The Hindu : Karnataka News : Stay on prosecution of Chief Secretary

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Friday, May 13, 2005

Karnataka

Karnataka

Stay on prosecution of Chief Secretary

J. Venkatesan

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday stayed the prosecution of the Karnataka Chief Secretary, K.K. Misra, and the Under Secretary in the Department of Commerce and Industries, M. Shivalinga Swamy, in the Rs. 2,250-crore Bangalore-Mysore Infrastructure Corridor project case. The Karnataka High Court had directed its Registrar General to file a complaint to prosecute the two officials under Section 344 of the Criminal Procedure Code for perjury and for withholding documents relating to the project.

A three-Judge Bench, comprising Chief Justice R.C. Lahoti, D.M. Dharmadhikari and G.P. Mathur, stayed the High Court order relating to the prosecution of the two officials and issued notice to the petitioners before the High Court after hearing brief submissions from counsel for the State, Sanjay Hedge.

The State Advocate-General, B.T. Parthasarathy, submitted that the Karnataka Government had also filed a special leave petition (SLP), but it could not be included in Thursday's "mention" list. The Bench then directed that the SLP be listed for hearing on Friday.

In their SLPs, the Chief Secretary and Under Secretary submitted that the entire stand of the Government as revealed in the affidavits appeared to have been misunderstood by the High Court and action had been wrongly initiated against the petitioners. Mr. Misra submitted that he was a senior IAS officer and had served the country for 38 years in various capacities. The order for prosecution by the High Court was unwarranted and unduly harsh. Apart from tarnishing the image of an upright officer, it also seriously affected his prospects for appointment to the Central Administrative Tribunal.

The two officers said that before directing prosecution, the High Court had not granted any opportunity to them or put it on notice. Nor was there any preliminary inquiry into the matter whether a case under Section 340 Cr.P.C. was made out or not. They said that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by ordering prosecution whereas Sec. 340 required only making a complaint in writing to a Magistrate after holding a preliminary inquiry.

Referring to the categorical finding that the Chief Secretary had knowingly withheld the facts and documents, Mr. Misra said that there was no basis to come to such a finding when there was no preliminary inquiry. The two officers sought quashing of the impugned judgment dated May 3 and an interim stay of its operation.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Karnataka