SC asks HDK, wife to produce documents in mining case

The Supreme Court has asked former Karnataka Chief Minister H D Kumaraswamy and his wife as well as an advocate, who accused the JD(S) leader of abusing his position in granting mining lease and allotment of site to private firms, to produce relevant documents.

A bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi and Prafulla C Pant directed petitioner advocate M Vinod Kumar's counsel Nikhil Majithia and senior advocate V Giri, appearing for Kumaraswamy and others, to furnish the 2007 Karnataka HC order by Tuesday.

The bench put the matter for consideration on September 27 after Giri contended that the order for renewal of lease was made pursuant to the HC's order and there was no intention to provide any undue benefit to a mining lease holder. He also submitted that there was no allegation that the mining lease was obtained without forest clearance.

Advocate Majithia, for his part, assailed the HC's order of October 21, 2011 that quashed the proceedings initiated against the couple by the Special Lokayukta Court on the petitioner's complaint.

Citing previous SC rulings, he said, “The courts should not interfere with offences which have economic repercussions on the society at large. The High Court cannot look into materials or documents produced by the accused in a petition filed under Section 482 CrPC. The court cannot appreciate evidence or conduct an enquiry as to whether the offences made out will result in conviction or not. The court has just to satisfy itself whether a prima facie case is made out or not.” The cases against Kumaraswamy and his wife Anitha, then a JD(S) MLA, were related to renewal of mining lease to the Jantakal Mining firm in alleged violation of norms and alleged irregularities in allotment of sites to Vishwabharathi Housing Cooperative Society, which had made a quid pro quo site allotment to Anitha, during Kumaraswamy's tenure as Chief Minister in 2006.

The petitioner contended that the HC should not have acted in the matter on the ground that there was no sanction, and the complaint cannot be rejected at the threshold. He also submitted that the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 has no application as far as offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act were concerned.