B.S Yeddyurappa cannot claim immunity from prosecution on the ground of lack of sanction as defrauding the exchequer is not part of a public servant's official duties, submits the CBI before the Supreme Court

Opposing former Karnataka chief minister B.S Yeddyurappa’s plea for quashing of the charge-sheet against him and his two sons, the CBI told the Supreme Court on Friday that it had evidence to back its charges accusing the former CM of unilaterally de-notifying a piece of land marked for acquisition by Bangalore Development Authority for Arkavati Layout, and then allowing his sons and son-in-law to sell it at an exorbitant price to South West Mining Ltd.

 

Yeddyurappa has sought quashing of the cases registered by the CBI against him on the ground of lack of sanction from the Governor for prosecuting him.

 

Rebutting this contention of Mr. Yeddyurappa, the Central Bureau of Investigation has submitted before the Supreme Court that former Karnataka chief minister B.S Yeddyurappa cannot claim immunity from prosecution on the ground of lack of sanction as defrauding the exchequer was not part of a public servant's official duties. 

 

File picture : former Karnataka Chief Minister B.S. Yeddyurappa

Under the Criminal Procedure Code, the governor's sanction is required to prosecute any public servant, including chief minister or other ministers. Yeddyurappa is accused of granting land at throwaway prices and hastening environmental clearances to certain companies in return for funds worth crores of rupees being put into some family run trusts. He is also accused of imposing a ban on mining imports into the state to benefit some companies.

These actions are alleged to have cost the state exchequer a loss of an estimated Rs 876.90 crore. CBI filed a chargesheet in May 2012 under court directions against Yeddyurappa, his sons BY Vijayendra and BY Raghavendra and son-in-law RN Sohan Kumar. 

Among those who figure in the chargesheet are Prerna Educational and Social Trust, JSW Steel, South West Mining Ltd and certain other local companies which paid unspecified amounts into the trusts. 

Yeddyurappa later moved the Apex court seeking quashing of the charge sheet in the case on  the ground that the governor's sanction was not obtained, as needed under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code to prosecute a public servant. CBI has stoutly opposed his contentions in its affidavit filed on Friday. 

The CBI also said in its affidavit filed before the Court that it had documentary evidence to prove that the Yeddyurappa family-run Prerana Educational and Social Trust had received Rs 10 crore in donation from JSW Steel Ltd through various firms as a quid pro quo for favours shown by the then CM to JSW. "It is a matter which needs to be taken to its logical end," the agency said.

 

The CBI has also claimed that Yedduurappa had misused his official position as urban development minister to de-notify government land to enable his family members to purchase plots and later sell them at concessional rates in return for quid pro quo investments in the trusts. "Yeddyurappa was directly involved in the de-notification of the land, which was purchased by his kin by resorting to forgery and other illegal means and got undue benefits. Yeddyurappa himself took the decision to de-notify the land, bypassing the De-notification Committee which alone was competent to consider requests for de-notification of land marked for acquisition," the investigation agency said. 

 Yeddyurappa has been charged with criminal conspiracy and of committing offences punishable under Sections 13(1(d) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 

Sohrabuddin Sheikh fake encounter case: CBI Special court drops charges against BJP President and former Gujarat Home Minister Amit Shah

In a major relief to Bharatiya Janata Party president Amit Shah, a special CBI court in Mumbai on Tuesday accepted his plea for discharge in the Sohrabuddin Sheikh fake encounter case thereby dropping all charges alleged by the CBI against him. 

“I am of the opinion that the inference drawn by CBI is not accepted in totality and he (Shah) cannot be charged as an accused," special CBI judge MB Gosavi said in a brief order pronounced in the court.

Amit Shah. (Picture Courtesy: The Hindu)

The case was transferred from Gujarat to Mumbai earlier this year.

In September 2013, the CBI had charge-sheeted Shah, the former home minister of Gujarat, and 18 others, including several police officers. Shah was charged with criminal conspiracy, destruction of evidence and offences under the Arms Act.

Sohrabuddin was allegedly abducted by Gujarat's anti-terrorism squad and killed in an encounter with the police on November 26, 2005, in Ahmedabad. His wife Kausar Bi was allegedly murdered three days later, and her body disposed of.

Following this, Sohrabuddin's brother, Rubabuddin, had filed a complaint that his brother was killed in a fake encounter.

The Gujarat police had claimed Sohrabuddin had links with Pakistan-based terror outfit Lashkar-e-Taiba and planned to assassinate important political leaders.

Tulsiram Prajapati was killed by the police at Chapri village in Banaskantha district of Gujarat in December 28, 2006. 

The CBI alleged that Shah, who was Gujarat's home minister at the time, was involved in both killings as the police reported to him.

Shah stepped down as home minister in 2010 after he was arrested in the case. He got bail three months later.

The defence had stated that Indian National Congress (INC) had used the CBI as a tool to implicate Shah in the case.

Senior counsel Mihir Desai, who had appeared for complainant Rubabuddin, had argued in court that Shah was in frequent touch with police officers S Rajkumar Pandyan and DG Vanzara, who are in jail in connection with the case, and that he also tried to influence the investigation into the killings.

Looking at the statements recorded in the charge sheet the minimum that can be deciphered is that Shah was either trying to destroy evidence or fabricate it, and hence the discharge plea should be rejected, said Desai. 

But Shah's lawyer had contested that call records of Shah and some police officials between November 2005 and December 2006 have been brought on record, but calls made by Shah before and after the period were not.

Even the content of the talk was not produced, Shah's lawyer had contested. 

Copy of the order pronounced by the CBI Special Court is awaited.