…………………. MEMO in 82 pages, BY Respondent /Accused Sri Digvijay Mote in Person…. is as follows….
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
CRIMINAL REFERRED CASE No. 01 OF 2014
C.C. No 6711/2012
Referred by VIII – Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Bangalore. ………. …… Appellant, Represented by Chief Justice, Karnataka High Court
Sri Digvijay Mote …… Respondent /Accused ….. in Person
MEMO BY Respondent /Accused in Person
The Respondent Accused humbly submits the facts below:-
- Contents of Police Complaint necessitating the said Charge Sheet, though totally ILLEGIBLE HANDWRITTEN, applicant with help of English teachers & sons, could make-out the following contents:-
|29th October, 2011
The Station House Officer,
M.S. Building Police station [Out Post]
Bangalore.Dear sir,Subject: Request to initiate action against Sri Digvijay Mote r/o , Bangalore etc.,
With reference to the above subject, I write to request you that a person identifying himself as Sri Mr. Digvijay Mote, claim to be President of the Digvijay Mote & family founder of Centre for Investigation and prosecution of . . universlly-. . ILLEGIBLE . . . . .– etc., a nique website as “A family viz., http://www.judges plot 4plot. com” , (2) www.india Corruption.com . etc.,For the past 3 days the said person Sri Digvijay Mote appears to be little aged tall, lean built with specs is found distributing pamplets —– MS Building Annexure premises along with __ILLEGIBLE_______ bigger than postcard size photo card size photo state pamphlets of Hon’ble Judges and the language in English ai not clear as to what exactly he means with allegation incorporated in it. He is also distributing pamphlets during office hours along with Photostat press clippings of the past , since in 2004 etc,, He has been using all north vulgar words, using vulgar words, singing vulgar songs, against the respected persons incorporated in the pamphlets which is enclosed here with for your reference.The citizen who anable around him listen to him patiently laughing to him mimicry not knowing what or whether this is absurd about this.Member of the public namely Sri Murugesan , Sri ChandrashekharSri ……LLEGIBLE…… _________ ___ILLEGIBLE______ _________ and they have identified them ____ and called up on telephone and about this unruly behavior and __ILLEGIBLE_______ to the regular _________ addition today at 5:10pm the ____ILLEGIBLE_____ Digivijay Mote identifies by his name called on our landline number ___ILLEGIBLE______ from his mobile 9886619410 the _________ office land line __ILLEGIBLE_______ and now in their conversation with me he states that he has all proof with records to establish that there _____ILLEGIBLE____ in the Judicial Layout forming by Honorable Judges and so many other with __ILLEGIBLE___ etc. He further states, if his__ILLEGIBLE_______ toward their aggitation to uproot corruption land scam is taken care of. He _________ further or he would lodge a complaint and ____ILLEGIBLE_____ very bad ____ILLEGIBLE_____ that _____ arrested on the ___ILLEGIBLE______ of office of the ___ILLEGIBLE____ and____ILLEGIBLE_____ for various offense, and after _ILLEGIBLE__ he was acquitted etc __ILLEGIBLE_______ things _____ILLEGIBLE____ are incorporated in his pamphlets derogatory __ILLEGIBLE_____.I told him that should you have any information, you are at liberty to the proper forum/authority and lodge your complaint produce what ever documents you have in report before whom ever you may _____ILLEGIBLE____ . But you should not obstruct the movement ___ILLEGIBLE______ _________ .It is therefore request you please initiate action as per to and ____ILLEGIBLE_____ ____ILLEGIBLE_____ that be _____ILLEGIBLE____ use vulgar words, printing pamphlets with no proof spread sever ____ILLEGIBLE_____ in the minds of public and ___ILLEGIBLE______ intimidating etc.
Deputy Commissioner [Public Relations],
[A Rubber Stamp Seal]
……………………… Police Acknowledement…below…………………..
Police Acknowledement in Kannada translated into English reads thus:
On 29.10.2011, at 18.10 Hours Complainant received, numbered as
FIR No. 58/2011 u/s 341, 504 , 506 I.P.C , case registered.
- On 6th June, 2012 Ld. Judge Nagalingan Gouda Patil read out Charges, on which date my Advocate reminded him that matter is listed for recalling N.B.W issued previous day, though I was very much in Court hall. At the insistence of advocate he cancelled Charge Sheet. He had framed charges according to the wish of Complainant, as Complainant’s father is also member. He is Employee-cum-judge; of whose details are furnished in Application in L.C.
- After having recalled the Charges, in absence of any Advocates to assist me as per Sec. 303, he has listed for “Hear Before Charges” . But he failed to respect his earlier Order to P.P. to file Objections to my Application on 10th October, 2012. Nor did P.P uttered a word till date of filing of Application. It confirmed the suspicion of applicant that Court is acting contrary to law and such errant Biased Orders being passed at the behest of 867 Judges & Lokayuktas etc.,; necessitating to file this Application to Transfer case to High Court.
- The VIII – Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court “Transferred the C.C. 6711/2012” on 30th October 2013; gist is in box below:-
|The VIII – Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court “Transferred the C.C. 6711/2012” on 30th October 2013; pursuant to the Order dated 22.10.2013 passed by the VIII – Additional Chief Magistrate. The gist of said Order is as below:-
This application is filed by the accused u/sec. 479 r/w Section- 407 of Cr.P.C ., seeking for an order to transfer this case to the Hon’ble High court of Karnataka as Hon’ble High court is Court of Records, where this accused has confidence to get justice against powerful lobby of 867 Corrupt Judges and Lokayuktas and this court by transferring the case to Hon’ble High court, shall only enhance its prestige and glory in the eyes of litigants.The Hon’ble High court has powers to re-open past judgments and he can convince the Hon’ble High court to re-open the cases of Karnataka Employees HBCS has secured more than 27 judgments fraudulently in Hon’ble High Court for developing Judicial Layout and any frauds committed on it amounts to fraud on court of records.The learned Sr. APP has filed objections by way of memo contending that when integrity of court is questioned, it is difficult in arriving at proper conclusion and therefore he has prayed to consider the application filed by the accused.
The complainant in his application has alleged that there are 867 corrupt judges named thereunder and he has no confidence upon this court as the Magistrate is personally interested to protect those judges. Even he has made allegations against my Predecessor Mr. Naglingana Gouda Patil stating that he has acted contrary to law and there shall be bias in hearing the case.
The complaint further submitted that as this court is personally interested to safeguard the interest of judges, who are named in the application, this court should not hear this matter. In this manner the complaint has made statements upon this court including my predecessor stating he has no confidence and the matter be transferred to the Hon’ble High court for redressal. In view of this, I do find complicated question of law. Though there is no provision to transfer the case by this court u/se. 407 of Cr.P.C., in view of involving complicated question of law, it is necessary to make reference of this matter to the Hon’ble High court for kind orders.ORDER:
Application filed by the accused u/sec. 479 r/w section – 407 of Cr.P.C., is partly allowed.Submit entire records to the Hon’ble High court on reference for kind orders.[Dictated to the stenographer, transcript threof, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court this the 22nd day of October 2013 ]
[D. Puttaswamy ]
VIII A.C.M.M., Bangalore
[ Link: https://jailcorrupt867judges.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/4pgs-6711-12-crtorder-sec-407.pdf ]
- The gist of Ld. Govt. Sr. A.P.P’s “ Objections by way of Memo by Prosecution” dated 07.10.2013 is as below:The Charge Sheet is filed u/s 341, 504 , 506 IPC against the accused.The accused in this case has filed application under 479 r/w 407 Cr.P.C to transfer the case from this Hon’ble Court. And also filed memo along with documents.For fair and impartial inquiry, accused is seeking permission and repeatedly he is expressing that he has no faith in this court. Also some question of law of unusual difficulty is likely to arise and hence considering the application and submission of the accused, Order may be passed and transfer the case, in the interest of justice.
- Few paragraphs from Application in July 2013 filed in ACMM-VIII Court are in box below:-
- Applicant is served with chargesheet u/s Sec. 341, 504 and 506 of IPC. The I.O of the case has submitted in the Charge Sheet submitted to this Court Pages 52 to 104 which are transcripts from Two websiteshttp://www.judgesplot4plot.com & www.indiancorruptjudges.com . The I.O has also submitted few pages from my youtube.com accounts where I have up-loaded Videos; directly or indirectly connected with contents of my websites and the affairs of “Karnataka Judicial Department Employees House Building Co-operative Society Limited, Karnataka High Court, Bangalore”. For brevity here after termed as “Karnataka Employees HBCS”. CDs also contain video clips of applicant’s live interview with Karnataka Lokayukta Justice Santosh Hegde in 2007; which was facilitated by complainant Syed Riaz.
- Introduction to Applicant’s websites http://www.judgesplot4plot.com & www.indiancorruptjudges.com: are based on LOKAYUKTA INSTITUTIONAL CORRUPTION:-
| Upa Lokayukta G.P. Shivaprakash suo moto commenced investigations vide Complaint No. Compt//UpLok/BCD/64/1999 on 4/12/1999 against “SHIVALINGAIAH, PRESIDENT, KAR.STATE JUDL. DEPT.EMP.HOUSE BLGD.CO-OP.SOCIETY, BANGALORE” under heading “IRREGULARITIES, NEPOTISM AND CORRUPT ACTIVITIES IN ALLOT MENT OF SITES”.
 Up-Lokayukta wrote letter on 6th September, 1999 to B.D.A asking “whether JUDICIAL Layout is Approved by B.D.A and whether B.D.A has handed over Layout to C.M.C, Yelahanka”. As per our Investigations B.D.A replied to Up Lokayukta’s letter on 8th October, 1999 stating “ Neither B.D.A has approved JUDICIAL Layout Plan nor B.D.A has passed any Order to Hand-over JUDICIAL Layout to C.M.C, Yelahanka”.
 After retirement of G.P. Shivaprakash, Justice N. Venkatachala was appointed as Karnataka Lokayukta. He instead of passing Orders as per Lokayukta Act or handing over Investigations to C.B.I chose to keep it pending like DEAD BODY in MORTUARY till in 2007; though G.P. Shivaprakash closed the case on 13th March, 2002 . It may kindly be noted that both G.P. Shivaprakash and Justice N. Venkatachala Karnataka Lokayukta were and are Allottees of sites in JUDICIAL Layout apart from all three present Lokayukta & two Upa Lokayuktas, per credible information.
[3.A] Upa Lokayukta was investigating inter alia whether Karnataka Employees HBCS which has secured more than few dozen Judgments from Karnataka High Court and Lower Courts till date to form three Layouts, more particularly JUDICIAL LAYOUT formed in 156 Acres or 193 Acres are bonafide or by Fraud. Few of prominent Judgments are ILR 1994 KAR 2115, ILR 1995 KAR 3139, etc. Up-Lokayukta G.P.Shivaparakash and Lokayukta came to know through Investigations with B.D.A and other Departments that Judgments were “Given and Taken by Fraud, Collusion, with Corrupt motives etc.” and that no any allottee has any Legal Title of Ownership to their respective sites, or on the lands on which sites are formed in the Light of B.D.A’s reply to Up-lokayukta. Simply put Judgments were given on Quid-Pro-Quo basis, for SKY-FALL of PROFITS, not wind-fall profits like COAL or MINE scam.
 Websites Investigated contents are trying to bring to the kind perusal the True Facts to attention of Karnataka Government, Legislature, B.D.A, Karnataka High Court, Media, Transparency International, C.B.I, Karnataka Police, Advocates, whole world; so that TRUTH prevails in COURTS & GUILTY are PUNISHED.
 Justice G.P. Shivaprakash who closed the case on 13th March, 2002, is haunting Indian Judiciary, Karnataka High Court , Karnataka Lokayukta, Government at State & Centre since 2002 till date in Writ Petitions P.I.L 40994/2002 , 7105/2007 & 13261/2006. The facts in 7105/2007 & 13261/2006 Petitions, who have approached hiding all the TRUE FACTS. Applicant finds Writ Petitions P.I.L 40994/2002, approached by Court employees prayers are bonafide. High Court special Bench Judges are playing fraud on High Court by not cancelling 2,400 sale deeds and making a direction to hand over Lands & buildings to erstwhile land owners in accordance with Supreme Court’s Judgments in HMT Housing Society, Bangalore City Housing Co-op Society, Vyalikaval HBCS etc.,.
 The facts which came to be determined by Lokayukta and High Court etc., are being raised again in High Court by Justice K.Jagannath Shetty, Up-Lokayukta G.P. Shivaprakash, Justice M.P. Chinnappa, Justice A.M. Farooq and Justice T.N. Vallinayagam, the Judges of Supreme Court, Karnataka High Court. Which facts are honestly reported in our websites. In WP [PIL] 7105/2007 Up-Lokayukta G.P. Shivaprakash seek C.B.I Investigations in La-de-affairs of “Karnataka Employees HBCS” stating thus at:
Paragraph 30 [A]: “ It is Disgraceful that this Judicial Layout is mired in controversy and has become cesspool of Scandals. It has become Talk of The Town. An unknown source has created websitehttp://www.judgesplot4plot.com derogatory to the position of Judges. It is submitted that there are too many skeletons in the closet and the management has no Sense of Duty or Shame and requires to be replaced. A thorough time bound inquiry by an independent investigating agency of all the misdeeds including allotment of sites, conversion of civic amenity sites and beneficiaries of the society is essential.
Paragraph 30 [B]: Petitioners being retired Judges of Karnataka High Court are confronted by public with Questions for which they have no answers. The question normally asked if JUDICIAL Layout is Above Law.
 The several judgments secured by “Karnataka Employees HBCS” state Land is acquired legally, compensation is paid to landlords legally by S.L.A.O, Judicial Layout is approved by Bangalore Development Authority. Civic Amenity sites of about 90 Acres is handed over to B.D.A, Sites are registered to bonafide Employees etc.,. And accordingly 2,400 plus sites are registered stating in each & every Sale Deed that Bangalore Development Authority has approved layout plan in 1992 .
 As per Govt. records, Lokayukta investigations, “Karnataka Employees HBCS” has made NO-ANY-PAYMENT-To-EITHER-To-GOVERNMENT ; NOR-GOVT-HAS-PAID- A-PENNY-TO-FARMERS, at least till they had sold all / majority sites till 1995-96, as per records we have.
[8.A] The High Court Judges including most of Chief Justices like S.Mohan were in direct alliance with Chief Ministers of Karnataka directly or through Advocate Generals like Santosh Hegde, C. Shivappa, or State Public Prosecutors like S. Doreraju or H.S. Chandramouli. This fact of un-holy nexus with CM, made the Society management into committing various crimes including “IRREGULARITIES, NEPOTISM AND CORRUPT ACTIVITIES IN ALLOT MENT OF SITES”; was made known to Upa Lokayukta M. Ramakrishana, Retired Chief Justice, Jammu & Kashmir High Court, in his letter of which contents is covered in this Application.
