B.S. YEDD YURAPPA, FORMER CHIEF MINISTER OF KARNATAKA, S/O LATE SIDDALINGAPPA Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, (THROUGH LOKAYUKTA POLICE) REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AND SRI SIRAJIN BASHA, S/O LATE ABDUL RAZAAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner has preferred this petition with a prayer to grant anticipatory bail in Special CC No. 136/11 (CCH No. 24) pending on the file of the learned Special Judge, Bangalore Urban District, Bangalore.

(2.) THE complaint made by the 2nd Respondent came to be registered in P C R No. 3/2011 on the file of the Special Judge under Chapter II of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The leaned Special Judge by order dated 8.8.2011 has issued summons Under Section 204(b) of Code of Criminal Procedure to the Petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(d), 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act punishable under Section 13(2) of the said Act and under Sections 405, 406, 420, 463, 466, 468, 471 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Sections 3 and 4 r/w Section 9 of the Karnataka Land (Restriction on Transfer) Act, 1991 r/w Section 120 -B of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

(3.) THE Petitioner has stated gist of the complaint in Para -8 of the petition as follows: (a) The Chief Minister of Karnataka - Sri B S Yeddyurappa has been arrayed as accused No. 1 and there are fifteen other accused persons named in the complaint. The tenor of the complaint is to the effect that the accused No. 1 abusing his post as a Chief Minister of Karnataka in alleged connivance with the accused persons has secured illegal pecuniary gain to his kith and kin. It is alleged that the accused No. 1 has flouted all rules, Regulations and settled procedures causing irreparable damage to the exchequer of the State. (b) It is stated in the complaint that the Complainant had approached the Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayuktha to register a case against the accused persons on various dates. As the investigating agency refused to register the complaint and probe into the matter, he was constrained to approach His Excellency the Governor of Karnataka with a proposed complaint to be filed before the Court of Law seeking sanction to prosecute the accused No. 1. As the Governor had accorded sanction to prosecute accused No. 1, the complainant is said to have filed the present private complaint alleging three specific instances of acts and commissions which are stated to have amounted to commission of offences under the Indian Penal Code and Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and other statutes. The alleged instances narrated in the private complaint are briefly extracted herein below: i) Instance No. 1 - Illegal de -notification of land measuring 2 acres 5 guntas in Sy. No. 81/3 of Arakere village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk and subsequently purchased by persons as benamidars of the family members of A -1. it is alleged in the complaint that under the preliminary and final notifications dated 08.09.1987; and 28.7.1990 the BDA had proposed to acquire 2 Acres 31 Guntas in Sy. No. 81/3 of Arakere. Village, Kasaba. Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk for the purpose of formation of BTM Layout 6th Stage. BDA had also passed an award in respect, of the said land. It is alleged that one Smt. Sathyakumar (A.4) had purchased land measuring an extent of 2 Acres from its original owner Sri P Mohanraj (A.5) under a sale deed dated 15.4.1998. A.4 had thereafter made a representation to the Chief Minister (A.1) on 22,6.2010 requesting for withdrawal of the land acquisition proceedings in respect of the said 2 acres out of total extent of 2 acres 31 guntas. Subsequently the original owner Sri Mohanraj (A.5) also submitted a representation seeking de -notification of 31 Guntas of land in 3y. No. 81/3 of Arakere Village, it is stated in the complaint that on consideration, of the representations given by A. 4 and A. 5 the Deputy Commissioner, BDA submitted a report stating that the award had already been passed and the land has been handed over to the Engineering Section and the notification under Section 16(2) of the Act has been published, and as such there is legal impediment to de -notify the land. However, it has been further noted in the file notings of the Under Secretary, Department of Urban Development that the land is remaining vacant and layout has not been formed as per the inspection report of the surveyor. It is alleged that the Chief Minister (A,.1) passed an order on 05.08.2010 de notifying 2 Acres. 