The order followed Kharge’s criminal revision petition challenging the validity of Mysore JMFC’s order dated January 18, 2007, taking cognisance of electoral offences of bribing voters, against him. The magistrate had also issued him summons in the case.

The proceedings were one launched by Jayalakshmipuram police who had lodged a suo motu complaint on Dec 3, 2006 stating that Kharge was found to have entered Mysore in an unauthorised vehicle carrying about Rs 1 lakh cash against the electoral Code of Conduct.

The police had alleged that Kharge was there to lure voters in favour of Congress candidate Siddaramaiah, and following a chargesheet, the magistrate had registered a criminal case under Section 171B and H of Indian Penal Code.

Kharge’s counsel H S Chandramouli contended that the proceedings were void ab initio since the cops had taken up investigation of a non-cognisable offence before taking the statutory permission from jurisdictional magistrate. Justice C R Kumaraswamy allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings.

Adverse remarks
The High Court on Thursday quashed certain adverse remarks recorded by the then Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court in the Confidential Report (CR) concerning a district judge, who had subsequently resigned the post.

Justice H N Nagmohan Das quashed the communication dated January 11, 1999 issued by the HC Registrar General, in respect of adverse remarks recorded in then district judge S K Venkata Reddy’s CR.

The report pertained to the period between June 1998 and December 1998 when Venkata Reddy was deputed as District Judge, Leave Reserve in High Court.

Reddy who subsequently resigned in March 1999 and presently is a practising advocate, had also served as State Law Secretary during 1997-98.

The Court opined that adverse remarks had been recorded with regard to the judicial officer’s integrity in an unusual manner and not in the normal course. His representation seeking expunging the same had also not been considered in accordance with Service Rules, it said.

The remarks were recorded by the then CJ without jurisdiction, the Court observed while saying that concerned administrative judge of Bangalore alone was competent to prepare the CR.