 Up-Lokayukta came to know that Judgments were secured by Fraud and contrary to facts. Based on such Judgments 1,200 plus Judges from Superior Courts to Lower Courts, Judicial Officers were registered with sale deeds of sites stating layout is approved by B.D.A. Similarly 1,200 sites to Court peons, clerks, etc.,It also came to know that Layout is formed in Revenue Lands in 193 Acres, Land Grabbing of 37 Acres, no compensation is paid to landlords etc.,. Lokayukta failed to punish the Karnataka Employees HBCS and passed illegal Order of closure of Investigations, whereby it encouraged Corruption in Karnataka State in all fields of Governance . His direction by giving “Illegal Layout Plan submitted by Society forwarded to Sub-Registrar, with a direction register sites” has amounted to legitimizing Contempt of Court, Land Grabbing, Fraud, Forgery, Cheating etc and has created ANARCHY in Karnataka. The Legislature Committee in 2007 estimates quantified 45,000 acres of Government Lands in Bangalore Urban is Grabbed and in many cases with Fraud Judgments etc., is one of contention and purpose of websites. Karnataka Public Land Board has estimated, with facts & figures, that eleven lakh acres of Government lands are Grabbed by Illegal Court Orders in Karnataka.
 The few facts was informed to the Applicant by Karnataka Lokayukta to Applicant’s pointed query viz., “ Query No. 3: List of Judges & Judicial Officers found to have Forged Sale deeds & constructed Illegal constructions” and “Query No. 4:Communications to Police to register complaint / investigations directed to have been given to initiate prosecution under IPC Chapters IX, X, XI, XIV, XVI, XVII, XVIII, XIX, r/w Section 34, Prevention of Corruption Act, The Goonda & Slum Grabbers Act”. The letter dated 26 Nov, 2012 states “ In relation to your queries numbers 3 & 4 there is no separate information or files”.
 ARE-2, who gave the 834 pages file certified copies, Mr. Pandit’s site was registered in Contempt of Upa Lokayukta Stay of Registration Order. And SPIO Mr. Mohammed Mojihid Ulla who signed the letter is also a member , if not beneficiary. Only High Court’s time-bound independent investigations into Upa Lokayukta Hush-up & frauds being perpetrated by Reddy & Billppa Bench shall make the SKELETONS & SKULLS tumbling-out, as claimed by G.P.Shivapraksh in his WP. PIL 7105/2007 in para 30.
 It however may be noted that Karnataka High Court Justice G.P. Shivaprakash gave two judgments in favour of Karnataka Employees HBCS viz., W.P. 1600/1994 directing Government to hand-over 17 acres of land in 1994.
 Then in W.P. 18447/1994 in 1994; striking down Karnataka Government direction to Sub-registrars “not to Register the Sites of Bangalore’s 32 House Building co-operative Societies including Karnataka Employees HBCS”. Judgment is reported as ILR 1994 KAR 2115. This Judgment based on Karnataka Employees HBCS registered 2,400 plus sites stating layout is approved by B.D.A including 320 Sites formed in un-acquired 33 Acres of lands, without ownership, conversion, B.D.A approval etc.,. Based on same Judgment several H.B.C.S also registered sites similarly.
I am XII standard passed. I was a successful businessman in Pest Control Services, having had my office in eleventh floor, High Point-IV, Hotel Chalukya Circle, Bangalore-1. I closed the business voluntarily to do national service. I was successful in getting Supreme Court Orders against Election Commission of India in 1993 to hold elections in all states, without denying “Right-To-Ballot & Timely-Vote; along with Citizens of Other States; in all States”. I was successful in getting through Public interest Litigation in Karnataka High Court in 1994 in Appeal, getting “Right to life & Dignity to 250 plus starving Sri Lankan Children who were brought by IPKF; and were being staying in Residential School in Jakkur, Yelahanka”. I was first in India in challenging Halogen Lamps of Cars / Vehicles using High Beams like SHOOT WITHOUT SHOT i.e., killing people by blinding their path in nights”. With common sense law I am trying to assist the Court in finding out the TRUTH; behind the Complaint. This complaint is second one, first being in 2004 by Lokayukta N. Venkatachala through Lokayukta Registrar D. Krishnappa. Both are illegal beneficiaries sites in JUDICIAL Layout formed by Karnataka Employees HBCS. In that Complaint I allowed myself to suffer along with my wife & son were also accused for two long years, presuming that Good Senses shall prevail upon 867 Judges , Police, Government etc., . But it they continue indulging in increased proportion of Corrupt, Nepotism and Illegal activities.Frauds on this Court by Karnataka Lokayukta in 2004 to 2006 in C.C 8838/2005:- If this Court were to act Judicially in C.C 8838/2005 and bring to Justice the REAL CULPRITS viz., 867 Plus Corrupt Judges & Judicial Officers who happened to be members in their personal capacity for personal enrichment; the present & past false complainants to stand trial would not have arose, as fraud would have been unravelled in 2004-2006 alone and this applicant & family would not have suffered at the hands of injustice by this court. Nor the present False, fraudulent complaint would have been filed. But then Judge Sri. K. Palakshappa, S.L.F.No. 2994 chose to protect the Guilty Complaints and treated me & family as “Sheeps sent by Butcher Karnataka Lokayukta” to slaughter!Law Day Speech by Chief Justice of India Hon’ble Justice S.H. Kapadia “If anyone knows a Judge is believed to be corrupt;he should be named in Public; Take a Stand & Name him in Public & Tell the Chief Justice” – 26 Nov 2011 : In obedience to CJI Call to all Citizens, Digvijay Mote hosted on websites for benefit of masses / Citizens; in around 27th November, 2011 and were Hand-delivered to the private Secretaries to all Sitting Hon’ble Judges of Karnataka High court, so as to bring to kind notice of all Sitting Judges of Karnataka High Court including Chief Justice. Which document happens to be part & parcel of “Page Number nine of Charge Sheet against me in CC 6711/2012; on top of page”. And in the same page he pasted below DNA News dated November 22, 2011 with Head Line “ THE JUDGES WITH PLOTS”.
Fraud vitiates everything including judicial acts: The Hon’ble Supreme Court speaking through present Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, then in 2011, held Reported case 2011 STPL(Web) 978 SC 19 . Union of India Vs. Ramesh Gandhi, P. SATHASIVAM & J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ. Criminal Appeal No. 1356 of 2004-Decided on 14-11-2011 thus:
22. This Court on more than one occasion held that fraud vitiates everything including judicial acts. In S.P. Chengal Varaya Naidu (Dead) By Lrs. Vs. Jagannath (Dead) By Lrs. & Ors., (1994) 1 SCC 1, this Court observed as follows in para 1:-
1. “Fraud-avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal” observed Chief Justice Edward Coke of England about three centuries ago. It is the settled proposition of law that a judgment or decree obtained by playing fraud on the court is a nullity and honest in the eyes of law. Such a judgment/decree – by the first court or by the highest court – has to be treated as a nullity by every court, whether superior or inferior. It can be challenged in any court even in collateral proceedings.”Failure of a fair Trial & Transfer Of Criminal Cases u/s 406 & 407 in ACMM-VIII Court:
 Applicant being as mentioned above, is Illiterate in Judicial, Legal , Criminal matters ; has through common sense found the following articles on Supreme Court of India Judgments, supporting his claim for Transfer Of this Criminal Case, amongst catena of such cases, where the Magistate has made over case to High Courts for Fair Trial to un-ravel TRUTH behind the Complaints being SLAPPED on me by Lokayukta or its Officers, for Publicizing CORRUPTION, NEPOTISM, CRONYISM within Lokayukta protecting 4,500 plus members of Judicial Fraternity who are members of private housing Society Judicial Emp. Housing society, High Court, Bangalore.
 It is failure of Lokayukta machinery for not directing Police to arrest 867 Corrupt Judges and make them stand trial in Criminal Courts like any other common man. Such omssion is manifestly fraud on Constitution & Cr.P.C, Article 14 “All Persons are equal before Law”. I.P.C Section 21 r/w P.C. Act, Goonda Act etc., which this Applicant craves to bring to the notice of High Court through Private Complaint, once this case is transferred to High Court. Applicant wants get redressed through High Court under Criminal Writ Jurisdiction.406. Power of Supreme Court to transfer cases and appeals. – (1) Whenever it is made to appear to the Supreme Court that an order under this section is expedient for the ends of justice, it may direct that any particular case or appeal be transferred from one High Court to another High Court or from a Criminal Court subordinate to one High Court to another Criminal Court of equal or superior jurisdiction subordinate to another High Court. …
10. This court has of course given orders under the above-mentioned provision in the past. Since this is a discretionary power, it may be instructive to refer to the following observations made in the matter reported as Maneka Sanjay Gandhi v. Rani Jethmalani, (1979) 4 SCC 167, (V.R. Krishna Iyer, J. at Paras. 2 and 5):
“2. Assurance of a fair trial is the first imperative of the dispensation of justice and the central criterion for the court to consider when a motion for transfer is made is not the hypersensitivity or relative convenience of a party or easy availability of legal services or like mini-grievances. Something more substantial, more compelling, more imperiling, from the point of view of public justice and its attendant environment, is necessitous if the court is to exercise its power of transfer. This is the cardinal principle although the circumstances may be myriad and vary from case to case. We have to test the petitioner’s grounds on this touchstone bearing in mind the rule that normally the complainant has the right to choose any court having jurisdiction and the accused cannot dictate where the case against him should be tried. Even so, the process of justice should not harass the parties and from that angle the court may weigh the circumstances.
… 5. A more serious ground which disturbs us in more ways than one is the alleged absence of congenial atmosphere for a fair and impartial trial. It is becoming a frequent phenomenon in our country that court proceedings are being disturbed by rude hoodlums and unruly crowds, jostling or cheering and disrupting the judicial hearing with menaces, noises and worse. This tendency of toughs and street roughs to violate the serenity of the court is obstructive of the course of justice and must surely be stamped out. Likewise, the safety of the person of an accused or complainant is an essential condition for participation in a trial and where that is put in peril by commotion, tumult or threat on account of pathological conditions prevalent in a particular venue, the request for a transfer may not be dismissed summarily. It causes disquiet and concern to a court of justice if a person seeking justice is unable to appear, present one’s case, bring one’s witnesses or adduce evidence. Indeed, it is the duty of the court to assure propitious conditions which conduce to comparative tranquility at the trial. Turbulent conditions putting the accused’s life in danger or creating chaos inside the court hall may jettison public justice. If this vice is peculiar to a particular place and is persistent the transfer of the case from that place may become necessary. Likewise, if there is general consternation or atmosphere of tension or raging masses of people in the entire region taking sides and polluting the climate, vitiating the necessary neutrality to hold a detached judicial trial, the situation may be said to have deteriorated to such an extent as to warrant transfer. …”
11. The observations quoted above were also cited with approval in Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, (2004) 4 SCC 157, wherein the Court had also observed (Pasayat, J. at Para. 36):“… It has to be unmistakably understood that a trial which is primarily aimed at ascertaining the truth has to be fair to all concerned. There can be no analytical, all comprehensive or exhaustive definition of the concept of a fair trial, and it may have to be determined in seemingly infinite variety of actual situations with the ultimate object in mind viz. whether something that was done or said either before or at the trial deprived the quality of fairness to a degree where a miscarriage of justice has resulted. It will not be correct to say that it is only the accused who must be fairly dealt with. That would be turning a Nelson’s eye to the needs of the society at large and the victims or their family members and relatives. Each one has an inbuilt right to be dealt with fairly in a criminal trial. Denial of a fair trial is as much injustice to the accused as is to the victim and the society. Fair trial obviously would mean a trial before an impartial judge, a fair prosecutor and atmosphere of judicial calm. Fair trial means a trial in which bias or prejudice for or against the accused, the witnesses, or the cause which is being tried is eliminated. If the witnesses get threatened or are forced to give false evidence that also would not result in a fair trial. The failure to hear material witnesses is certainly denial of fair trial.”
12. While there are several other instances where this Court has passed orders in exercise of the power contemplated by Section 406 of CrPC, the observations cited above are sufficient to guide the adjudication of the present case. In order to ensure that a fair trial takes place in the cases in question, we must account for the interests of all stakeholders, namely the accused, the witnesses, the prosecutors, the near relatives of the victims as well as society at large. We are indeed confronted with a complex situation where there is a certain degree of divergence in the interests of the respective stakeholders. The CBI in its capacity as the investigating agency has clearly conveyed the risks associated with conducting the trial in Manipur. Even if one were to concede that the apprehension about social unrest and communal tension between the Meities and the Nagas were a little exaggerated, there can be no quarrel that there exists a real possibility of a physical attack on the respondent-accused as long as he is in Manipur. It was precisely because of this consideration that the respondent-accused is being held in custody at a distant location in Delhi. Furthermore, conducting the trial in Manipur could also reasonably lead to more friction in the State of Manipur which in turn could affect the trial proceedings themselves. We must especially take note of the fact that the killings took place in a region where opinions are sharply divided on the justness of the causes espoused by the NSCN (IM) and that the respondent accused is a member of the same organisation. This creates a risk of intimidation of the witnesses as well as undue prejudice seeping into the minds of those who may be involved in the legal proceedings in different capacities.
[c] Rather it has become Rule since 1995 , after ILR 1995 KAR 3139; Judges who are ready to say CM, MY MASTER to chief Minister shall alone be appointed as Lokayukta or any other such posts. To make such Charge one has to have records, Applicant submits.
|Contents from Application continued:-
A former Karnataka Lokayukta, Justice N Venkatachala, faces the possibility of prosecution in a case where he allegedly pressured the jurisdictional police to hand over the bodies of two road accident victims to a woman who is accused, along with her paramour, of fraudulently making insurance claims totalling 12 lakh from the Life Insurance Corporation (LIC). LIC taken for Rs 12L ‘compensation’ ride by fraudster couple.The then investigating officer in the case has said in his statement to the new IO that despite police reservations, the bodies were handed over due to pressure from the former Lokayukta.The accused, S Lakshmi (34) and advocate Ramakrishna Reddy (56), bought three LIC policies in Bangalore, Adoni and Kalyanadurga in 2004 in the name of Lakshmi’s husband, Nagesh Naik. A year later, on March 25, 2005, they read a news item about the deaths of two unidentified persons in a road accident in the Chikkajala police limits. The same day, they landed up at the Chikkajala police station and claimed that Nagesh and his brother, Venkatesh Naik, were the two unidentified persons.Asked to provide photo IDs of the deceased, they submitted the three LIC policies. Police inspector K Chandrashekar and sub-inspector Gautam did not accept the policies as evidence, at which point Reddy contacted the then Bangalore Advocates Association president, K N Subba Reddy. Subba Reddy allegedly put pressure on the police to hand over the bodies to Lakshmi, but the cops refused to budge. When Lakshmi‘complained’ to the then Lokayukta, Justice N Venkatachala went with her to Bowring Hospital, where the bodies were kept, on March 29, 2005. He reportedly called the officers concerned and, overruling their objections, directed them to hand over the bodies to her.“Out of respect for the Lokayukta, we handed over the bodies to Lakshmi. Now, the case has taken a different turn with the duo being arrested for cheating the LIC. Had the Lokayukta listened to us, we could have proven our suspicions about Lakshmi. We don’t hold any personal grudge against Justice Venkatachala, but we will have to consider taking legal action against him,” a senior police officer said.“We have asked the chief of prosecution for a legal opinion on whether to prosecute the formerLokayukta based on the investigating officer’s statement, after which we will file an FIR,” ACP K N Nyame Gowda, who is handling the case, told Bangalore Mirror.After getting the bodies, the duo used the death certificate in Nagesh Naik’s name to file a compensation claim with the Bangalore LIC branch and were given a cheque for Rs 5.99 lakh on August 8, 2007. In the same manner, Lakshmi got a cheque for Rs 5.99 lakh from the Adoni branch on September 11, 2007. But her bluff was called when she applied for compensation to the Kalyanadurga branch on October 11, 2007. The officials there visited Nagesh Naik’s village and were surprised to discover that he was alive! They informed the Bangalore and Adoni branches of the fraud, and the Bangalore branch lodged a complaint with the police on October 28, 2011.
