In a setback to C.S. Puttaraju, Janata Dal (S) MLA from Melukote constituency, the High Court of Karnataka has declined to quash the chargesheet filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against him for illegally securing a site from Mandya Urban Development Authority by abusing his position as one its members during 2008-13.
Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav passed the order while dismissing a petition filed by Mr. Puttaraju. He had challenged the First Information Report (FIR) registered against him back in 2013-14, the chargesheet filed by the CBI in 2016, and the cognisance of offences taken against him on March 29, 2021, by a special court set up to deal with criminal cases against MPs, MLAs in Karnataka.
Though the special court had made some wrong observations on competent authority to grant sanction for prosecution of a MLA, the HC said that the special court did come to the correct conclusion in law that no prior sanction for Mr. Putaraju’s prosecution was needed for taking cognisance of offences as he ceased to be a member of Mandya UDA when the chargesheet was filed as well as when the cognisance of offences was taken.
The High Court also rejected contention raised on his behalf that prior sanction was essential for prosecution as Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was amended in 2018, making it necessary for prior sanction even after the retirement of a public servant or they creased to hold public offices, which they were accused of abusing.
The High Court said that requirement of prior sanction for prosecuting public servants even after they ceased to hold such public office as per the 2018 amendment cannot have retrospective effect as the amendment was effective from date of its notification, that is July 26, 2018.
The allegations against Mr. Puttaraju was that he had in 2009 illegally got himself allotted a stray site, which was actually required to be disposed of through public auctions through Mandya UDA.
Also, it was alleged that he had concealed the fact that his wife was already allotted with a site from Mysore UDA in 2018 as such an admission of allotment of a site by any UDA would have made him ineligible to secure a site from the urban authority as per the rules.
