Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 2052 (KAR)

S. A. Ramdas v. State Of Karnataka

2020-10-15

JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA

body2020
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. 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 against sitting/former legislators (MPs and MLAs). Now, that we are well equipped with the information and data collected from the various High Courts, and looking at the suggestions made by the learned amicus, the learned Solicitor General and other learned counsel, we are better placed to assess the existing situation." Based on this part of the order, it is argued that specific direction was issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to constitute a Special Court only to try the cases "pending or registered against the MPs/MLAs" and not in respect of the cases or complaints filed by the MPs/MLAs. Therefore, the order/notification issued by the Government of Karnataka being contrary to the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the consequent transfer of the case being opposed to the intendment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, is liable to be interfered with. 7. Learned SPP-I appearing for respondent No.1 referring to the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 04.12.2018 would submit that as per the said order, the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed to constitute a Special Court to try the criminal cases "involving former and sitting legislators" to as many Sessions Courts and Magisterial Courts as the each High Court may consider proper, fit and expedient. According to the learned SPP-I, this is evident from para 1 of the said order, which reads as under: "1. Instead of designating one Sessions Court and one Magisterial Court in each District we request each High Court to assign/allocate criminal cases involving former and sitting legislators to as many Sessions Courts and Magisterial Courts as the each High Court may consider proper, fit and expedient. This, according to us, would be a more effective step instead of concentrating all the cases involving former and sitting legislators in a Special Court(s) in the district." (underlining supplied) Further, referring to the order passed by the Government at Annexure E, learned SPP-I would submit that even the Government of Karnataka has reproduced the very same expression in the Government Order dated 8.2.2018 and therefore, the order/notification issued by the Government being in conformity with the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there is no illegality either in the notification issued by the Government or in the order passed by the learned Magistrate transferring the case of the petitioner. The submission of the learned SPP-I is that the expression 'involving' is a comprehensive word which takes with its fold not only the cases registered against the MPs/MLAs, but, also cases in which MPs/MLAs are involved. 8. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 also argued in line with the above submissions and specifically pointed out that even in Annexure F, the circular issued by the High Court of Karnataka, the captioned subject is described as follows: Sub: Transfer of Criminal cases related to elected MPs/MLAs in the State of Karnataka to the Special Court constituted at Bengaluru City. 9. 9. It is the submission of the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 that Annexures E and F are in consonance with the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has intended that all criminal cases related to MPs/MLAs or the cases where MPs/MLAs are involved be tried expeditiously and that being the purpose for constituting the Special Court, the elected MPs/MLAs are required to submit to the forum constituted in terms of the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 10. Since the issue raised by the petitioner related to the construction or interpretation of the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at the commencement of the hearing, it was suggested that it would be appropriate for the petitioner to seek clarification from the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the intendment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court being clear and explicit in the various orders and directions issued right from 2018, the matter be decided by this Court. Therefore, I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have carefully gone through the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard. 11. As I understand from para 14 of the order dated 16.09.2020 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court extracted above, the main objective behind issuing notice in the writ petition and the purpose of passing various orders by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition(Civil)699/2016 is to ensure that the criminal prosecutions launched against the elected representatives (MPs and MLAs) are concluded expeditiously. In this order, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has used the expression "criminal prosecutions against elected representatives (MPs and MLAs)" and it is also observed 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." This observation, in my view, amplifies the intention of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to constitute the Special Court keeping in mind the capability and potential of the elected representatives to influence or hamper the effective prosecution. If that be so, the possibility of the elected MPs/MLAs influencing the investigation and prosecution even in the cases initiated by them either by lodging a report before the police or by approaching the Magistrate by way of compliant, cannot be ruled out. 12. That apart, there may be instances where in respect of a single occurrence, based on the same set of facts and allegations, a case and counter-case may arise. In such situations, if the argument of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is accepted and it is held that only the cases filed against the MPs/MLAs should be decided by the Special Court, whereas, the complaint or the case filed by the elected MPs/MLAs in respect of the same offence has to go before the regular court or should be dealt under regular process, would create anomalous situation and lead to practical difficulties in conducting the trial. 13. Therefore, in my view, the restricted meaning as suggested by the learned Senior Counsel cannot be assigned to the directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to constitute the special court. The intendment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is explicit in para 20 of the order dated 16.09.2020 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has requested the Hon'ble the Chief Justices of all the High Courts to list forthwith all pending criminal cases involving sitting/former legislators (MPs and MLAs), particularly those wherein a stay has been granted, before appropriate Benches. The very same expression is used in the order passed by the Government at Annexure-E. Therefore, the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that only the cases registered against the MPs/MLAs should go before the Special Court may not be proper. The reading of the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court would indicate that all throughout the Hon'ble Supreme Court was concerned with the cases wherein the legislators and the MPs/MLAs (sitting and former) are involved. In that view of the matter, placing any other construction on the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court would defeat the very purpose of constituting the Special Court. Hence, I am not inclined to accept the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the notification/order passed by the State Government is not in consonance with the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in W.P.(Civil) 699/2016. Hence, I am not inclined to accept the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the notification/order passed by the State Government is not in consonance with the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in W.P.(Civil) 699/2016. I do not find any merit in the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. Consequently, the petition is dismissed. 14. The proceedings of the Government of Karnataka bearing No. LAW 10 LCE 2018, Bangalore dated 8.2.2018 read as under: 15. By the subsequent order dated 17.01.2019 in proceedings bearing No.LAW.312.LAC.2018, the term of the Special Court is further extended for one year from 08.02.2019 and thereafter, by order dated 13.02.2020 in proceedings bearing No.LAW.LAC.41.2020, its term is further extended for one year from 08.02.2020. 16. In view of the above Orders and Circular issued by the High Court of Karnataka (Annexure-F), all the Criminal Courts functioning in the State of Karnataka are advised to transfer all criminal cases and complaints related to or involving elected MPs/MLAs, whether filed against the elected MPs/MLAs or filed by them, to the Special Court constituted in terms of the above orders. Registry may take steps to circulate this order to the concerned Criminal Courts, if ordered by Hon'ble the Chief Justice.