After a detailed investigation, the police arrested Reddy and Lakshmi on December 7 last year. The investigations revealed that she had passed off an unidentified person’s photograph as her husband’s while enrolling for the ‘Bhima’ policy, and had also produced that person at the time of enrolment.
‘I DID NOTHING WRONG’
Speaking to BM, Justice Venkatachala said, “I haven’t done anything wrong. The Lokayukta post is a judicial one, and that was a judicial order. In that
case, according to the complainant the police were harassing her for money. The bodies were unidentified for a long time. I acted according to the law. I agree there might have been some mistake, but that does not mean they can say we are going to prosecute you. The Lokayukta is not liable for prosecution. I am really surprised by this act of the police. I helped lakhs of people when I was theLokayukta, and this is the return I am getting.”
43.A. The letter of Hon’ble Chairman of Joint Legislative Committe, [Investigation Committee of Identifying Government Land Grabbing in Bangalore Urban & Bangalore Rural Districts] :-
Joint Legislative Committe,
[Investigation Committee of Identifying Government Land Grabbing in Bangalore Urban & Bangalore Rural Districts]
Govt. of Karnataka, Vidhana soudha, Bangalore 560 001
Dear Hon’ble Minister,
Karnataka state Judicial department Employees’ House Building Co-operative Housing Society having formed Layout, has Distributed Sites. Said Layout is formed without getting Layout Plan Approved from B.D.A, has formed an Illegal layout. The Said Society, in forming Illegal layout, has violated Section 79[A] 79[B] of Land reforms Act & Completely violated Land Revenue Act. Places/ Sites Reserved for Civic Amenity Sites / Public Places, is sold away. Society in forming Illegal layout, has violated every Directions issued time-to-time from various Govt. Departments & Courts; has acted as per its own Fancies & wishes, by throwing All orders into Winds. In the Court also, Court has Rejected “Society’s Un-Conditional Apology for the Contempt of Court” stating that Apology is not worth of trusting. Further the President of Society has filed a Criminal case against the Secretary of the very Society for having Forged Records & having Registered Sites illegally, exhibits the Serious kinds of Illegal Activities, society has indulged into.
The Society instead of working as per Law, is working as “Real Estate Agent”. It is Clear that the concerned Governmental Departments including Co-operative department, have failed completely in their duties to see that Society works as per law; but on contrary it looks like the departments have fallen prey to the influence of Society & have utterly failed in their respective duties for having failed to initiate timely action against Illegal activities of this Society. The Investigations reveal that this Society’s Illegal activities have Topped list of Cheating & Frauds in this State, by the way Society has violated Gravest-of Grave Laws. I feel pity to Express, JUDICIAL LAY-OUT, has become MOTHER of ALL ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES. Committee has received Complaints that stating that other Societies have also indulged in Similar illegal Activities.
Therefore to take stringent Action against illegal activities of Karnataka state Judicial department Employees’ House Building Co-operative Housing Society, it is Recommended to supersede the Society forthwith & to initiate Criminal prosecution against persons who are responsible for such nefarious Activities.
With regards, Yours faithfully,
43.B. Who will Guard the Guardians?
Report No. Two, as presented to Karnataka Assembly.
3. The Strange Case of Karnataka Judicial Employees House Building Cooperative Society :-
Who will Guard the Guardians?
The Karnataka Judicial Employees House Building Cooperative Society (KJEHBCS) was established in 1983 with the objective of providing housing to the employees of Judicial Department. Government acquired 156A 26G of land in the village limits of Allalasandra, Chikkabommasandra and Jakkur Chikka Plantations in Bangalore North Taluk in the year 1992 and handed over possession on 13-11-1992. Besides, the HBCS took possession of about 36 acres of land in the same villages through private negotiations with the land holders entering into Agreements to Sell. At the outset it should be mentioned that such negotiations of taking possession of private agricultural land for house building purpose without prior permission of the Government is a violation of Sections 79A and 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. Section 79-B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act which section came into force on 1-3-1974 states as follows:
“79-B. Prohibition of holding agricultural land by certain persons.—(1) With
effect on and from the date of commencement of the Amendment Act, except as
otherwise provided in this Act — . \
(a) no person other than a person cultivating land personally shall be entitled
to hold land; and
(b) it shall not be lawful for, (i)…., (ii)…., (Hi)…………….. ,
(iv) a cooperative society other than a cooperative farm, to hold any land.”
Further, under section 80 (1) (a) (iv), no sale in favour of a cooperative society disentitled u/s 79 B will be lawful. Also, u/s 83 all such land unlawfully held by a HBCS shall be forfeited after a summary enquiry by the Assistant Commissioner.
It is therefore clear that the Judicial Employees HBCS has violated the Land Reforms Act and the land so held by the HBCS shall be forfeited to the Government along with the structures on it. The HBCS gave an ingenious explanation to the Committee on 30 May 2007 that the lands through private negotiations were actually not purchased through Sale Deeds but only Agreements to Sale were effected and the HBCS has taken possession of the lands on that basis. This only compounds the offence of the HBCS as it has taken possession of the lands without any title and proceeded to allot sites in gross violation of law. In some cases, the HBCS and a few land-holders have entered into a “compromise” before the City Civil Judge. It is astounding as to how such “compromise” in violation of the provisions of the Land Reforms Act and that too before a Court of Law can be entered.
The HBCS submitted a layout plan to the Bangalore Development Authority 6-11-1992 for approval. The BDA vide its letter dated 28-11-1992 resolved to approve the layout subject to certain conditions. However, the HBCS never again went before the BDA. Meanwhile many such HBCSs approached the Courts against one of the conditions namely, payment of Rs.2 lakhs per acre towards the Cauvery Water Supply Scheme. The Court held this condition against many HBCS including the Judicial Employees HBCS as invalid. The Judicial Employees HBCS then submitted its layout to the City Municipal Council, Yelahanka which is not the Planning Authority for the lands of the HBCS as the BDA is the concerned authority under the Town and Country Planning Act. The CMC gave approval primarily for collection of fees at Rs.9 per square foot. This was assumed to be “approval” of the layout for which the CMC had no jurisdiction.
The Judicial Employees HBCS enrolled 3399 members and 1353 Associate Members and allotted 2268 sites. This included a large number of sites allotted to many Associate Members including Judges of High Court / Supreme Court their family members, Politicians, Contractors, Officials like Police-Sub Inspectors who cannot be even ‘honorary’ Judicial Officers while many regular primary members were not allotted sites. The allottees included such persons as Police Sub Inspector, Contractor of Public Works Department, children of Judges etc. who were not Judicial Employees or primary members.
Admittedly, the HBCS in its original layout plan had allocated about 65% for sites, 5% for Civic Amenities and Parks and the balance for roads. According to the Town Planning norms, 52% can be allotted as sites, 25% to be reserved for CA sites and parks and the balance of 23% for roads. According to this requirement, the HBCS should have provided for 404 CA sites against which no site was relinquished to the Bangalore Development Authority [BDA] .
In October 2002 the Judicial Employees Welfare Association petitioned to the-High Court about various violations committed by the HBCS and the HC by an interim-order directed that no sites reserved for civic amenities “and parks and public use should be distributed as sites by the HBCS. However, the HBCS violated this direction also and distributed sites reserved for public use. Against this a contempt petition was filed by the Welfare Association which is being heard by the High Court of Karnataka and the Supreme Court appears to have issued a stay against the same.
In March 2006, the Secretary cum Manager of the HBCS allotted 27 sites to his son-in-law by forging the documents of the HBCS against which the HBCS has filed a criminal case which is pending. In December 2006 the Registrar of Cooperative Societies has initiated an enquiry regarding the irregularities committed and for disqualification of the office-bearers of the HBCS. The numerous violations committed by this HBCS are briefly as follows:
(1) According to sections 79A and 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, no HBCS can hold agricultural land without the prior permission of the Government. But the HBCS took possession of about 36 acres of land from land holders on the basis of Agreement to Sell and distributed the land as sites. In Mangalagowri Vs. Keshamurthy [2001 (4) KLJ 520] the High Court of Karnataka held that such distribution of sites after taking possession of agricultural land in violation of section 79-B the Land Reforms Act without prior approval of Government deserves criminal prosecution and directed the Police Department to launch criminal prosecution. Besides, such land possessed and distributed by the HBCS is liable for forfeiture by the Government.
(2) Civic Amenities sites to the extent of 25% of the total layout, area must be relinquished to the BDA for leasing them for civic amenities. As per order of the High Court in Bangalore Medical Trust vs. BDA (AIR 1991 SC 1902) dated 19-7-1991 sites meant for civic amenities cannot be used for any other purpose.
Also, sites whether relinquished to the BDA or not, vest in the BDA. Besides, as per decision of the HC in A.S. Vishveshwariah vs. BDA 2004(3)KLJ p.2613,under section 33 of the Town and Country Planning Act, if the layout is not approved by the BDA and the HBCS goes ahead and distributes sites and buildings are built, the BDA can take possession of the buildings and use them for its own purpose, lease them out or sell to the public.
(3) The HBCS has allotted sites to persons who are not eligible for allotment of sites as judicial employees such as Police Sub inspector, PWD Contractor, Politicians, etc. Most noteworthy of such ineligible persons are the High Court Judges many of whom have been allotted sites as per list appended (Annex 3). As per observations of the High Court in ILR 1995(1) Kar 3139, High Court Judges cannot be members of the HBCS. The observation of Justices K.S.Bhaktavatsalam and M.F.Saldanha in this case aree as follows:
p.3183 “A reading of Clause-7 of the Byelaws, in our view, by no stretch of imagination can include the Judges of High Court or Supreme Court (sitting, transferred, retired). Even assuming for a moment that certain Judges have been allowed to become members of the Society, it may be an irregularity in the conduct of the business of the Society. It is settled law, as we have already stated, that even though the allotment is made contrary to the Byelaws, this Court cannot exercise the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution as no Writ will lie against a Cooperative Society…”
It is most unfortunate that the Judicial Employees HBCS which been a model to the other House Building Cooperative Societies has itself become the leading law-breaker without the least fear or care for law; propriety or public interest. It has indulged in acts of favor, cronyism and capricious indifference to law at will, obviously under the hubris that having High Court judges and powerful persons as its and beneficiaries will ensure immunity to all its illegal acts.
What is more disquieting is the readiness with which sitting High Court judges who are not “employees” under any government but are constitutional functionaries protected rightly by many a privilege under the law, should have eagerly become members of the HBCS and obtained sites. It is seen that some of them obtained sites not only for themselves but also for their kith and kin who are not judicial employees either. The Board of Directors who appeared before the officers of the Committee on 30-5-2007 also informed that while there was one set of application form for the members, there was another set for the Judges of High Court and Supreme Court !
Having the registered office of the HBCS in the High Court Building itself invoking awe and terror in the minds of various agencies who have to take action against the HBCS as per law do not create an atmosphere of fairplay, straightforwardness or impartial dispensation of justice.
In the retreating standards of public morality, the people still perceive the Judiciary as the last bastion of redress, relief, remedy and justice. Therefore, the Judiciary should be, like Sita or Caesar’s wife, above and far removed from the least odor of suspicion of indiscretion and impropriety. This Committee therefore feels that it is necessary to protect the Judiciary’s own precious reputation and the faith of people in it.