5 Guntas in Sy. No. 81/3 on the ground that BDA has not formed the layout, only 21 Guntas of land has bean utilized for formation of road and on humanitarian grounds. It is alleged in the complaint that after the de -notification order was passed, one Akka Mahadevi (A.9) purchased 27 and half guntas out of 2 acres in Sy. No. 81/3 under a sale deed dated 11.8.2010. Under another sale deed an extent of 20 guntas in the same survey number had been sold to one Mahabaleshwara (A.3). It is further alleged that A.4 and A. 5 had made a separate application seeking the endorsement in respect of de -notification of land in Sy. No. 31/3 to an extent of 2 acres 5 guntas to the Additional Land Acquisition Officer, BDA on the basis of the notification of the Government de -notifying the lands. In this background the complainant alleges that the accused persons have committed offences under Sections 3 & 4 of the Karnataka Land (Restriction and Transfer), Act, 1991, Sections 415, 420, 471, of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. ii) Instance No. 2 - Criminal breach of trust committed by illegal de -notification at Sy. No. 51/1 of Devarachikkanahalli, by A. 1 for the benefit of securing pecuniary advantage and valuable thing for the henchmen and front men of the Chief Minister, Sri M Manjunath at the cost of Saira Education Society. It is alleged in the complaint that an extent of 1 acre 7 guntas of land in Sy. No. 51/1 of Devarachikkanahalli, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk had been acquired under the final notification dated 3.11.1990 for the formation of BTM -4th Stage Layout. It is also alleged that pursuant to passing of the award the possession of the land was taken and the notification under Section 16(2) of Karnataka Land Acquisition Act was published on 5,8.2000. The Saira Education Society had applied for allotment of a civic amenity site in AECS Layout, Kundalahalli. Under the allotment letter dated 29.11.2002 the BDA had allotted the site measuring 2700 square meters in favour of the said education society for establishing educational institutions. However as the possession of the said site could not be handed over to the society, the BDA allotted an alternative civic amenity site bearing No. 4C in BTM Layout, 4th Stage. Accordingly, the lease agreement and the possession certificate were duly issued to the Saira Education Society and the said society after obtaining the building license and plan had started the construction of the school building. It is further alleged that BDA had invited applications for allotment of various civic amenity sites including site No. 4B in BTM 4th Stage Layout. The Saira Education Society - pursuant to their application was allotted site No. 4B and the possession of the same was also handed over. Subsequently -one Smt. Kamakshamma (A.7) filed O S No. 25020/2008 claiming to be the owner of Sy. No. 51/1 sought perpetual injunction retraining the Saira Education Society from putting up any construction over the properties. Thereafter Smt. Kamakshamma (A.7) made a representation to the Chief Minister (A.1) during April, 2010 requesting exclusion of 1 Acre 7 Guntas of land in Sy. No. 51/1 from the final notification. Acting on the said representation the Urban Development Department after obtaining a report from the Commissioner, BDA processed the file for the kind consideration of the Chief Minister. It is alleged that the Chief Minister (A.1) had passed an order de -notifying 1 Acre 7 Guntas of land in sy. No. 51/1. It is further alleged by the complainant that Smt. Kamakshamma and her sons sold two portions from the de -notified extent of land in favour of M Manjunath (A.8) who is alleged to be the benamidar for the family members of A. 1, In this background it is alleged that the accused persons have committed the offence of criminal breach of trust. iii) Instance No. 3 - Criminal Breach of Trust committed by illegal de -notification of. Sy. No. 42/A2, 42/4A2 and 42/2B of Geddalahalli village by A, 1 for the benefit of securing pecuniary advantage and valuable thing for the henchmen and front men of the Chief Minister, namely v. Manjunath and K Shivappa. It is alleged in the complaint that 1 acre 24 guntas in Sy. No. 42/1A2, 1 Acre 21 guntas in Sy. No. 42/2B and 35 Guntas in Sy. No. 42/4A2 situated in Geddalahalli village, K R Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk was acquired by BDA vide final notification dated 23.2.2004 for formation of Arkavathy Layout. It is alleged that one Smt. Shanthadevi (A.11) on 24.7.2010 and 20.8.2010 had given, representations to the Chief Minister (A.1) stating that she was in possession of 1 Acre 24 Guntas in Sy. No. 42/1A2 and that her family consists of 25 members who have cultivated a coconut garden in the said land and therefore requested to de -notify the said land. It is further alleged that one Smt. Shanthabai (A.12) had given a representation on 10.8.2010 to the Chief Minister (A.1) seeking de -notification of land measuring 1. Acre 21 Guntas in Sy. No. 42/2B and 35 Guntas in Sy. No. 42/4A2. On the basis of these representations the Urban Development Department had obtained a detailed report from the Commissioner, BDA pursuant to the recommendations of the concerned department the Chief Minister (A.1) passed an order de -notifying the lands mentioned above. It is further alleged in the complaint that immediately after the de -notification the land owners sold 1 Acre 21 Guntas in Sy. No. 42/2R to v. Manjunath (A.14) and K Shivappa (A.15). Similarly the land owners also sold 35 Guntas in Sy. No. 42/4A2 in favour of the above said persons. The complainant has alleged that these purchasers of the family members of A.1. Therefore, the complainant alleges that the accused persons have committed offences punishable under Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act.