Stay on cases against Yeddyurappa goes

Mangalore Today /The Hindu

Bangalore, Oct 5: Observing that interference by higher courts in proceedings in corruption cases would give the impression that the courts were protecting the corrupt, a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court on Tuesday set aside the stay granted by a single judge in proceedings in two of the corruption cases against the former Chief Minister B.S. Yeddyurappa.

 

The Division Bench comprising Justice N. Kumar and Justice Aravind Kumar ruled that the September 30 order of the single judge staying the proceedings was not only against the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, but also the law laid down by the Supreme Court preventing intervention by high courts in corruption cases.

The single judge, Justice B.S. Patil, had stayed the summons issued by the Special Lokayukta Court to Mr. Yeddyurappa and 14 others in two of the five corruption cases based on complaints filed by Sirajin Basha.

The Division Bench passed the order while allowing appeals filed by Mr. Basha against the interim order of the single judge. “Interfering in corruption cases by courts at the interlocutory stage in present contemporary society has to be exercised carefully… as this institution (higher courts) is the last hope for the common man, who is shouting against corruption,” the Division Bench said.

Rampant corruption

In 2001 itself, the Supreme Court was concerned over rampant corruption in public offices, the Division Bench pointed out, while observing that “we do not know what is the proper word in the dictionary to describe the extent of corruption in public offices in the present context”.

Except stating that the Special Lokayukta Court had not applied its mind on certain aspects of the complaint before issuing summons, the single-judge Bench, in its interim order, had not pointed out the error committed by the Special Lokayukta Court, the Division Bench observed.

“If the High Court has to interfere in a case under Articles 226 and 227, then the court will have to give reasons. The ingredients of the order of the single-judge Bench do not make out a case for non-application of mind by the Special Court and, hence, it cannot be sustained,” the Division Bench said.