- Gist from “MEMO dated 24 August, 2013 in C.C.NO.6711 OF 2012; to make an Early Order Report” in box below:-
|[2 ] That on 31-07-2013 the Accused has filed an application under Section-479 read with Section-407 of the Criminal Procedure Code to make a report to the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka so as to transfer the above case i.e., C.C 6711/2012. The said application was filed by the Accused in person who is not legally trained. The wording used in the said application as ‘transferred’ may be read as ‘for making a report to the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka’ so as ‘to cause transfer of the above case to the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka to deal with the same in accordance with law’. A copy of the application filed by him was served on the Public Prosecutor under acknowledgment on that date before presenting the same to this court. On filing of the said application this Hon’ble Court instead of making a report on the same day called for objections from the Public Prosecutor by giving a long date by adjourning the case to 24-08-2013 thereby “unnecessarily postponing bringing the real culprits to the book whose names and crimes committed by them is specified in the application dated 31-07-2013 itself”. In these circumstances the Accused with all seriousness filing this memo requesting this Hon’ble Court to make report to the Hon’ble High Court to cause transfer of the above case without any further delay. Inter alia many Officers in Police , Lokayukta, ACMM-VIII court, informed / alerted that the then Police Commissioner Mr. Jyothi Prakash Mirji, presently officiating as Home Secretary in Vidhan Soudha, Bangalore to protect his cronies amongst 867 Judges & Lokayuktas including the then SPP Chandramouli, present SPP Doreraju, directed I.O to get me arrested & case be booked, get search & seizure warrant of my office with perverted investigations; despite there being dissidence within Police investigating agencies, it is learnt.That few Police officers who were dealing with Complaint were against my arrest. That the evidences produced by Complainant produced against me are “against Lokayukta itself” ; as they were of opinion that mentions of “Crimes of 867 JUDGES & LOKAYUKTAS; and evidences therefor are WELL WITHIN the CUPBOARDS of Complaint’s Office of LOKAYUKTA viz., COMPT/UPLOK/BCD/64/1999 , COMPT/UPLOK/BCD/125/2000 & COMPT/UPLOK/BCD.164/2000-01”. This information is prudent as in Charge sheet at pages 09, 11, 12, 14-15, 16 of evidences mention of COMPT/UPLOK/BCD/64/1999. Also At page 12, is very clear that my family was arrested on false complaint by N.Venkatachala in 2004, C.C. No. 8838/2005, gist speaks thus:- “Lokayukta prosecutes Digvijay Mote & Family, founders of “Centre for Investigation & Prosecution of Corrupt Judges of India. Owners of universally unique website by a family viz.,http://www.judgesplot.4plot.com & www.indiancorruptjudges.com … “Remove Venkatachala or close Ant-Corruption Bureau” , “This has resulted in intentional insult to the Hon’ble Lokayukta” , “Scandalous statements against the Lokayukta,, High Court Judges & Several Supreme Court Judges” . It is pertinent to mention in this context the written complaint against Lokayukta of and against Complaint No.COMPT/UPLOK/BCD/64/1999 COMPT/UPLOK/BCD/125/2000 & COMPT/UPLOK/BCD.164/2000-01, on behalf of “Centre for Investigation and prosecution of corrupt judges of India” on 20th August, 2004 was made to the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Government of Karnataka, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore-560-001 against the ‘Lokayuktha Institutional Corruption’ supported by E-Book of 510 MB in compact disc (CD) with ‘names and crimes committed by about 1,000 judges’, the details of which are available in the websitewww.judgesplot4plot.com & http://www.indiancorruptjudges. com. A similar complaint was also filed against ‘Lokayukta Institutional Corruption’ to the Home Department of Karnataka Government, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore-560 001 enclosing E-Book as mentioned above. Government’s acknowledgements to the said two complaints are reproduced at the tail end of this Memo for ready reference. Significantly the Principal Secretary to Government, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore-560 001 has addressed a letter in Kannada language vide reference No. C.AA.SU.E. 78 SAY.LO.U 2012 informing that investigation on the above said complaint i.e., Upalokayuktha, G.P.Shiva Prakash suo-motu commenced investigations vide Complaint No.COMPT/UPLOK/BCD/64/1999 ON 04-12-1999 against Sri Shivalingaiah, President, Karnataka State Judicial Department Employees House building Cooperative Society, Bangalore under heading “irregularities, nepotism and corrupt activities in allotment of sites” was stopped and case was closed. A copy of the written communication is reproduced at the tail end of this Memo for ready reference. In addition to the suo-motu investigation initiated by the Upalokayuktha against said Society another suo-motu investigation was initiated in the year 2000 in No.COMPT/ UPLOK/BCD/125/2000 regarding “violation of rules in allotment of sites in Karnataka State Judicial Department Employees House Building Cooperative Society Limited, High Court Building, Bangalore”. The second suo-motu action initiated by Upa Lokayuktha was also closed on 13-03-2002 as per the print out taken from the website of Lokayuktha and reproduced at the tail end of this Memo; for ready reference of Court. Furher more the Upa Lokayukta directed to “draw up separate proceedings as regards “Illegally forming sites in un-acquired lands without ownership” vide paragraphs of 160 to 166 of File Notings of Upa Lokayukta in COMPT/UPLOK/BCD/64/1999 which runs into about 90 pages is available athttps://jailcorrupt867judges.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/rt-lok-1of10-uplok-notes-file-90pgs-25mb-28-11-12.pdf
 “The Home Department, Government of Karnataka, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms which is nodal Department to look after appointment of Lokayuktas & Upa Lokayuktas, Karnataka Lokayuktha and Judges across India coveted with high powerful constitutional positions appointed under the warrant of His Excellency, the Hon’ble President of India whose names & Constitutional positions detailed at pages No. 9 and 10 of the charge sheet are all hand in glove working unitedly with this ACMM-VIII Court to see that TRUTH is PUSHED under CARPET and their ARREST & JAILING is SOMEHOW POSTPONED” is injurious to the Development of Nation, Indian Judiciary, Indian Judicial Independence. Applicant’s aim is to Liberate of Karnataka Judiciary from the Clutches of Karnataka Chief Minister. But present actions are contrary to Public Interest and to the Accused “thereby denying fair trial against real culprits” and “ trial against the accused stands proved of being unfair, motivated with corrupt, criminal motives and criminal designs contrary to criminal Jurisprudence” whereby failing to find out the TRUTH by this Court in 2004 case trial & present case; thereby putting High Court. B.D.A., Lokayukta, Urban Development, Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagar Palike etc., in deep difficulty since two long decades or 20 years “searching for B.D.A Layout Plan deemed to have been approved by Bangalore Development authority;based on which basis Karnataka State Judicial Department Employees House Building Co-operative Society has secure has registered nearly 2,400 sale deeds formed in in un-known extent of lands i.e., 17 Acres or 139 Acres or 156 acres 193 acres or 181 acres! The members of Employees Housing Society numbering 4,500 plus have secured few Judgments by fraud, as enumerated in my Application dated 31 July, 2013.
 When REAL FACTS are being presented by this Accused Applicant, all the above mentioned Public Authorities including Karnataka police unitedly trying to DESTROY INDIAN DEMOCRACY in a very schematic way. Accused is pained to SEE 867 JUDGES & LOKAYUKTAS FALLING to FEET of CHIEF MINISTER to ROB ILLEGALLY & FRAUDULENTLY secure possession of 139 ACRES on 13 Nov, 1992, getting ILLEGALLY Layout Plan approved on 16th Nov, 1992 based on 6th Nov, 1992 letter on which day said Society was not in posession of ONE SQUARE INCH OF LAND! Thereby LOOSING JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE, which details is is mentioned in my Application of 31st July, 2013 at paras 21 to 40.
 Applicant is of strong opinion that such collusion of High Court, Lokayukta with Government departments is anathema in Judicial History; and contrary to aims and Objectives of Karnataka high Court i.e., DISPENSATION OF JUSTICE and LOOSING PEOPLES” CONFIDENCE in JUDICIAL INSTITUTIONS . Such collusion has deprived of “Forefeiture of Illegally acquired Lands of 193 Acres, Return of such lands to to its land owners. It has resulted in failure if not Collapse of Justice system and morefully CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM”; whereby India’s name is growing in height amongst world nations as MOST FAVORED CORRUPT NATION, applicant feels ashamed of.
[ 12 ] This court has failed to find the truth in 2004 case against by & between same parties, same cause of action viz., “Digvijay Mote & Family reporting in public domain of SKULLS & SKELETONS HIDDEN in the LOKAYUKTA CUPBOARDS of 867 JUDGES & LOKAYUKTAS in suo moto investigations registered & closed vide COMPT/UPLOK/BCD/64/1999 on 04-12-1999, COMPT/ UPLOK/BCD/125/2000 etc., in the websitehttp://www.judgesplot4plot.com & http://www.indiancorruptjudges.com “ , Complainat Lokayukta , Vidhana sodha Police, ACMM-VIII Court. In the present case , the Court has lost both MORALITY & LEGALITY, to proceed further against accused. The only recource remaining is to pass an early Order making over the case to Hon’ble High Court.
[13 ] Out of 4600 plus members of Judicial Department Employees HBCS; 169 Court Officers, holding influencial offices in Karnataka Judiciary becoming members of said Society who have, had and are played / playing / going-to-play active role in securing Judgments fraudulently listed below :-
[ 14] Few Good and bad developments within 24 long days of giving P.P to file objections, which are copied from Applicant’s Facebook Social Networkhttps://www.facebook.com/digvijay.mote are below:-
[i] The Hon’ble Chief Justice Of India on Corruption:-
[ vii ] FB 575:Judges and advocates accountable to people, Chief Justice of India says:- CHENNAI: Though people do not elect judges and advocates, the two are answerable and accountable to the public, said Chief Justice of India P Sathasivam on Tuesday. The judiciary is enjoying enormous public confidence and trust, and hence advocates and judges must conduct themselves in a befitting manner, he said
[ viii ] FB 573-B: Cash-At-Judges’-Door:3 judges, cops, lawyers in witness list:- Another judge, Raj Kumar Jain, the then sub-divisional judicial magistrate in Sonepat, was the losing party in the appeal decided by Justice Yadav relating to a disputed Panchkula plot. It was for this judgment, as per the CBI, that Yadav was paid Rs 15 lakh by lawyer and co-accused in the case Sanjiv Bansal through Ravinder Singh.
[ xv ] 467:Appointments in the higher judiciary must be based on merit:- There is a strong perception among various stakeholders that the appointment of judges is being dictated by extraneous considerations. Merit and competence are only secondary. The recent elevation of two high court chief justices to the Supreme Court by overlooking other, more senior, judges is the latest incident in this saga.
The Gujarat high court bar association (HCBA) passed a resolution “protesting” theoverlooking of the “legal competence, honesty, dedication and steadfastness” of its present CJ Bhaskar Bhattacharya. It is widely understood that Bhattacharya’s appointment to the SC was overlooked because a collegium member bears personal animosity against him.
A similar note of discontent can be seen in the resolution passed by the Madras HCBA protesting against the opaque manner in which the latest batch of judges were proposed to be appointed. Regardless of the truth in these rumours, their existence in itself is deeply disconcerting. A just institution must not only be fair, but it must also appear to be fair. These controversies do not augur well for the Indian judiciary.
All stakeholders must work together to revamp the present system of appointing judges, which is through a collegium – the five senior-most judges decide who is eligible to be appointed. The system was well intentioned and, in all fairness, did solve the problem of excessive executive intervention in the appointment process. However, it has been a solution that has proved much worse than the disease.
These incidents should be seen as providing some impetus towards establishing a judicial appointments commission (JAC) to conduct the process of appointment. It is learnt that the JAC would consist of six members – two sitting judges, a government representative, a representative of the leader of opposition and two eminent jurists.
In recent public debates over the JAC’s composition, there appears to be a particular discomfort in having politicians as part of the panel. Disturbingly, however, there has been no public debate on the other, equally pressing, issues that arise. Merely setting up a JAC, without anything more, cannot solve present problems plaguing the appointment issue. To think of it as a panacea would be to repeat the mistake committed in instituting the collegiate system, especially given the complete absence of any defined criterion by which appointments should take place.
[16 ] In order to prevent undue delay to proceed against the real culprits including the State Public Prosecutor, Mr.Doreraju under whose aid and advice the P.Ps work, it is most urgent and expedient to dispose of the application dated 31-07-2013 by making necessary report to the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka where he will get the assistance of legally trained persons as no Advocate is legally assisting the Accused before this Hon’ble Court.
Therefore, the Accused prays that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass orders on his application filed on 31-07-2013 by making a report to the Hon’ble High Court so as to cause transfer of the above case without any further delay in the matter in the ends of justice.
This Memo is conceived, drafted and presented by Applicant on his own initiative in accordance with fundamental rights as enshrined in Constitution of India, Universal Human Rights, The Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct and other Rights available to applicant from various Judgments of Supreme Court of India etc.,
BANGALORE DIGVIJAY MOTE
………………………………………………………[ Applicant In Person]
- The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 [ACT 70 OF 1971]
|The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 [ACT 70 OF 1971]
[The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (70 of 1971) was passed by the Parliament in December 1971 and it came into force w.e.f. 24th December, 1971. ]
STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS:-It is generally felt that the existing law relating to contempt of Courts is somewhat uncertain undefined and unsatisfactory. The jurisdiction to punish for contempt touches upon two important fundamental rights of the citizens namely, the right to personal liberty and the right to freedom of expression. It was, therefore, considered advisable to have the entire law on the subject scrutinized by a special committee. In pursuance of this, a Committee was set up in 1961 under the Chairmanship of the late Shri H.N. Sanayal the then Additional Solicitor General.The Committee made a comprehensive examination of the law and problems relating to contempt of Court in the light of the position obtaining in our own country and various foreign countries. The recommendations which the Committee made took note of the importance given to freedom of speech in the Constitution and of the need for safeguarding the status and dignity of Courts and interests of administration of justice.The recommendations of the Committee have been generally accepted by Government after considering the view expressed on those recommendations by the State Governments, Union Territory Administrations, the Supreme Court, the High Courts and the Judicial Commissioners.The Bill seeks to give effect to the accepted recommendations of the Sanyal Committee……………………………..Preamble:- An Act to define and limit the powers of certain courts in punishing contempt of
courts and to regulate their procedure in relation thereto.
2. Definitions –
In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires –
(a) “Contempt of court” means civil contempt or criminal contempt”
(b) “Civil contempt” means willful disobedience to any judgement, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or willful breach of an undertaking given to a court.
(c) “Criminal contempt” means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which-
(d) Scandalizes or tends to scandalize, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court, Or (ii) Prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with the due course of any judicial proceeding , or (iii) Interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner.
(a) “High Court” means the High Court for a State or a Union territory and includes the court of the Judicial Commissioner in any Union territory.
10. Power of High Court to punish contempt’s of subordinate courts :-
Every High Court shall have and exercise the same jurisdiction, powers and authority,
in accordance with the same procedure and practice, in respect of contempt’s of courts subordinate to it and it has and exercise in respect of contempt’s of itself.
11. Power of High Court to try offences committed or offenders found Outside jurisdiction:-
A High Court shall have jurisdiction to inquire into or try a contempt of itself or of any court subordinate to it, whether the contempt is alleged to have been committed within or outside the local limits of its jurisdiction , and whether the person alleged to be guilty of contempt is within or outside such limits.
12. Punishment for contempt of court –
(1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act or in any other law, a contempt of court may be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both.
(4) Where the person found guilty of contempt of court in respect of any undertaking given to a court is a company, every person who, at the time the contempt was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of business of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the contempt and the punishment may be enforced, with the leave of the court, by the detention in civil prison of each such person.
(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub section (4) where the contempt of court referred to therein has been committed by a company and it is provided that the contempt has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manger, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager , secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of the be contempt and the punishment may be enforced, with the leave of the court, by the detention in civil prison of such director, manager, secretary or other officer.
14. Procedure where contempt is in the face of the Supreme Court or a High Court:-
(1) When it is alleged, or appears to the Supreme Court or the High Court upon its own view, that a person has been guilty of contempt committed in its presence or hearing, the court may cause such person to he detained in custody, and, at any time before the rising of the court, on the same day, or as early as possible thereafter, shall –
(a) Cause him to be informed in writing of the contempt with which he is charged.
(b) Afford him an opportunity to make his defence to the charge,
(c) After taking such evidence as may be necessary or as may be offered by such person and after hearing him, proceed, either forthwith or after adjournment , to determine the matter of the charge, and
(d) Make such order for the punishment or discharge of such person as may be just.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub section (1) where a person Charged with contempt under the sub section applies, whether orally or in writing, to have the charge against him tried by some Judge other than the Judge or Judges in whose presence or hearing the offence is alleged to have been committed, and the court is of opinion that it is practicable to do so and that in that interest of proper administration of justice the application should be allowed, it shall cause the matter to be placed, together with a statement of the facts of the case, before the Chief Justice for such directions as he may think fit to issue as respects the trial thereof.
15. Cognizance of criminal contempt in other cases:-
(1) In the case of a criminal contempt, other than a contempt referred to in section 14, the Supreme Court or the High Court may take action on its own motion or on a motion made by—
(a) the Advocate-General, or
(b) any other person, with the consent in writing to the Advocate-General
(2) In the case of any criminal contempt of a subordinate court, the High Court may take action on a reference made to it by the subordinate court or on a motion made by the Advocate-General
(3) Every motion or reference made under this section shall specify the contempt of which the person charged is alleged to be guilty.
- It is humbly submitted that “High Court of Karnataka [Contempt of Court Proceedings ] Rules 1981” Gazetted 1st January by by Chief Justice D.M. Chandrashekhar , the then Karnataka Chief Justice, Employee-Cum– Founder-Of-Karnataka State Judicial Department Employees House Building Co-operative Society Limited, Karnataka High Court, Bangalore-1 . Gazetted by the order of the High Court signed by C.M. Basavarya, an “Employee-Cum– High-Court-Registrar-Cum-Founder-Of-Karnataka State Judicial Department Employees House Building Co-operative Society Limited.
- C.M. Basavarya and all other Directors have filed Affidavits on more than dozen times admitting that more than 27 Judgments were secured through Karnataka High Court & court there-under to develop JUDICIAL LAY OUT in 193 Acres with 2,248 sites; adducing evidences in P.I.L.s W.P. No. 40994/2002, W.P. No. 7105/2007 and W.P. 13261/2006; which schematically is being dragged-on by another co-ordinate Bench of Ram Mohan Reddy & H.Billappa. These Judges-Cum-Emploees do not wish to initiate Criminal Contempt of Court against ‘powerful lobby of 867-Employees-Cum- Corrupt-Judges and Lokayuktas’; as they are scared to send them to Jail, make them as accused in “Witness Box”; as they have already secured benefits illregally for delaying / denying Criminal proceedings, including cancellation of all FORGED SALE DEEDS of 2,248 site owners from Chaprasis, peons. Attendants including ‘powerful lobby of 867-Employees-Cum- Corrupt-Judges and Lokayuktas’.
