The High Court of Karnataka on Thursday declared that the law does not bar high courts from interfering in the investigation of corruption cases. And the bar, imposed on courts from staying proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act, applies only in the post-cognisance stage and not in stages prior to it, which includes investigation.
Justice Aravind Kumar came to this conclusion while dictating orders answering one of the four questions framed by the court for deciding the interim plea of former Chief Minister B.S. Yeddyurappa, who has sought direction to stay the investigation initiated by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) against him on allegation of abusing his position as Chief Minister by ordering deletion of lands identified for pecuniary benefits.
The court framed four questions — (i) whether the petitioner is entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court seeking quashing the complaint and FIRs; (ii) whether section 19(3)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act imposes a bar on the high courts from interfering in the investigation of corruption cases; (iii) whether successive FIRs on a same complaint is maintainable or whether complaint discloses the same or distinct offences; and (iv) whether petitioner has made out a case for interim order of staying the investigation.
Rejecting the arguments made on behalf of the ACB that Mr. Yeddyurappa’s petitions are not maintainable and the High Courts have no power to stay investigation in corruption cases, Justice Kumar said the petitions are maintainable and held that the High Court is not precluded in law from interfering in the investigation of corruption cases.
Cognisance of offences
Citing verdicts of the Supreme Court, which had interpreted various provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Justice Kumar found that bar imposed on courts from staying proceedings applies only after the trial court, on submission of chargesheet by the investigating agency, takes cognisance of offences after prior sanction from the competent authority for prosecuting a public servant. Also, the accused public servant can even approach the High Court if the trial court takes cognisance sans prior sanction.
Based on the material submitted before the court, Justice Kumar observed that it cannot be held that offence alleged in the second FIR is “a separate and distinct offence” than what has been indicated in the first FIR.
The court will continue dictation and answer the crucial question, whether Mr. Yeddyurappa’s petitions have made out a case for staying the investigation.