K N Balaraj and Sirajin Basha, on Saturday approached the Special Lokayukta Court and filed two criminal complaints in this connection.

 

Yeddyurappa has been made the prime accused in both complaints while his two sons, B Y Raghavendra and B Y Vijayendra, his son-in-law R N Sohan Kumar, former minister S N Krishniah Setty and Davalagiri Property Developers Pvt Limited (owned by Yeddyurappa’s sons and Setty) are co-accused in one of the complaints.

 

The case is scheduled to come up for hearing on Monday. In another complaint, the petitioners have made the chief minister’s close associates N Akka Mahadevi, Mahabaleswara N S, Satyakumari, Mohan Raj, V Prakash, Kamakshamma, M Manjunath, V Anil Kumar, B Ramesh, Shantha Devi, Shantha Bai, Ismail Sheriff, V Manjunath and K Shivappa as other accused. 

 

The complaints were lodged before Judge C B Hipparagi of the special court.  The offences listed were under various IPC sections, including 405 (criminal breach of trust), 406 (punishment for criminal breach of trust), 415 (cheating) 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property) 463, 463 (forgery) as well as section 13 i (d)and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

 

The complaints listed include section three and four under the Karnataka Land (Restriction on Transfer) Act, 1991 read with IPC 120(b) (punishment for criminal conspiracy). In the first complaint, two cases include land grabbing and illegal denotification of land acquired for the Arkavathi layout by the BDA causing a loss of Rs 19.60 crore and involving Krishnaiah Setty, Yeddyurappa and others.

 

The second case mentions the purchase of lands which were under acquisition proceedings and converting them into non-agricultural land by violating section 3 and 4 of the Karnataka Land (Restriction on Transfer) Act 1991.

 

Conspiracy

In the third instance, the complainant states that the chief minister hatched a criminal conspiracy to amalgamate 47, 972 sq ft land causing a loss of Rs 24.26 crore to the State government.

 

The duo also filed a caveat before the Karnataka High Court requesting it to hear them before passing an interim order. They said the remaining six complaints with 12 cases will be filed on Monday.

 

Raj Bhavan released the detailed order of the governor according prosecution permission. The governor has defended his decision by quoting certain court judgments in the issue. He also released details of the cases filed by the petitioners against Yeddyurappa.  

 

BJP strategy

After failing to stop the governor from giving permission for prosecution, the ruling BJP is now making all efforts to build a case against Bhardwaj to challenge his decision in court. The party leaders are burning the midnight oil to find legal loopholes in the governor’s order besides weighing various legal options before Yeddyurappa.

 

BJP national leader Arun Jaitley, senior counsel Satyapal Jain and legal luminary Ram Jethmalani are studying the governor’s prosecution order, sources said.  They may soon guide the chief minister to challenge the validity of the governor’s order.

 

Yeddyurappa is yet to pick his legal counsel. Jaitley may take a decision in this regard. In all probability a battery of legal experts from Delhi will be sent to the fight case.

 

The BJP continued to allege that the governor has taken his decision without going into the merits of the private petition filed by the two advocates.  The party maintained that the prosecution order had been given at a time when the Lokayukta and the Justice Padmaraj Commission were looking into allegations similar to those listed in the petition.

 

The consent has been given despite the fact that no investigating agency had corroborated the allegations made in the petition. Yeddyurappa branded the governor an UPA agent. He said the governor had neither provided a copy of the complaint nor given him an opportunity to explain his point of view. He accused the governor of deliberately delaying in giving him a copy of the consent to prevent him from challenging the order in court.