Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli while issuing notice in the petition filed by former Karnataka CM Yediyurappa and his son BY Vijayendra and others stayed further proceedings in the bribe complaint filed against them under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Mukul Rohatgi and Siddharth Dave Senior Advocates appearing for the petitioners argued before the court that a prior sanction is mandated under the Prevention of Corruption Act before conducting any inquiry, Enquiry, or investigation of offenses relatable to recommendations made or decisions taken by the public servant in discharge of official duties or functions. Sr. Adv. Dave referred to section 17A of the Act and then referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Anil Kumar V. Ayyappa wherein it has been held that prior sanction is necessary for forwarding a complaint under section 156(3) CRPC.

The respondent opposed these arguments and contended that the decision referred has been referred to  larger bench for consideration. He argued that under section 19(1) of the PC Act no Court can take cognizance of offences as regards a public servant except with previous sanction, but, where the Special Court seeks to take cognizance of an offence under Section 19 of PC Act on the basis of complaint of facts under Section 190(1)(a) of Cr.P.C. and follows the procedure laid down in Chapter-XV of Cr.P.C., the requirement of sanction is only at the stage where the Special Court has not dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of Cr.P.C. and the Court directs the complainant to obtain sanction for prosecution to enable further proceedings by issuance of process to the accused persons under Section 204 of Cr.P.C. Insofar as offences under Sections 8, 9 and 10 of P.C. Act, in light of the Amendment in 2018 to Section 19(1) of the P.C. Act, no previous sanction is required and if the Special Judge were to proceed against the accused as regards such offence, the question of previous sanction will not arise.

The complainant had alleged that crores of rupees have been exchanged in Banguluru in the name of stalled project of BDA and work order was issued in favour of M/s Ramalingam Construction Company Pvt. Ltd., a company owned by accused Chandrakanth Ramalingum and Rs. 12.5 Crore was demanded by son of former CM on behalf of his father. It was contended in the complaint that one of the accused Dr. GC Prakash received Rs. 12.5 Crore from co-accused K.Ravi on the assurance that the amount will be handed over to the former CM and his son Vijayendra. 

The third allegation against the former CM was that he and other co-accused indulged in corruption by using shell companies and Rs.3,41,00,000/- amount was transferred to the shell companies and in turn the said amount was transferred to the bank account of the companies owned by Yediyurappa's family members.

Case Details:-

SLP(Crl) No. 8675/2022

B.S. YEDIYURAPPA    ...Petitioner
Versus
ABRAHAM T.J. AND ORS    ...Respondent