New Delhi, Aug 9: The Supreme Court on Tuesday put for final consideration before a three-judge bench a question of the law raised by Energy Minister D K Shivakumar and others. The issue is if high courts can stay proceedings initiated under the Prevention of Corruption Act despite a statutory bar.
A three-judge bench presided over by Chief Justice J S Khehar gave time to senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi and K V Vishwanathan and others for preparing the arguments. The court has scheduled the hearing for August 29.
Around 40 separate petitions, including by Shivakumar, have been pending since 2013. These petitions have sought interpretation of Section 19(3)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The provision states that no court shall stay the proceedings under this Act on any ground nor should exercise the power of revision in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any inquiry, trial, appeal or other proceedings. Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar sought early hearing in view of several matters pending for consideration.
Issues for consideration
Among the issues for consideration is if the high court can entertain petitions under Article 226 (writ jurisdiction) of the Constitution and under Section 482 (inherent power) of the Criminal Procedure Code and stay the proceedings in corruption cases.
The question for adjudication is whether framing of charges is an interlocutory order or not, and if it is open to revision by the high court. The matter against Shivakumar pertains to his purchase of four acres and 20 guntas of land in Bengaluru for Rs 1.62 crore in 2003.
Change in land use
A complaint was filed in March 2012, alleging that the land use was changed from industrial to residential in 2004 and the land was denotified from acquisition in 2010 allegedly in violation of laws.
The Lokayukta court took cognisance of the offence in July 2012. The High Court of Karnataka initially stayed the proceedings but vacated the interim order in April 2013. On a special leave petition filed by Shivakumar, the apex court stayed the proceedings in view of pendency of the larger question of the law.
Comments
Add new comment