- Applicant presents below few paragraphs from one of this Hon’ble High Court judgments; to drive home the point that “since gazetting of ‘High Court of Karnataka ( Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules 1981’ the then Chief Justice Mr. D.M. Chandrashekhar and almost all Judges of High Court; including the then Registrar of High Court Mr C.M. Basavarya under whose name it was Gazetted, are contemners. From then on till date almost all Registar Generals, Registars, 80% to 90% of sitting Judges are members of Society; and have fraudulent secured on quid-pro-quo more than 27 judgments in Criminal contempt, differently punishable for each & every fraudulent judgments; as they were perpetrated upon different occasions, between different Respondentants ; but with common intention”.
- It is prudent to mention that the “Two Judges constituting the Division Bench” viz., A.M. FAROOQ and S.R. BANNURMATH are also Criminal Contemners of more than 27 Judgments; in evidence of which the very ‘Karnataka State Judicial Depatment Employees HBCS, High Court Buiding, Bangalore-1” , Karnatka Government, Bangalore Development Authority, Karnatka Assembly-the Karnataka Peoples’s Representatives , Karnataka Joint Legislature Committee on Land Grabbing in Bangalore have adduced evidences. Which Debate in Kannada is enclosed .Further this Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, Karnataka Government, Union of India, Advocates Association, Bar Council, S.P.P., Advocate General , Media and General Public who have stakes in the Indian Public Justice delivery system can not be mute spectators ‘To the Criminal contempt and frauds being perpetrated / happenings since two decades within High Court in the name of “ ‘Honor’, ‘LORD’ and ‘JUSTICE’”.
|IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALOREDated this the 18th day of August, 2004Present:THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE A.M. FAROOQANDTHE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE S.R. BANNURMATHCRIMINAL CCC No. 7/2002 C/W 12/2002Between Advanta India Limited Vs B.N. Shivanna, Advocate
Page No. 11 of 24:-
Shocked by this revealation when the company probed further it also came top know that the alleged cases filed all over State as per the say of the accused were non-existent. Thereafter, the company wrote to the the Registrar of the High Court of Karntaka along with the copy of the order alleged to have been passed by the High Court of Karnataka and learnt that neither such order has been passed nor such cases have been filed in the High Court of Karnataka.
As such, as the company was convinced that the accused has played a fraud upon them in the name of High Court of Karnataka especially, the production of the fabricated order and as such, has abused the process of law and interfered with administration of justice and hence filed the contempt proceedings. Similarly, the High Court took itself suo moto initiated contempt proceedings.
Page No. 12 :-
So far as the alleged judgment of this Court produced by the accused before the company is concerned, undisputedly , the same one is created or a concoted and false document. The enquiry of the registry of this Court has found that no such cases have been filed, registred nor any order is pronounced by Hon’ble Justice G.Patri Basavagouda on 3rd October 2001.
Page No. 15:-
We are aware of the fact in this regard the accused is being tried in a criminal case filed on behalf of the Court itself, which is pending trial. ……..
Page No. 16 to 18 ; select lines / paras:-
The Contempt of Court Act deals with any conduct or acts of the parties to the litigation or witnesses “in any manner”. The tendency on the part of the contemner in his action or conduct to prevent the course of justice is the relevant fact. Any interference in the course of justice is an affront to the majesty of law and, therefore, the conduct is punishable as contempt of court. Law of contempt is only one of many ways in which the due process of law is prevented from being perverted, hindered or thwarted to further the cause of justice. Due course of justice means not only any particular proceeding but broad stream of administration of justice. Due process of law is blinkered by the conduct or the act of the parties which generate tendency to impede or undermine the free flow of the unsullied stream of justice by blatantly resorting, with impunity, to fabricate court proceedings to thwart fair adjudication of dispute and its resultant end. If the act complained of undermines the prestige of the court or causes hindrance in the discharge of due course of justice or tends to obstruct the course of justice or interfere with due course of justice, it is sufficient that the conduct complained of, constitutes contempt of court and liable to be dealt with in accordance with law ……… production of fabricated copy of the Court proceedings thus constitute contempt of Court, as it tends to interfere with the course of justice in legal proceedings to gain unfair advantage.” Hence, in our view, the offences are punishable under IPC though may overlap this aspect, in the contempt of court case, this court is required to consider and if necessary punishing the accused for the conduct and not the actual act which may also be an offence under IPC. As such there is no doble jeopardy involved in the present case and there is no bar for this Court to consider the contemptuous action of the accused.
Page No. 20 to 24:-
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Advocate General, State of Bihar –Vs- Madhya Pradesh Khair Industries reported in 1980 (3) SCC 311 “while we are conscious that every abuse of the process of Court may not necessarily amount to contempt of court, abuses of the process of the court calculated to hamper the due course of judicial proceedings or orderly administration of justice, we must say is the contempt of court. It may be necessary to punish as a contempt, a course of conduct which abuses and makes a mockery of judicial process and which thus extends its pernicious influence beyond the parties to the action and affects the interests of the public in the administration of justice.”
Similarly the observation of the Apex Court in the case Chandra Shashi –Vs- Anil Kumar reported in 1994 AIR SCW 4994 that “anyone who takes recourse to fraud, deflects the course of judicial proceedings; or if anything is done with oblique motive, the same interferes with the administration of justice. In an appropriate place, the mens rea may not be clear or may be obsure, but if the act or conduct tends to undermine the dignity of the Court or prejudice the party or impedes or hinders the due course of judicial proceedings or administration of justice, it would amount to contempt of court”.
In our view, the word ‘interfere’ means in the context of subject any action which checks or hampers the functioning or hinders or tends to prevent the performance of duty in the normal course or an attempt of impede or undermine the majesty of the Court.
Hence, we find that the accused has committed criminal contempt of the court and as such, is liable to be punished accordingly.
Page No. 23:-
AMFJ & SRBMJ:
Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and especially keeping in view the fact that the accused, who is a practicing Advocate has misused not only the trust of the litigant entrusted with him but also has created forged or concocted judgment / order in the name of this Court. Such action not only tends to lower the dignity of the court but also would lower the prestige of the Court in eyes of the public litigant. ………
- On challenge by Criminal Contemner Advocate Mr. Shivanna the Hon’ble Supreme Court through sitting Chief Justice Of India Mr. Justice Bench of “ P. Sathasivam, B.S. Chauhan” on March 14, 2011upheld the High Court Judgment and its suo-moto power of initiating Contempt . The said Judgment is in box below:-
|Supreme Court of IndiaB.N. Shivanna vs Advanta India Ltd. & Anr. on 14 March, 2011Contemner’s Appeal from Karnataka High Court Judgment:
A.M.Farooq & S.R.Bannurmath: dated 18 August, 2004: in Criminal CCC 7/2002Author: . B ChauhanBench: P. Sathasivam, B.S. ChauhanIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIACRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONCRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1038-1039 OF 2004
B.N. Shivanna …Appellant Versus
Advanta India Limited & Anr. …Respondents J U D G M E N T
Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.
1. These two appeals have been filed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in CCC(Crl.) Nos. 7 and 12 of 2002 dated 18.8.2004 by which the appellant has been convicted for committing criminal contempt of court and has been awarded the sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of six months along with a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month.
3. In this regard, it was alleged that the appellant sent a policeman possessing summons/warrants, almost on regular basis, to the Head Office of the company and thereby made the higher officials of the company believe that a number of criminal cases had been filed against the company and its officials and that there was an urgent need to take immediate action in that regard. Subsequently, the appellant told the company officials that he would arrange for avoidance of the warrants being executed against them, though there was imminent danger of officials being arrested, which he had so far successfully avoided.
5. It was, in fact, later on when the company’s officials came to know that no court fee was payable in criminal cases filed before the High Court, that it made discreet inquiries and learnt that the amount had been collected by the appellant in the name of his mother-in-law Smt. S. Gauri, the alleged stamp vendor, fraudulently. On further inquiry, said officials came to know that the alleged stamp vendor Smt. S. Gauri was only a housewife and not a stamp vendor and the bank account for which the cheques were issued in her name, was being operated by the appellant himself, and no case had ever been filed in any subordinate court against the said company.
6. Being aggrieved, the company wrote a letter to the Registrar General of the High Court of Karnataka mentioning all the afore- mentioned facts submitting that the appellant had played fraud upon them by providing the forged and fabricated order purported to have been passed by the High Court of Karnataka and as such, abused the process of law and interfered with the administration of justice. On coming to know about these facts, the High Court itself suo motu initiated criminal contempt proceedings against the appellant. Notices were issued to the appellant and on his appearance, he denied the charges and was tried for the said allegations clubbing both the cases. The prosecution relied upon the evidence of 5 witnesses and marked a large number of documents. The appellant did not lead any oral evidence but marked several documents. After completing the trial, the High Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him as mentioned hereinabove. Hence, these appeals under Section 19 of the Act 1971.
7. S/Shri Tony Sebastian and P. Vishwanatha Shetty, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, have submitted that proceedings have been conducted in utter disregard to the statutory rules framed for the purpose, namely, the High Court of Karnataka (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as `Rules 1981′). It has been submitted that Rule 7 thereof has not been complied with at the time of initiation of the proceedings. Rule 7 reads as under:
“7. Initiation of proceedings on information – (i) Any information other than a petition or reference shall, in the first instance, be placed before the Chief Justice on the administrative side.
(ii) If the Chief Justice or such other Judge as may be designated by him for the purpose, considers it expedient or proper to take action under the Act, he shall direct that the said information be placed for preliminary hearing”.
9. We have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
The facts are not in dispute, the findings of fact recorded by the High Court do not require any interference for the reason that nothing has been shown to us on the basis of which it can be held that the findings are perverse, are based on no evidence or are contrary to the evidence on record.
10. The issue regarding the application of the provisions of Rule 7 of the Rules 1981 has to be dealt with elaborately. The appellant, for the reasons best known to him, did not agitate this issue before the High Court and no explanation has been furnished by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as under what circumstances, the question of fact is being agitated first time in criminal appeals before this Court. More so, such an issue cannot be agitated in absence of any application under Section 391 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called Cr.P.C.) for taking the additional evidence on record, nor any document has been filed even before this Court to establish that the said provisions have not been complied with.
12. In State of Kerala v. M.S. Mani & Ors., (2001) 8 SCC 82, this Court held that the requirement of obtaining prior consent of the Advocate General in writing for initiating proceedings of criminal contempt is mandatory and failure to obtain the prior consent would render the motion non-maintainable. In case, a party obtains consent subsequent to filing the petition, it would not cure the initial defect and thus, the petition would not become maintainable.
13. In Bal Thackrey v. Harish Pimpalkhute & Anr., AIR 2005 SC 396, this Court held that in absence of the consent of the Advocate General in respect of a criminal contempt filed by a party under Section 15 of the Act 1971, taking suo motu action for contempt without a prayer, was not maintainable.
14. However, in Amicus Curiae v. Prashant Bhushan & Anr., (2010) 7 SCC 592, this Court has considered the earlier judgments and held that in a rare case, even if the cognizance deemed to have been taken in terms of the Supreme Court Rules, without the consent of the Attorney General or the Solicitor General, the proceedings must be held to be maintainable in view of the fact that the issue involved in the proceedings had far reaching greater ramifications and impact on the administration of justice and on the justice delivery system and the credibility of the court in the eyes of general public than what was under consideration before this Court in earlier cases.
15. In the instant case, the question of whether the matter had been placed before the Chief Justice in Chambers is a question of fact. The issue has not been agitated before the High Court, rather the complaint filed by the Registrar General of the High Court makes it clear that the complaint itself has been filed on behalf of the High Court by the Advocate General. It is evident from the record that case CCC(Crl.) No. 12 of 2002 has been filed by the Registrar General of the High Court of Karnataka (suo motu) through the Advocate General of the State. Therefore, the issue does not require any further consideration so far as the procedural aspects are concerned. Thus, in view of the above, the objection raised by the appellant is mere hyper-technical and does not want further consideration.
opportunity to defend himself. All the documents placed before the High Court have been appreciated and considered.
17. So far as merit is concerned, we have been taken to various documents and to the evidence of the witnesses. There are certain documents to show that the appellant on certain occasions has also rendered a good service to the company. Some documents are also on record to show that some officials had an intention to misappropriate the funds of the company for their personal gain with the connivance of the appellant. However, there is nothing on record to show that they could succeed to any extent. Therefore, the defence taken by the appellant remains unsubstantiated. In view of the material on record, it is evident that the huge amount of money has been collected by the appellant in the name of his mother-in-law, Smt. S. Gauri, the alleged stamp vendor, and the appellant has been the beneficiary thereof as he had operated the Bank Account in her name.
18. In Re: Bineet Kumar Singh, (2001) 5 SCC 501, while dealing with a case of similar nature, this Court held as under:
19. It is evident from the evidence on record that the appellant had been the beneficiary of fraud alleged in these cases. Therefore, in view of the law referred to hereinabove, he is guilty of committing contempt of court. The appellant had been an employee of the respondent company and because of that relationship he had been retained as an Advocate and he has a duty towards his clients to behave in an appropriate manner and to protect the dignity of the court. The conduct of the appellant has been reprehensible and it is tantamount to as if the fence established to protect the crop starting to eat the crop itself. Thus, such misconduct has to be dealt with, with a heavy hand.
20. We do find any force in the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant that the conviction of the appellant in these cases would prejudice his cause in the pending criminal trial for the reason that both cases are separate and for offences of a different nature. It was the duty of the appellant to protect the dignity of the court through which he has earned his livelihood.
21. The submission made by learned counsel for the appellant that both complaints could not have been clubbed together and the evidence recorded in the case lodged by the respondent company could not have been read in suo motu contempt proceedings initiated by the High Court, is preposterous, for the reason that they were not cross cases and in both the cases, criminal proceedings had been initiated on the basis of the same documents and the same allegations. It is a case of betrayal of faith by a lawyer of his clients, in a case of professional engagement.
22. We also do not find any force in the submission advanced on behalf of the appellant that he has already served 36 days in jail, thus, the punishment imposed by the High Court may be reduced. Considering the gravity of the charges, such a course is not warranted and no lenient view is permissible in the facts and circumstances of the cases.
(Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN)
March 14, 2011
The above message accused hope need not be elaborated to the Contemner-um-Employees-Cum-Judges and the Advocate General, SPP, Government , Police , Media and Union of India.
- Recusal: In 1995 all Sitting Judges recused and were made Respondentants:- Except two all sitting Judges were members and recused, were made as Respondentants.
But in Crl.RC. 01/2014 Judges though named as accused of securing more than 27 Judgments fraudulently, including the one below, have created a sense of dejection about the working of “DIVINE”, “LORDS”, “JUSTICE”.
Accused is confident that they shall resign to become role model for other Judges also to resign & return sites the erstwhile land owners, thereby enhancing prestige and glory of themselves, other Good Judges and litigants or accused like me to get fair and free Justice.
