“Register a Particular Legal Case towards the accused No.2 Sri B.S.Yediyurappa for the offence punishable beneath Sec.13(1)(d) R/w Sec.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Problem summons to accused No.2 for his attendance solely after submitting of listing of witnesses as required beneath Sec.204(2) Cr.P.C., and course of charge is paid,” the order says.
In line with the complainant, the state authorities beneath the Karnataka Industrial Space Growth Act acquired 434 acres of land in Bellandur, Devarabeesanahalli, Kariyammana Agrahara and Amanibellandur Khane to ascertain an Data Technology park. The identical was nevertheless denotified by Yeddiyurappa “in favour of personal individuals with none public profit.”
The court docket in its order stated the complainant has made a prima facie case towards Yediyurappa, who must be summoned to the court docket after due course of.
“I’m of the thought-about opinion that there are enough materials to proceed towards the accused by registering Particular Legal Case and summoning the accused No.2 for his attendance and provides a chance to the complainant to ascertain his allegations towards the accused No.2.
“I’m of the thought-about opinion that there’s nothing on document to disbelieve the case of the complainant at this stage. He has made out a prima facie case towards the accused for the offence punishable beneath Sec.13(1)(d) R/w Sec.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988,” the court docket famous.
Yediyurappa was the second accused within the unique grievance filed by Vasudeva Reddy in 2013 with the then Industries Minister R V Deshpande being the accused primary. The case towards Deshpande, nevertheless, got here to be quashed by the Excessive Courtroom in 2015.
Yediyurappa stays the only accused on this case now. The Lokayukta police which investigated the case filed a ‘B’ Report within the case giving a clear chit to Yediyurappa citing that there was no proof of unlawful gratification.
In a prison case, the B Report submitted in court docket implies that the police has accomplished the investigation and there’s no offence made out towards the accused.
The Particular Courtroom, although, had rejected the B Report in 2021.
In its newest order, the court docket has specified that the dearth of proof of unlawful gratification to the accused doesn’t prohibit initiating investigation beneath Part 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.