CM's son-in-law challenges sessions court order

The complainants, two city-based advocates, had charged Sohan Kumar with committing offences under various Sections of the IPC read with Sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act and under Sections 3&4 of Land (Restriction & Transfer) Act 1991.

Sohan Kumar submitted there was no merit in the complaint and that documents annexed with the complaint did not reveal commission of any offence by him.

He contended that the Governor without calling for the Investigating Agency's report had "unilaterally" accorded sanction under Sec19(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act to prosecute the Chief Minister and his family members.

Sohan Kumar submitted that the complainants had levelled the allegations with "an oblique motive of tarnishing the image of the Chief Minister and his family members".

Referring to the rejection of his applications for staying the proceedings by the special judge on the ground that a similar petition had been filed by JDS spokesperson, Kumar said, "It (rejection) is wholly against the purported provision as contained under section 210 of the CrPC"

The private complaint is "illegal, arbitrary and capricious", he said and contended that it was liable to be quashed.

Sohan Kumar submitted that the trial Judge had erred in taking cognisance of the offences for which no sanction was accorded by the Governor.

He pointed out that the Special Judge without referring to the sanction order, has passed orders, taking cognisance of all offences mentioned in the private complaint.
The petition is likely to come up tomorrow.