Karnataka High Court : Subramani vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 12 October, 1995 : Equivalent citations: ILR 1995 KAR 3139, 1995 (6) KarLJ 476 :
Bench: K Bakthavatsalam, M Saldanha
|10. The 2nd respondent-Society in WP 11211/95 has filed a detailed Statement of Objections. It is stated therein that the petitioner is not a member of the Society and has also no interest in the acquired land or sites formed therein and therefore he cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and he is in no way affected by the impugned action of the Society. It is stated that the Karnataka State Judicial Department Employees’ House Building Co-operative Society Ltd. has been duly registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act. It is also stated that it is not “State” or “Authority” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and that its function is not amenable to attack at the instance of utter strangers to the Society like the petitioner and that the Society is not amenable to Writ Jurisdiction of this Court. It is stated that the members of the public have no locus standi to call in question the acts and omissions of the Society or to take exception to the acquisition of land for the Society, making of layout therein and allotment of sites. It is stated that it is entirely a matter of internal administration of the Society and the total strangers like the petitioner has no right to question the same. It is also stated that in the Petition wrong statements of facts and distortions thereof have been indulged in and on such basis wild allegations have been made against the Society and respondents 3 to 31, who are members thereof. It is stated that the Writ Petition has to be thrown out on the ground that the Writ Petition is filed to scandalise the Judiciary and the Judges and that the attack against the Society is wholly unjustified. It is stated in the Statement of Objection that the Society is registered on 11.8.1983 and those serving in the Judicial Department in Karnataka as also the Judges of the High Court and the Subordinate Courts are eligible to be admitted to its membership. One of the objects of the Society is to acquire land, make a layout of house sites therein and allot them to its members. It is stated that there are at present 2560 members on the rolls of the Society and out of which there are 36 Judges of High Court including retired Judges. The Society selected an area of about 200 acres situated at Allalasandra, Chikka-bommasandra and Jakkur plantation villages in Bangalore North Taluk on the outskirts of the Corporation of the City of Bangalore and thereafter the Society contacted the land owners numbering about 70 and were able to obtain agreements from them in January 1984 at mutually agreed prices which were in no way less than the then prevailing market value. It is stated that in order to solve the problem arising under the Land Reforms Act and questions of title at a later stage it was felt that it would be better to get the lands under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. So the Government was approached for acquisition of these lands and by communication dated 30.8.1985 sent by the Government to the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, steps have been taken as per Annexure-R1. In pursuance of this a Preliminary Notification was issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It is stated that none of the land owners whose lands were notified for acquisition filed any objections, as in fact none of them had any objections because they had all prior to 16.1.1984 agreed to convey the lands to the Society and this was followed by execution of agreements upto 30.6.1984. Approval of acquisition was given on 30.8.85 and a Final declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act was issued on 24.2.1989. An award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 11.2.1990. It is stated that all except two owners namely Papaiah and Muniswamappa accepted the award and received the compensation and delivered possession of the lands acquired. These owners filed W.P.Nos. 3995 and 6556/1990 and they were dismissed by Shivappa J on 17.11.1992.
12. Though the State has not filed any Statement of Objection, entire records pertaining to the acquisition of land with which we are concerned have been produced before us. We have gone through the records.33. Lastly we are constrained to observe above the serious allegations made against the Judges of this Court (sitting, retired, transferred) and retired Judges of the Supreme Court in the Public Interest Litigation filed by the two Practising Advocates of this Bar. In the case reported in P. PERUMAL AND ORS. v.. STATE OF TAMILNADU AND ORS 1993-2 LW 681. at page 712 at para 41 Mishra, J., as he then was has stated thus: “41. In a nutshell, it will be no exaggeration if it is said that the High Court Judges are high dignitaries, who by virtue of their office and the nature of work, that is to say, dispensation of justice, exercise a regal or sovereign function; their work forms part of Constitutional duty of the State and they discharge inalienable functions of the Constitutional Government, which no one else is entitled to perform. They are to be faithful and true to the duties of their office and to function without fear or favour, affection or ill-will and act only to uphold the constitution and the laws framed thereunder. They have to be aloof to some extent from others. These and other acts which Judges perform make them the object of regard and respect of others. Their functions as demanded by their office make them important for the Society.”If the Members of the Bar recklessly make allegations without verifying the facts as though the Judges have made false declaration, it only reflects on the Bench and the Bar also. We are of the view, it will bring down the confidence reposed by the public on the Judiciary, if such cases are filed. We hope that at least in future if any Member of the Bar is agitating for some cause in a Writ Petition by way of Public Interest Litigation, they will do so only after proper investigation and enquiry and try to state the facts alone. That apart, we do not think that the first two petitioners have got any locus standi to file these Petitions. When it is not disputed that owners have parted with the lands after receiving huge amount from the Society, we do not think that the petitioners, who have no interest at all, can come up before this Court by filing these Writ Petitions styling as Pubfic Interested litigation.
- Section 362 Cr.P.C:- Court not to alter judgement:- Save as otherwise provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, no Court, when it has signed its judgement or order disposing of a case, shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error.In Criminal Contempt of Lower Court final Judgment in the form of Order dated 22nd October, 2013, in utter violation and contempt of Section 362 of Cr.P.C., the High Court Registry with criminal intent, with the “Collective combined coercive illegal , un-becoming of so called Judges / Judicial officers have played fraud by IMPORTING Section 395 of Cr.P.C; with having deliberations over period of two months with “powerful lobby of 867 Corrupt Judges and Lokayuktas” from supreme court to this High Court; and claiming to have been Ordered by Hon’ble chief Justice on 06.01.2014 there by fraudulently registering the “Criminal Transferred Case” as “Criminal Referred Case”.
- The Registrars who have put in more than 30 years of service in Judiciary, can not claim this criminal intently serious fraud in not assigning the Case number as Criminal Transfer Case; as they knew that by registering it under Sec. 407 CrPC, by this time all “powerful lobby of 867 Corrupt Judges and Lokayuktas” including the two judges namely K. Bhaktavatsal and C.R. Kumaraswamy would have been standing trial before a Single Judge as per Sec. 407  who had to act as Magistrate in High Court & the Hon’ble Chief Justice so also Advocate General Prof Ravi Verma Kumar would have initiated Criminal Contempt of High Court against 27 alleged frudulantly secured Judgments.
- It is a fact that at present all Registrars of High Court viz., B.A. Patil , P.N. Desai , H.P. Sandesh, are all named in “powerful lobby of 867 Corrupt Judges and Lokayuktas” accused of “Karnataka Employees HBCS has secured more than 27 judgments fraudulently in Hon’ble High Court for developing Judicial Layout and any frauds committed on it amounts to fraud on court of records” are exercising powers fraudulently, without bringing to the kind Notice of their Employer i.e., Hon’ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice D.H. Waghela of their allegiance to “Karnataka Judicial Department Employees HBCS” of which membership is admittedly for persons who are employees of Karnataka High Court or any other Courts there-under etc., They failed to recuse from passing any orders on Criminal Transferred Case No C.C. 6711/2012.
- The Lower Court transferred the case on 30th October 2013 the entire records to Hon’ble High Court. On the Adminstration side the said one more all, with common intention to obstruct Justice to me and diminish or demolish / extinct my faith in Hon’ble High Court, they made me wander from Pillar to post of Registar Judicial, General, Criminal Branch, Copying branch, to Hon’ble Chief Justice till 10.04.2014; seeking the “Records pertaining to my very case , of Chief Justice Order purporting to be Case classified as Criminal Referred Case under Section 395 of Cr.P.C. “, but Registar Judicial failing to part with “Certified Copies” in the guise of high Court Rules contrary to fundamental Rights under Articles 14, 19, 21, Right to Information, Transparence in working of high Court speak ANARCHY.
- THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961
2. Definitions.—In this Act,—
(1) “Chief Justice” means the Chief Justice of the High Court of the State of Karnataka.
(2) “Criminal Appeal” means an appeal which, under any law for the time being in force, lies to the High Court from an order or sentence passed by a subordinate criminal court in the exercise of its original criminal jurisdiction;
Sec. 5. First appeals.—Save as otherwise provided in this Act,—
(ii ) all Criminal Appeals against Judgements in which sentence of death or imprisonment for life is passed and against Judgements of acquittal in cases in which offences are punishable with death or imprisonment for life shall be heard by a Bench consisting of not less than two Judges of the High Court and other Criminal Appeals shall be heard by a Single Judge of the High Court.
Sec. 10. Other powers of a bench of two Judges.—The powers of the High Court in relation to the following matters shall be exercised by a Bench of two Judges:—
(i) a reference,-
(b) under section 395 [Reference to High Court] of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973
(v) all other matters not expressly provided for in this Act, or any other law for the time being in force.
- High Court of Karnataka Rules, 1959
|CHAPTER IPreliminary1. These Rules may be cited as the High Court of Karnataka Rules, 1959.
CHAPTER IIDefinitions and Interpretations 1. In these Rules, unless the context indicates the contrary,(a) “High Court”, “This Court” or “The Court” means the High Court of Karnataka(b) “Chief Justice” means the Chief Justice of the High Court;
(c) “Judge” means a Judge of the High Court;
(h) “Appropriate Bench” means in relation to any matter the Bench which is
competent under these rules to dispose of the said matter finally
Registrar, Joint Registrar , Deputy Registrar or an Assistant Registrar of the High Court, in
relation to the powers, duties or functions of the Registrar exercised or performed by the Additional Registrar, Joint Registrar , Deputy Registrar or the Assistant Registrar as the
case may be;
(o) “Certified Copy” shall have the same meaning as is assigned to it in section 76 of
the Indian Evidence Act;
(p) “To admit a case” means to decide to issue notice to respondent or direct issue of
notice to respondent after preliminary perusal of papers or preliminary hearing under the
provisions of Order 41, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure or section 421 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure or any other like provision of any other law for the time being in force;
The words “Admission”, “For Admission” or similar expressions shall be construed
Where upon such preliminary perusal or hearing the Court decides not to issue
notice, the case is said to be dismissed summarily;
(q) “To Admit a Case to Register” or “To Register a Case” means entering the
same in the appropriate register and giving it a number in accordance with the practice of the
Court after the Registrar is satisfied that the papers of the particular case have been
presented to the High Court within the time, if any, limited therefore by any law for the time
being in force, that proper court fee, if any, payable in respect of those papers has been
paid, that all enclosures required by or under these Rules have been furnished and that the
papers in all respects comply with the provisions of law and of these Rules applicable to the
same relating to the presentation of such papers;
CHAPTER – III
Constitution of Benches
6. Benches shall be constituted and judicial work of the Court allotted or distributed to
them by or in accordance with the directions of the Chief Justice.
CHAPTER – IV
Officers of the Court
1. In addition to the powers and authorities conferred by these and other Rules, the
Registrar shall have and exercise the following powers subject to any general or special
order made by the Chief Justice:-
CHAPTER – IV
Officers of the Court
1. In addition to the powers and authorities conferred by these and other Rules, the
Registrar shall have and exercise the following powers subject to any general or special
order made by the Chief Justice:-
CHAPTER – IX
1. Where a reference to the High Court is from a subordinate Court seeking the
opinion or directions of the High Court on any point or question, the reference shall be in the form of a statement of the case containing the denoting number and particulars of the suit, appeal or other proceeding out of which the reference arises, the names and addresses of all the parties interested in or likely to be affected by the reference, setting out the facts of the case and the points or questions on which the opinion, order or direction of the High Court is sought together with the opinion of the referring officer, Court or Authority thereon, and shall be accompanied by such records and papers as are, in the opinion of the referring officer, Court of authority, relevant for a full consideration of the reference, with two copies of
2. Where a reference to the High Court is for confirmation of any decree, or sentence or other decision or determination by a subordinate Court, such decree, sentence or other decision or determination sought to be confirmed, together with the entire record of the matter or proceeding in which the same has been made or passed, shall be submitted to the High Court, together with a memorandum citing the provision of law under or pursuant to which the reference has been made and confirmation of the High Court sought.
3. The High Court may, if it deems necessary to do so, call for further papers or for further information from the referring Court or Authority.
4. Unless the law under or pursuant to which the reference is made prescribes a different procedure, the provisions of Rules 3, 4 and 5 of Order XLVI of the Code of Civil Procedure shall apply to all references made to the High Court.
. References to the High Court shall be designated as follows:-
(6)] References in Criminal Cases shall be designated as Criminal Referred Cases.
CHAPTER – XIII
Issue and Service of Notice
1. When cases are admitted and notice to respondents directed therein, the Registrar shall cause notice to issue in appropriate forms prescribed for the purpose, signed by the Registrar and sealed with the seal of the Court. Every such notice shall be accompanied by a copy of the memorandum of appeal or petition or similar principal pleading in the matter to which the notice relates.
11. When a date is fixed for hearing or appearance and is specified in the notice, the matter in which the notice was issued shall not be posted before the said date.
Postings and Adjournments of Cases
on the Notice Board of the Court and such list shall contain the following particulars:
(a) Number of the case on the file of the Lower Court;
(b) Number of the case on the file of the High Court;
(c) And the name of the Advocate or the party presenting the same.
- The Great Trial of “Criminal Transfrred Case from ACMM-VIII Court” faudulantly and in Criminal Contempt of “Criminal Transferred Case from ACMM-VIII Court Order”, Criminal Procedure Code, Karnataka High Court Act of 1961 , Karnataka High Court RULES OF 1959; converted into “Criminal Referred Case No 1/2014” and listing before Division Bench is like “HANGING JUSTICE BY LAMP POST” . It is humbly submitted that this Criminal Contempt of Court shall be 29th or 30th by “powerful lobby of 867 Corrupt Employee-Cum-Judges and Lokayuktas”.
Criminal Referred Case is assigned to cases from Session Court against Serial Rapists, Murders, Dacoits, etc.,
| IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALOREON Tuesday THE 15TH DAY OF April 2014AT 10.30 AMBEFORETHE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.BHAKTHAVATSALA&THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.R.KUMARASWAMYCOURT HALL NO : 6
LIST NO: 1
NICNET Court Hall : 6 Page No : 1
Slno Case NO/Year Adv for Pet/Appl/Comp Adv for Resp
1. CRL.CCC 3/2012 ( , ) G KRISHNAMURTHY RAVI B NAIK FOR A1
(COP 154/02 & COA 831/10, K S MAHADEVAN, OFFICIAL ASHOK HARNAHALLI
CA 393/13,CA 411/13, LIQUIDATOR IN COMPANY ASSTS FOR A3
CA 2226/13, CA 1043/09, APPLICATION 831/10 K V NARASIMHAN FOR A2 & 5
CA 1044/09 FILES K/B) FILED VK A MADHUSUDHAN RAO FOR A4
K N PUTTEGOWDA FOR A6
ON OFFICE OBJNS
3. CRL.RC 1/2014 ( , ) SPP R1-DIGVIJAY MOTE SD
(REPORT RECD FROM THE
COMMR OF POLICE AND
THE SAME IS KEPT BELOW)
LCR KEPT BELOW
- But cleverly, clandestinely under meticulous directions of Who-Is-Who of Indian Judiciary conspiring with Kings & Queens amongst “powerful lobby of 867 Corrupt Judges and Lokayuktas” viz., aspiring Employee-Cum-Chief Justice Of India H.L.Dattu, Supreme Court serving Employee-Cum-Judges T.S. Thakur & V.Gopal Gowda. About 25 plus Employee-Cum-Sitting-Judges of Karnataka Hon’ble High Court including the presiding Employee-Cum-Judges of Division Bench of Court Hall No. 6 of Dr. K. Bhaktavatsala & C.R. Kumaraswamy, Queen Majula Chellur Employee-Cum-Chief-Justice of Kerala State, Lokayukta Y. Bhaskar Rao. ,. The list is longer than Tail Lord Hanuman numbering 4500 Plus. That apart retired
- On 10.04.2014, lapse of 160 days after 30th October 2013, a Police Inspector along with few constables rushes to my residence late in night around nine o’clock, creating kind of terror / threat in the minds of my wife and children as though they have come to arrest me for having raped some rich man’s / judge’s young beautiful daughter , later to reveal that it is to serve a NOTICE from Karnataka High Court. But this accused received them with warmth seved with soft drinks and quickle acknowledged the “receipt of Notice’, which next itself was shown by High Court having served on me on its web-site; one can imagine the “Power wielding over state police by powerful lobby of 867 Corrupt Judges and Lokayuktas”.
