Begin typing your search above and press return to search.
proflie-avatar
Login
exit_to_app
DEEP READ
Ukraine
access_time 16 Aug 2023 5:46 AM
Putin
access_time 2 Jan 2025 8:06 AM
What is Christmas?
access_time 26 Dec 2024 5:49 AM
Munambam Waqf issue decoded
access_time 16 Nov 2024 5:18 PM
exit_to_app
Homechevron_rightIndiachevron_rightSC rejects Union...

SC rejects Union Minister Kumaraswamy's plea in graft case

text_fields
bookmark_border
SC rejects Union Minister Kumaraswamys plea in graft case
cancel

New Delhi: The Supreme Court dismissed on Tuesday a plea from former Karnataka chief minister H D Kumaraswamy seeking quashing of the proceedings in a corruption case relating to the denotification of two plots of land.

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Rajesh Bindal refused to entertain the plea of Kumaraswamy, now the Union minister, against an October 9, 2020 order of the Karnataka High Court.

The high court had refused to quash the proceedings against him in the matter.

Senior Advocate Harin Raval and Additional Advocate General Aman Panwar appeared for the state of Karnataka and opposed Kumaraswamy's plea in the apex court.

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

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

On January 18, 2021, the top court issued notice to the complainant and the Karnataka government on Kumaraswamy's plea.

Kumaraswamy's counsel had earlier argued 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.

His counsel had submitted that without obtaining the sanction under section 19, no cognisance ought to have been taken, and the high court had erred in rejecting the petition filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The apex court had issued notice on his plea limited to the question of whether, without sanction, the special judge could have taken cognisance.

Show Full Article
TAGS:Supreme CourtKarnataka high courtHD Kumraswamy
Next Story