Yeddy kin: Name HDK co-accused in scam
Less than 24 hours after chief minister B.S. Yeddyurappa announced he would not challenge the governor’s order to sanction action against him, the chief minister’s son-in-law R.N. Sohan Kumar moved two applications before the Lokayukta special court where he cited former chief minister H.D. Kumarswamy as a co-accused in the
complaint pertaining to the Rachenahalli de-notification. In the ultimate irony, this raises the possibility of HDK, who first pointed fingers against the chief minister, being cited as a co-accused in a case where HDK’s bête noire, the chief minister is the first accused, and his sons and son-in-law are the co-accused.
Earlier, the counsel for advocates Sirajin Pasha and K.N. Balaraj, who had obtained sanction of prosecution from the governor, Mr C.H. Hanumantharaya, appeared before the 23rd Additional City Civil and Sessions court on Monday and filed three more complaints, each consisting of three scams. The judge further posted the hearing on two complaints filed on Saturday to 3 pm.
When the matter came up for hearing in the afternoon, advocate Sandeep Patil appeared on behalf of Sohan Kumar and filed two applications, one under Section 210 and another 319 of CrPC. He stated that when the matter is already being heard at the high court a private complaint cannot be taken. Significantly, he also pleaded to include former Mr Kumaraswamy.
“In a same survey number and de-notification, former chief minister had also de-notified 60 acres of land in Rachenahalli. Hence, as per 319 of CrPC he should be included as a co-accused. If B.S. Yeddyurappa is prosecuted then Mr Kumaraswamy should also be prosecuted. It is already on record,” Mr Sandeep Patil said. Mr Hanumantharaya objected to this stating that under Section 211 of CrPC there was scope for respondents to file any application even before the judge was to take cognisance on the complaint. The special judge for Lokayukta C.B. Hipparagi directed the counsel for Sohan Kumar to furnish the copy of the applications to Mr Hanumantharaya.
He asked Mr Hanumantharaya to file objections and posted further hearing on this on January 31.
Post new comment