- In said Application of transfer, mention is made of Registrars of this Honble High Court being members of said Karnataka Employees HBCS. They are :-
Basavraj A. Patil, S.L.F.No. 3219[Page. 282], Present Registrar General. Entry of his name at
page No. 70 at Sl. No. 442, of my transfer application.
While enrolling as member, he has given as “21st Dist. & Sessions Judge, City Civil Court,
Bangalore-9”. P.N. Desai , Present Registrar [Judicial]:- At page No. 70 at Sl. No. 442 of my
transfer application. S.L.F.No. 3103 [Page.275 ] , H.D. Sandesh, S.L.F.No. 3217 [Page.282 ], District Judge, Mandya. Present Registrar [Adminstration] . Allotted with site no. 219 in Judicial Layout No.-II, on Kanakapura Road.
Then Employee-cum-Deputy Registrar [Criminal Section] Mr. C. Channegowda , whose Membership details was neglected to mention in my Application ACMM-VIII court is C. Channegowda , Court Officer, High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore-1, SLF No. 1317 . Page No. 074” .
Mr. John Michael D’Kunha, S.L.F. No. 3235 [ Page No. 283], Registrar Vigilance; entry of whose name ; was left-out in my said application. Mr. John Michael D’Kunha is now trying Supreme Court of India “Criminal Transfrred Case u/s 406 of Cr.P.C from Tamil Nadu to Karnataka; for ‘free and fair Trial” ; a fight between two equally famous Tamil Nadu Chief Minsters viz., K.Karunanidhi and J. Jayalalita. The case is “Dis-proprtinate Assets Case of Rs. 65 Crores”.
Matter of fact Karnataka Chief Justices from 2004 till 2012 very courteous to nominate
appoint / recommend Employee-Cum-District-Judge level cadre for fair trial viz., Mallikarjuniha, Balakrishna . Possibly Mr. John Michael D’Kunha nomination was cleared by Chief Justice D.H. Waghela after consulting / on-advice of two of Senior most Employee-Cum-Judges of Karnataka High Court viz., K.L. Manjunath and N.Kumar.
- The said Registrars-Cum-Employees with corrupt intention, claim that after failed to register the case under proper classification i.e., “Criminal Transfrred Case “ or “Criminal Case [Misc]” as is practice
- Channegowda is one who informed that very word in court order of ACMM-VIII is to construe as “referred under Section 395“, making me confirm my doubts of foul play of Supreme court Mr. Dattu , Thakur & Gowda acting as extra constitutional authorities.
- This happened in ILR 1995 KAR 3139 in JUDICIAL Layout, an EPITHET on EPITAPH of Karnataka high Court; whence CJI A.M. Ahmedi flew in to Bangalore and discouraged Judge S.Rajendra Babu from procceding on leave and assured him that all arrengements are made. Devegowda Government gave a BLANK CHEQUE in NOT FILING any Objections to Division Bench of Bhaktavatsalam & Saldhna. At a time when all Judges except two were not Employee-cum-Judges. But still A.M. Ahmedi sent if pre-drafted Judgment, full of FRAUDS, which came to re-opened by Upa-Lokayukta G.P. Shivapraksh 1999-2002 and then on WP 40994/2002; at the instance of “Powerful lobby of 867 Corrupt Judges and Lokayuktas”, so as to show the Public / Govt / Advocates that Cases are pending; hence prosecution can not be done. This is GREAT MISCHIEF. For re-opened by Upa-Lokayukta G.P. Shivapraksh 1999-2002 investigations proved that [a] No compenasation is paid to Land Lords [b] That Society has violated all terms of Agreement signed between Government of Karnataka. [c] That “Powerful lobby of 867 Corrupt Judges and Lokayuktas” were in-eligible to members of Society [d] That Judicial Layout is NEVER aaproved by B.D.A as claimed in all 2248 Sale Deeds [e] That 320 sites are formed in lands without title by fraudulent Court decrees including one from Chief Justice Y.Bhaskara Rao & other by Chief Justice P.V. Reddi. Both were gifted with site no. 1253 and site No. 0001.
- Advocate General’s Statement:- “The entire Judicial Employees Housing Society is BLACK MARK on KARNATAKA JUDICIARY” … “ This [JUDICIAL Lay Out ] has become a NIGHT MARE for the [entire] JUDICIARY”. “ It should be put to an end at the earliest” .
This statement appearing in DNA News, on Friday, November 2011 under caption “82 JUDGES ALLOTTED PLOTS OF LAND AT DIRT CHEAP RATES IN KARNATAKA” was presented to Hon’ble Chief Justice on 30th January 2014 by www.IndianCorruptJudges.com with Appeal
82 Judges allotted plots of land at dirt cheap rates in Karnataka
DNA NEWS: Friday, November 18, 2011 – 10:05 IST | Place: Bangalore
The Karnataka government’s search for a suitable candidate for the Lok Ayukta’s post may come to a naught. Documents and sale deeds available with DNA show that at least 82 judges– both sitting and retired – of the Supreme Court and the Karnataka high court have beenallotted sites meant for judicial employees. It was exactly for this reason that former Justice Santosh Hegde’s successor, Justice Shivraj V Patil, had to resign as the Lok Ayukta followed by his deputy, Justice R Gururajan.
The sites in question were allotted to the judges at concessional rates by the Karnataka Judicial Employees House Building Co-operative Society in alleged violation of its own bye-laws.
Moreover, such allotments are meant only for employees of the judicial department, who are government servants. Numerous judgments by high court and Supreme Court have held that judges are constitutional authorities and not judicial employees.
For instance, in the case of Union of India vs Sankal Chand Himatlal Sheth and others, on September 19, 1977, a five-judge constitutional Bench observed: “A judge of the high court is not a government servant, but he is the holder of a constitutional office. He is as much part of the State as the executive government… In fact, a High Court Judge has no employer: he occupies a high constitutional office…”
The observation by the Karnataka high court in the case of Narayan Reddy vs State ofKarnataka was reported (in ILR 1991 KAR2248) as: “In case of House Building societies formed in respect of employees of any organisation or industry, the membership should be confined only to the employees who may continue as members even after retirement and the Societies should be prohibited from enrolling outsiders as members.”
Justice MF Saldanha, who retired from as a judge of the Karnataka high court, agrees. “You have to be a judicial employee and the second requirement is that you cannot have an allotment in any other society to get a site. A cooperative society is a special privilege. Only people who need houses can avail the sites there. A high court or a Supreme Court judge is a constitutional functionary, not a judicial employee. Hence they cannot avail the sites.”
The list in possession of DNA shows that former chief justice of Chhattisgarh high court (2002-2004), Justice KHN Kuranga, whose name is doing the rounds as the ideal successor to Hegde as Karnataka Lokayukta, is among the 82 judges who were allotted sites in violation of the Society’s bye-laws.
Justice Kuranga says: “Yes I have bought a site. I became a member of Judicial Employees House Building Co-operative Society and then bought the site. How far is it a violation, you will have to ask the society.”
Justice Kuranga may not see it as a violation but Justice Dhingra, who retired as a judge of the Delhi high court sees it in a different light. He says: “Getting plots from executive is contrary to our judicial ethics. All these favours do not come for free; even a cup of tea is not free these days. So when a favour is taken something is expected in return too.”
The list also includes Justice SR Bannurmath’s name, whom chief minister DV Sadananda Gowda wants to install as the next Lok Ayukta. Justice Bannurmath was allotted a site in Allalasandra, Chikkabommasandra and Jakkur Plantation villages by the Society as per a sale deed dated September 19, 2001. He bought the 6,600-sq ft plot for `2.02 lakh, but the current market value of the plot is Rs2.64 crore.
Senior Counsel Ravivarma Kumar says, “The entire judicial employees housing society is a black mark on Karnataka judiciary. It is in the interest of the judiciary to publish a white paper giving all the details of site allotments in favour of various members and to publish the same for the benefit of public scrutiny.”
He adds: “It is very unfortunate that the chief minister of the state has said there is no suitable person to adorn the post of Lok Ayukta. This layout has become a nightmare for the judiciary. It should be put to an end at the earliest.”
Former chairman of Karnataka Bar Council, Sadashiv Reddy, says, “The Judges have definitely violated the bye-laws. Judicial Employees House Building Co-operative Society is meant only for members of judiciary which includes only the district and the subordinate judges and not the high court judges. Hence there has been a violation.”
However, former Advocate General of Karnataka High Court Uday Holla says the Supreme Court had dismissed a petition challenging allotment of sites to high court judges by such societies. The petitioners had challenged that as per the bye-laws the sitting judges of the high court cannot get sites at the Judicial employees House building Co-operative Society which is meant only for members of the judiciary (judicial employees).
Be that as it may, accepting sites at concessional rates (and, in some cases, accepting multiple sites) should go against the morality of men of justice.
Retired Delhi High Court Justice RS Sodhi says, “This practice should stop. These things are a blot on our democratic set up. Once you, as a Judge, start taking favours, a wrong message goes out to the society which is bad for our institution as a whole.”
- Accused further submits that High Court is meant for dispensation of JUSTICE to all litigants without fear or favor; and to enhance PUBLIC CONFIDENCE in Karnataka high Court and that present A.G having raised serious aspertions / dubious / un-holy alliance with political & Executive Government and calling for WHITE PAPER in Re. “It is in the interest of the judiciary to publish a white paper giving all the details of site allotments in favour of various members and to publish the same for the benefit of public scrutiny”; accused humbly has published and would like to forward the information, for larger good of Indian democracy and our next generations; gathered over period of sixteen years whence accused family members chose to stand by to work in collating all information; sacrificing childhood, education , friends etc.,
- The accused hereabove has furnished information to assist the Hon’ble High Court, the Chief Justice Hon’ble Justice Waghela the details of members / allottees , their criminal conspiracies with Falling to FEET of Chief Minister Bangarappa in 1991, sacrificing Idependence of Judiary, making all other Judges to at the “Call of Political Government” calls for ANARCHY. Getting B.D.A Plan approval in November 1992 based on plain letter of Society without having paid a PENNY to Land Owners & Government or B.D.A Chief-Justice-Cum-Employee S.Mohan and all Judges in 1991, 1992 colluded with President Shivalingiha and other Clerks of High Court and were Directors fradulantly with coercive corrupt methods , holding a threat on Government Departments of every day cases in Karnataka Judiciary of Government, Politicians etc., .
- Accused adduced evidences there-for ; more is in our web-sites of which CDs are seized by Vidhana Soudha Police; so that the prestine Glory of High Court is regained by sending the Contemners to JAIL where rightly belong.
- If High Court, Government, Advocates and Police including Lokayukta Special court where the Criminal Cases have to filed under Prevention of Corruption Act, fails; the ANARCHY is writ large on HIGH COURT’s Name as their criminal modus-operandi & getting-away from Prosecution shall become accepted norm. Thereby High Court’s name will be at RISK.
- I was issued with Hon’ble Karnataka High Court Notice dated 17.02.2014 on at 8 PM on 10th April 2014; by Adugodi Police. The Notice in one page other being “Letter copy of High to Police Commissione directing to serve Notice upon me”. directing me to appear before Court Hall No. 6 in r/o “ CRIMINAL REFERRED CASE No. 01/2014 IN C.C. NO 6711/2012” . Notice reads thus “WHEREAS, the above referred Criminal Referred Case Number 01/2014 is registred against the Respondentant / accused pursuant to the Order dated 22.10.2013 passed by the VIII – Additional Chief Magistate”
- Lords Of All They Survey
|Lords Of All They SurveyIMRAN KHANDecember 3, 2011, Issue 48 Volume 8The Lokayukta’s post has been lying vacant as most of the prospective candidates are embroiled in a co-operative society irregularity. Imran Khan reportsIs justice blind? Justice SR Bannurmath (centre), Photos: Bangalore News PhotosLAST WEEK, Karnataka Governor HR Bhardwaj rejected the BJP government’s recommendation for appointing Justice (retd) SR Bannurmath as Lokayukta because he was embroiled in controversies, including allotment of land in the Yelahanka Judicial Layout in Bengaluru in violation of rules. The search for a Lokayukta is not going to get any easier because it has emerged that two Supreme Court judges and 13 high courtjudges were allotted plots in the same layout.Is justice blind?: Justice SR Bannurmath’s house at the Yelahanka Judicial Layout in Bengaluru
Documents with TEHELKA show that Supreme Court judges TS Thakur and HL Dhattu were allotted sites by the Karnataka State Judicial Employees House Building Co-operative Society (KSJEHBCS) in violation of the Co-operative Societies Act and Model Bylaws. As many as 82 judges, including eight retired SC judges and two former Chief Justices of India, have been allotted sites despite the fact that they are not judicial employees.
Interestingly, Justice Shivaraj V Patil was forced to step down as Lokayukta in September after it was found that his name figured in the list of judges who had been allotted a site in the Yelahanka layout.
According to past judgments, judges are constitutional authorities and not judicial employees. For instance, in the case of Union of India vs Sankal Chand Himatlal Sheth on 19 September 1977, a five-member SC Bench observed that, “A HC judge is not a government servant, but the holder of a constitutional office. He is as much part of the State as the executive government.”
Subsequently, on 12 October 1995, in the case of Subramani versus Union of India, theKarnataka HC said: “A reading of Clause 7 (that deals with eligibility criteria) of the bylaws by no stretch of imagination can include the HC and SC judges (sitting, transferred, retired). Even assuming for a moment that certain judges have been allowed to become members of the society, it may be an irregularity in the conduct of the business of the society.”
Other prominent people who were allotted sites include HC judges Manjula Chellur, CR Kumaraswamy, Vasudevan Jagannathan, HN Nagamohan Das, Ajit J Gunjal, NK Patil, N Kumar, AB Hinchigeri, Anand Byrareddy, S Abdul Nazeer and Mohan M Shanthanagoudar. All allotments were made in violation of Clauses 10(B) and 53 of the KSJEHBCS bylaws.
