Back
2020 Supreme(Kar) 1185
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
John Michael Cunha, J.
S.A. Ramdas - Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka - Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 7734 of 2019
Decided On : 15-10-2020
C.H. Hanumantharaya, Advocate, Yatesh Kumar R, Advocate, V.M. Sheelvant, Advocate, K.P. Yashodha, Advocate, V. Lakshmikanth Rao, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's directions in Writ Petition(Civil)699/2016, emphasizing the need for expeditious conclusion of criminal prosecutions against elected representatives and the construction of the term 'involving' in the context of constituting a Special Court.
Headnote:
Special Court - Jurisdiction - Hon'ble Supreme Court Directions - IPC 384, 511, 506 r/w 34 - Writ Petition(Civil)699/2016 - Special Court constituted for cases 'pending or registered against the sitting or former MPs/MLAs' - Construction and interpretation of orders - Notification/order passed by State Government - Consonance with Hon'ble Supreme Court orders - Dismissal of petition
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an elected MLA, filed a petition challenging the order transferring a criminal case against respondent Nos.2, 3, and 4 to a Special Court in Bengaluru, contending that the order was contrary to the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition(Civil)699/2016.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the petition, holding that the notification/order passed by the State Government was in consonance with the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition(Civil)699/2016.
Issues: The main issue was the construction and interpretation of the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and whether the notification/order passed by the State Government was in line with the Hon'ble Supreme Court's directions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and concluded that the intention was to constitute a Special Court for cases 'involving' sitting/former legislators (MPs and MLAs), not just for cases registered against them. The court emphasized that the purpose was to ensure expeditious conclusion of criminal prosecutions against elected representatives.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the court upheld the notification/order passed by the State Government, stating that it was in consonance with the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition(Civil)699/2016.
JUDGMENT
John Michael Cunha, J. - Heard Sri. Hanumantharaya C.H., learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri. Yatesh Kumar R., counsel for petitioner and Sri. V.M. Sheelvant, learned SPP-I for respondent No.1 and Sri. V. Lakshmikanth Rao, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4.
2. Petitioner is the elected MLA from Krishnaraja assembly constituency in the city of Mysuru. He lodged an information before the Kuvempunagar police alleging extortion and criminal intimidation by respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4. Based on this information, FIR was registered against respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 in Crime No.62/2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 384, 511, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.
3. After investigation, charge sheet was filed before the jurisdictional court on 06.01.2016 and the same was numbered as C.C.No.132/2016. That being the case, the State of Karnataka having passed an order bearing No.LAW 10 LCE 2018 dated 08.02.2018 directing transfer of criminal cases related to sitting/former legislators (MPs/MLAs) in the State of Karnataka to the Special Court constituted at Bengaluru City, the I Addl. I Civil Judge & JMFC, Mysuru, by order dated 17.06.2019 sent the file to LXXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Court, Bengaluru and accused Nos.1 to 3 were directed to appear before that court whenever called for.
4. The above order is impugned in this petition contending that the order dated 8.2.2018 was passed by the Government of Karnataka based on the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in W.P.(Civil) 699/2016. But the Hon'ble Supreme Court had issued directions to the High Courts to constitute a Special Court to try offences "pending or registered against the sitting or former MPs/MLAs." There was no direction by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to constitute a Special Court for trial of cases filed by the MPs/MLAs as complainants in criminal cases nor was there any direction to transfer such cases to the constituted Special Court and therefore, the order passed at Annexure E by the Government and the consequent transfer of the proceedings to the Special Court is patently illegal and contrary to the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
5. To fortify his submission, learned Senior Counsel has referred to the various directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its earlier orders dated 21.08.2018, 01.11.2018, 04.03.2020, 05.03.2020, 10.09.2020, 16.09.2020 and 06.10.2020 and emphasized that right from inception, the thrust of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been to expedite the cases "pending or registered against the elected MPs/MLAs" and the Hon'ble Supreme Court never intended to constitute Special Court to try cases filed by the MPs/MLAs as complainants before the Criminal Courts.
6. Learned Senior Counsel has made reference to the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 16.09.2020 with reference to paras 14 and 15 which are extracted herebelow:
"14. One of the main objectives behind issuing notice in the present writ petition, and the various orders that have been passed time to time by this Court, was to ensure that criminal prosecutions against elected representatives (MPs and MLAs) are concluded expeditiously. The Court was of the opinion that such special consideration was required not only because of the rising wave of criminalization that was occurring in the politics in the country, but also due to the power that elected representatives (sitting or former) wield, to influence or hamper effective prosecution. Additionally, as legislators are the repositories of the faith and trust of their electorate, there is a necessity to be aware of the antecedents of the person that is/was elected. Ensuring the purity of democratically elected institutions is thus the hallmark of the present proceedings.
15. However, despite all the initiatives taken by this Court in the present petition, there has been no substantial improvement in the situation when it comes to the disposal of pending criminal cases
