<p>The Judge C B Hipparagi of the special court for cases under Prevention of Corruption Act also rejected Yeddyurappa's son-in-law Sohan Kumar's another application to include the former chief minister and JD(S) chief H D Kumaraswamy as an accused in the case filed on private complaints by two advocates. The court posted the matter to February 28 for recording of evidence.<br /><br />Sohan Kumar, in his application, had sought a stay on the proceedings on the ground that the matter was already being investigated by the Lokayukta.<br /><br />The two advocates, Sirajin Basha and K N Balaraj, had filed five private complaints against the chief minister, his sons B Y Vijendra and B Y Raghavendra, MP, Sohan Kumar and others.<br /><br />Soon after the proceedings began at 3 pm, the judge rejected all applications seeking stay and plea to include Kumaraswamy as an accused in the case. Immediately, the counsel for petitioners began recording statements. <br /><br />Sohan Kumar’s counsel intervened and said he had plans to challenge the decision in the High Court and requested the court to grant one week’s time to record the statement. <br />However, the Judge said he could not hear the argument as the counsel did not have any opportunity to present his argument.<br /><br />The court wanted to fix March 3 to record statement, but posted the matter to Monday after counsel for petitioners said that they were ready to record the statement.<br /><br />The counsel for the complainants senior Supreme Court advocate Anup Chowdary and Hanumantharaya objected Kumar's applications and argued he had no locus standi to seek such a relief at the pre-processing stage and pre-cognisance of the matter. <br /><br />They claimed the application could not be moved as the court had not issued any summons to those named in the complaint. Therefore, they had no right of audience. The applications were frivolous and intended to delay the legal proceedings, they argued.<br /><br />Chowdary and Hanumantharaya told reporters after the court verdict that the decision meant court had taken cognisance of the private complaint and that the judicial process in the matter had now begun. The court would record the evidence and based on the examination of documents, evidence and witness statement decide whether summons should be issued to the 'proposed accused', they stated.<br /><br />“We have got a host of evidence with us against the chief minister and his family members. Our evidences convinced the court. Hence, the court upheld our argument,” they added.</p>
<p>The Judge C B Hipparagi of the special court for cases under Prevention of Corruption Act also rejected Yeddyurappa's son-in-law Sohan Kumar's another application to include the former chief minister and JD(S) chief H D Kumaraswamy as an accused in the case filed on private complaints by two advocates. The court posted the matter to February 28 for recording of evidence.<br /><br />Sohan Kumar, in his application, had sought a stay on the proceedings on the ground that the matter was already being investigated by the Lokayukta.<br /><br />The two advocates, Sirajin Basha and K N Balaraj, had filed five private complaints against the chief minister, his sons B Y Vijendra and B Y Raghavendra, MP, Sohan Kumar and others.<br /><br />Soon after the proceedings began at 3 pm, the judge rejected all applications seeking stay and plea to include Kumaraswamy as an accused in the case. Immediately, the counsel for petitioners began recording statements. <br /><br />Sohan Kumar’s counsel intervened and said he had plans to challenge the decision in the High Court and requested the court to grant one week’s time to record the statement. <br />However, the Judge said he could not hear the argument as the counsel did not have any opportunity to present his argument.<br /><br />The court wanted to fix March 3 to record statement, but posted the matter to Monday after counsel for petitioners said that they were ready to record the statement.<br /><br />The counsel for the complainants senior Supreme Court advocate Anup Chowdary and Hanumantharaya objected Kumar's applications and argued he had no locus standi to seek such a relief at the pre-processing stage and pre-cognisance of the matter. <br /><br />They claimed the application could not be moved as the court had not issued any summons to those named in the complaint. Therefore, they had no right of audience. The applications were frivolous and intended to delay the legal proceedings, they argued.<br /><br />Chowdary and Hanumantharaya told reporters after the court verdict that the decision meant court had taken cognisance of the private complaint and that the judicial process in the matter had now begun. The court would record the evidence and based on the examination of documents, evidence and witness statement decide whether summons should be issued to the 'proposed accused', they stated.<br /><br />“We have got a host of evidence with us against the chief minister and his family members. Our evidences convinced the court. Hence, the court upheld our argument,” they added.</p>