Clause 10(B) clearly states that only an “employee of the Karnataka judicial department and who has put in a minimum continuous or intermittent service of five years in the state” is eligible for the plot. And Clause 53 says, “The society shall allot sites, flats and houses only to members who are eligible as per bylaw No. 10.”
In fact, the Joint House Committee report on land encroachment, submitted to the Karnataka Assembly in 2007, is scathing in its comments on the functioning of the KSJEHBCS and the judicial fraternity. “It has been unfortunate that the KSJEHBCS, which should have been a model for other co-operative societies, has become the leading law-breaker without fear of the law,” the report said. “It has indulged in acts of favouritism, cronyism and capricious indifference to law at will, obviously under the hubris that having HC judges and powerful persons as its members and beneficiaries will ensure immunity to its illegal acts. What is more disquieting is the readiness with which HC judges, who are not ‘employees’ under any government but are constitutional functionaries, should have eagerly become members of the HBCS and obtained sites. It is seen that some of them obtained sites not only for themselves but their kith and kin who are not judicial employees either.”
Thakur and Dhattu were allotted plots when they were judges in the Karnataka HC. Thakur was allotted site No. 1273 in 1996-97. He had paid Rs 1.54 lakh for a site measuring 5,436 sq ft. The current market value is estimated to be around Rs 2.17 crore. Dhattu was allotted site No. 2095 at the same layout for which he had paid a meagre Rs 61,598 in 1997-98. He was granted another site measuring 4,000 sq ft in 2002.
The eight retired SC judges — Justices GT Nanavati, RV Raveendran, MN Venkatachalaiah, S Rajendrababu, P Venkatarama Reddy, Shivraj V Patil, N Venkatachala and K Jagannatha Shetty — have also violated the same clauses because they were allotted sites by the society.
According to documents available with TEHELKA, Nanavati, who probed the 2002 Gujarat riots, got site No. 2070 allotted on 14 October 1999. He was the Chief Justice of the Karnataka HC from September 1994 to March 1995. MN Venkatachalaiah, former CJI (February 1993-October 1994) was allotted site No. 1295, measuring 5,400 sq ft in 1997-98 for Rs 1.53 lakh and S Rajendra Babu, who also served as CJI (May 2004- June 2004) was allotted site No. 1389, measuring 9,605 sq ft, in 1994-95 for Rs 4.44 lakh, when he was a Karnataka HC judge.
“The allotment was done a long time ago,” says retired SC judge P Venkatarama Reddy. “As far as I know, more than 100 judges were allotted sites. A PIL has been pending regarding this. Whether judges are employees of the judiciary or not is the larger question.” Former HC judge M Rama Jois added: “I’ve been a member of this society from the start. There is no irregularity.” The others either refused to talk about the issue or were unavailable for comment.
As many as 82 judges were allotted plots in the society even though they are not judicial employees
But what appears to have been violated is not just laws but the very principles of the co-operative movement. In the case of Ishwarnagar Society vs Padmanand Sharma, the SC observed: “Co-operative societies are the best system that suit the needs of the poor and weaker sections. The object of a co-operative society is not to earn profits but to enable the members to improve their economic condition. Thus, co-operative societies like the present one, which seek to obtain land at concessional rates from the government and to build houses, must necessarily have a limitation in that only those who are in real need of houses should be permitted to become members and to take the benefit of land allotment.”
IT IS against the backdrop of this court observation that the palatial houses built by judges in the layout strike a jarring note. Most have been allotted massive plots larger than tennis courts. In fact, one retired judge has actually built a tennis court on his allotted land. Ironically, the land was granted by the state government. As the grant was for a public purpose, which was to provide subsidised housing to the needy, the government also subsidised the land grant with taxpayers’ money.
In a city where even the middle class makes extreme sacrifices to buy residential property, these judges were allotted sites at shockingly low prices: amounts ranging from Rs 25-Rs 240 per sq ft. This, when prices between 1994 and 2006 in this area were never less than Rs 1,000 per sq ft. The current market rate is over Rs 4,000 per sq ft. Some judges received multiple allotments (a violation of Section 10(a) of the bylaws), and in some cases they already owned houses in the city at the time of allotment.
Many judges have violated conditions laid down in the sale deed, which prevents them from selling the plots within 10 years, and some have since sold them at a huge profit. Some have not built houses on the plots within the stipulated two years.
In violation of a government order, the society exempted the judges from filing affidavits listing their assets. Under normal circumstances, it is through these voluntary declarations that the co-operative society filters the applications and eliminates those who already own houses.
(Published in Tehelka Magazine, Volume 8 Issue 48, Dated December 3, 2011)
Imran Khan More by the author >
Tags: AB Hinchigeri, Ajit J Gunjal, Anand Byrareddy, Bengaluru, co-operative society irregularity, CR Kumaraswamy, Governor, GT Nanavati, Gujarat riots, high court judges, Himatlal Sheth, HL Dhattu, HN Nagamohan Das, HR Bhardwaj, Imran Khan, Ishwarnagar Society, Joint House Committee, judges, K Jagannatha Shetty,Karnataka, Karnataka State Judicial Employees House Building Co-operative Society, land scam, Lokayukta,Manjula Chellur, MN Venkatachalaiah, Model Bylaws, N Kumar, NG Venkatachala, NK Patil, P Venkatarama Reddy,Rama Jois, RV Raveendran, S Abdul Nazeer, S Rajendrababu, Sankal Chand, Sankal Chand Himatlal Sheth, Shivraj V Patil, SR Bannurmath, Subramani versus Union of India, Supreme Court, TS Thakur, Vasudevan Jagannathan, Yelahanka Judicial Layout
- Accused futher submits as how during the Housing Societies land scam of more than 32,000 acres of lands, was negotiated by presiding Judges of Division Bench of this High Court namely Rama Jois and Rajshekhar Murty during 1989-1991 and conspired with the Chief Minister Late Mr. Bangarappa and Judgments, to uphold “Illegal Land Acquisition in favor of 125 plus HBCS in popularly called “Narayan Reddy” case .
| HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKAILR 1991.KAR.2248.
36. Kar HC 19 Sit. Judges Named in Charge Sheet at page No. 14 & 15, 16 and at 22 [ extract from office computer of Applicant’s web site link http://indiancorruptjudges.com/Plot4Plot/akrama-sakrama.html in www.IndianCorruptJudges.com] “February 2010: JUSTICE BULLETIN: AKRAMA – SAKRAMA” Billappa, R.M. Reddy, K. Bhktavatsala, Anand Byra Reddy, Hinchigeri, N.K. Patil, M. Shantangouder, N. Kumar, H.G Ramesh , Abdul Nazeer, C.R. Kumar Swamy, Ravi V Malimath, H.N. Nagmohan Das, A.S Pachhpure, Hulvadi G Ramesh, Patil B.S, L. Narayan Swamy, N. Ananda, B.V. Nagrathna,
- Protest against Justice Bhaktavatsala on September 10,2012 #Bangalore
|September 8, 2012http://kractivist.wordpress.com/2012/09/08/protest-against-justice-bhaktavatsala-on-september-102012-bangalore/Protest against Justice Bhaktavatsala on September 10,2012 #BangaloreJustice Bhaktavatsala’s remarks in the High Court legitimizing the criminal act of domestic violence have horrified the city and indeed the entire country.To protest such absolutely misogynistic mindset reflecting the dominant attitudes of society that sanction violence against women, we are gathering in protest on Monday September 10, 2012 from 12.30 pm onwards.
_/If you wish to join us in the protest, kindly email us in advance so we can inform you (later) about the site of the protest./_*Please come dressed in black and we will stand in silence with placards to express our outrage over Justice Bhaktavatsala’s actions. (If you prefer to bring your own messages, please note that displaying them will
be subject to review by Vimochana and other organisers).*Following the protest we will present the attached memorandum to the Chief Justice. If you wish to endorse the memorandum, please email us your name, affiliation and contact details no later than Sunday night (9th September).
We look forward to your endorsement and/or your presence in the protest.
All of us from Vimochana.
38. Gist of Section 407 Cr.P.C:- Power of High Court to transfer cases and appeals.
(1) Whenever it is made to appear to the High Court:-
(a) that a fair and impartial inquiry or trial cannot be had in any Criminal Court subordinate thereto, or
(b) that some question of law of unusual difficulty is likely to arise, or
(c) that an order under this section is required by any provision of this Code, or will tend to the general convenience of the parties or witnesses, or is expedient for the ends of justice,
it may order-
(iv) that any particular case or appeal be transferred to and tried before itself.
(2) The High Court may act either on the report of the lower Court, or on the application of a party interested, or on its own initiative
(7) Where an application for an order under sub-section (1) is dismissed, the High Court may, if it is of opinion that the application was frivolous or vexatious, order the applicant to pay by way of compensation to any person who has opposed the application such sum not exceeding one thousand rupees as it may consider proper in the circumstances of the case.
(8) When the High Court orders under sub-section (1) that a case be transferred from any Court for trial before itself, it shall observe in such trial the same procedure which that Court would have observed if the case had not been so transferred.
- This Accused submits that prima facie the Registrar Judicial was in constant touch with 25 plus tainted sitting Judges including Bench of K.Bhaktavatsala and C.R. Kumaraswamy. So also other benches of N.K.Patil and Ratnakala who heard once / twice.
All these proceedings on Adminstrative side and Judicial side are in Criminal contempt of the following illegal acts, omissions, commissions committed in bad faith un-becoming of so called Registrars, Judges of Law Court, of Courts of Justice.[i] that not classifying under “Criminal Transferred Case” is “denying my right to be tried fairly and freely, trying to demolish my faith in Karnataka High Court.
[ ii] more than sixty five times accused has prayed in his Application and Memo for making a Report to High Court seeking “Transferring the C.C. No. 6711/2012”; and to prosecute , as reflected in Court Order i.e.,
This application is filed by the accused u/sec. 479 r/w Section- 407 of Cr.P.C ., seeking for an order to transfer this case to the Hon’ble High court of Karnataka as Hon’ble High court is Court of Records, where this accused has confidence to get justice against powerful lobby of 867 Corrupt Judges and Lokayuktas and this court by transferring the case to Hon’ble High court, shall only enhance its prestige and glory in the eyes of litigants.
The Hon’ble High court has powers to re-open past judgments and he can convince the Hon’ble High court to re-open the cases of Karnataka Employees HBCS has secured more than 27 judgments fraudulently in Hon’ble High Court for developing Judicial Layout and any frauds committed on it amounts to fraud on court of records.
The learned Sr. APP has filed objections by way of memo contending that when integrity of court is questioned, it is difficult in arriving at proper conclusion and therefore he has prayed to consider the application filed by the accused.
[ iii] that the administrative order by incorporating Section 395 and listing it amounts to Criminal Contempt of Judgment of ACMM-VIII Court Order.
[iv] that the administrative order by incorporating Section 395 and listing the Case before accused Employee-cum-Judges Bench is a grave Offence; that without Hon’ble Chief Justice written Orders.
[v] The Employee-cum-Judges Bench which is dis-qualified for reason of being contemners of allged 27 Judgments; amounts more serious crime; apart from Criminal Contempt, General Public may loose the faith in Judiciary, though there are Bonafide few Judges in High Court and Lower Judiciary.
[vi] Listing of “Criminal Transfrred Case from Magistate before Division Bench “shall create a Guniss Book Record” world-wide”. Such acts proves how educated our Judicial fraternity is.
[vii] The accused shall be denied with Natural justice, Fundamental Rights per Article 14, 19, 21, Constitution, to appeal to single Judge etc., .
[viii] Such act of high Court is an ANATHEMA to law and that too for Indian democracy and amounts to a serious Criminal contempt in the Face of Karnataka high Court.
[ix] To avoid further embarssment to this patriotic citizen and law abiding citizen, to avoid making “Prosecution into Persecution”, to up-hold Law, justice and courts; it would be better on part of Bench to recall all Orders, if any made, and post it before an appropriate bench.
- The Code of Criminal Procedure-Cases : Section 479 of CrPc:-
Case in which Judge or Magistrate is personally interested:-
No Judge or Magistrate shall, except with permission of the Court to which an appeal lies from Court, try or commit for trial any case to or in which he is a party, or personally interested, and no Judge or Magistrate shall hear an appeal from any judgment or order passed or made by himself.It is humbly submitted that Sec. 479 comes to recuse into play for two Judges ; apart from 25 Plus sitting Judges of high court who are hearing this case “Admittedly Employees of Karnataka High Court; of which Hon’ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice D.H. Waghela is the Adminstrative Head, of whose written permission to preside any court and in every case to hear they have seek permission of the Employer Mr. Justice Waghela”; under the circumstances both should recuse and rescind all fraudulent Orders passed in Crl.RC 01/2014 so far., if they are left with any honor, common sense and are human beings of knowledge of law.
- Wherefore this humble accused applicant prays as follows:-
[i] Wherefore the Accused Applicant prays that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to recall all orders passed without hearing the accused,[ii] Wherefore the Accused Applicant prays that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to recuse from further hearing; and[iii] direct the Registry to seek kind Orders of Hon’ble Chief Justice to place the case before an appropriate Bench.
This Memo is conceived, drafted and presented by Applicant on his own initiative in accordance with fundamental rights as enshrined in Constitution of India, Universal Human Rights, The Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct and other Rights available to applicant from various Judgments of Supreme Court of India etc.,
Applicant craves leave of the Court to state that all due caution is taken to present facts truthfully. If any mistakes in conceiving the contents of this Memo, be considered PATRIOTIC in the interest of Justice & Equity to protect this innocent victim of the FALSE CASE SLAPPED in derogation of his, his family’s & Indian Judiciary’s Dignity and Image.
BANGALORE DIGVIJAY MOTE
DATE: 14-04-2014 ACCUSED/APPLICANT
[ Applicant In Person]
Two Sets of Memo “MEMO BY Respondent /Accused in Person”, filed CH 06 in Karnataka HC dated 14.04.14 were served on The Hon’ble Chief Justice & Mr. Justice D.H. Waghela, The Hon’ble Chief Justice, with due acknowledgement of Karnataka high Court, in Tappal Section at 10.10 AM, which were also produced before High Court to DB of KBJ & CRK.J at about 10.55 to 11.20 AM. Mr. Justice D.H. Waghela, The Hon’ble Chief Justice office has registered it as CJC.962/15.4.14.
Two Sets of Memo “MEMO BY Respondent /Accused in Person”, filed CH 06 in Karnataka HC dated 14.04.14 contained the following contents:-
The Hon’ble Chief Justice,
High Court of Karnataka
Subject: Appeal to initiate Criminal Contempt Proceedings
‘against strong lobby of Corrupt 867 Judges & Lokayuktas’
Mr. Justice D.H. Waghela,
The Hon’ble Chief Justice,
Subject: Appeal to initiate Criminal Contempt Proceedings
‘against strong lobby of Corrupt 867 Judges & Lokayuktas’
in the matter of case as below:-
As per Notice in two pages served on Mote, accused through Police Commissioner on 10th April 2014, at around 8 pm to 9 pm.
The Cause title is :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
CRIMINAL REFERRED CASE No. 01 OF 2014
C.C. No 6711/2012
Referred by VIII – Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Bangalore. ………. …… Appellant Represented by Chief Justice, Karnataka High Court
Sri Digvijay Mote …… Respondent /Accused