SC to hear Union minister Kumaraswamy's plea in graft case on Feb 25

The Supreme Court on Monday said it would hear on February 25, the plea of former Karnataka chief minister H D Kumaraswamy seeking quashing of the proceedings in a corruption case.

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Manohan said it would decide the limited question of law over cognisance on which it issued notice in January, 2021.

On January 18, 2021, the top court issued notice to the complainant one M S Mahadeva Swamy and the Karnataka government.

Since then the matter was listed several times and no substantial hearing took place on Kumaraswamy's plea against the October 9, 2020 high court order refusing to quash the proceedings against him.

The case relates to a private complaint filed by Swamy before the special judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, in Bengaluru seeking prosecution of Kumaraswamy and others.

The complaint alleged that de-notification of two plots of land in Halagevaderahalli Village, Uttarahalli Hobii, Begaluru South Taluk, during his tenure as chief minister between June 2006 and October 2007, was carried out for pecuniary gains.

Kumaraswamy, now union minister for heavy industries, argued through senior advocate Ranjit Kumar that in view of the amendment made in Section 19(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act in 2018, a sanction was required even though the petitioner was not holding the office at the time when the cognisance was taken.

He submitted without obtaining the sanction under Section 19, no cognisance ought to have been taken and the high court erred in rejecting the petition filed under Section 482 of CrPC.

The high court said there were sufficient materials to proceed against Kumaraswamy for the alleged offences and in the absence of any material to show that the action initiated against him was an abuse of process of court and had resulted in failure of justice, there was no ground to quash the impugned proceedings.

On the point of a prior sanction, the high court said it had in 2012 passed the order that in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, sanction under Section 197 CrPC and Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act was not necessary.