New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday junked a plea by Karnataka deputy chief minister DK Sivakumar seeking a direction to quash a case registered by the CBI in an alleged disproportionate assets case against him.
A bench led by Justice Bela M Trivedi and comprising Justice Satish Chandra Sharma after hearing submissions from senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing Shivakumar, said, “Sorry….dismissed”.
Rohatgi argued that if an IT raid were to happen today and they recover cash. At this juncture, Justice Trivedi said that the question is whether IT authorities cannot prosecute under the Prevention of Corruption Act. "IT authorities cannot prosecute you under PC Act?", said Justice Trivedi. Rohatgi said, "I have ED, I have IT, and I have CBI. ED has been quashed by this court. Income Tax I am facing…..”.
During the hearing, Rohatgi said an FIR was registered in October 2020 and “ 17A of the PC Act was inserted on July 26, 2018, and has not been complied with….Your lordship (Justice Trivedi) took one view and Justice Bose (of the apex court) took a different view and that issue is referred to a larger bench”. Justice Trivedi said the proceedings cannot be quashed in the present case based on a split verdict.
Rohatgi said he is only asking for a notice on the petition today and not pressing on quashing the CBI case and added, “question is pending before a larger bench and one judge has held in my favour….”. Justice Trivedi said that the court is not keen on quashing the case against Sivakumar now and also not willing to entertain the petition, and queried, “Rs 41 Lakhs were recovered from you…”. Rohatgi said that the Income Tax issue and IT raid occurred in August 2017, and the IT department based on their raid had filed a criminal complaint against his client on June 13, 2018. “That is a different thing. That must be under IT Act…”, said Justice Trivedi.
Rohatgi vehemently argued that the CBI cannot register an FIR on the same issue when the Income Tax is already prosecuting his client. “This is under PC Act on a totally different issue…”, said the bench. Rohatgi replied that the IT complaint was on the grounds of unaccounted cash found in that raid. “Please appreciate. I am a public servant…”, said Rohatgi. He argued further, “Can you have separate FIRs for separate chapters of an offence? Offence is one, the raid!”. After hearing submissions, the bench told Rohatgi it was not keen to entertain the petition.
The issue of whether Section 17A applies to offences allegedly committed before the date of the 2018 amendment, which inserted Section 17A, has been referred to a larger bench (the judgment in the Chandrababu Naidu case).
In August 2017, the IT department carried out a raid on various premises of Shivakumar and Rs 41 lakhs were allegedly recovered from Shivakumar's premises. In October 2020, the CBI registered the disproportionate case against Shivakumar, based on consent given by the previous BJP government on September 25, 2019. On November 28, 2023, the Congress government, however, withdrew consent for the agency to probe the assets of Shivakumar
The Karnataka government in December 2023, referred the matter to the Karnataka Lokayukta for investigation, which has been challenged by the CBI before the Karnataka High Court. The central agency’s challenge is pending consideration over there.
Read More
