29.1.13

SC reopens Taj case


Nearly a decade after asking the CBI to register an FIR against former Uttar Pradesh chief minister Mayawati in the Taj heritage corridor scam, the Supreme Court sounded fresh warning bells by deciding to examine whether the trial proceedings against her and the others were closed in a legally correct manner.
A bench, comprising Justice H L Dattu and Justice Ranjan Gogoi, decided to entertain four petitions challenging an Allahabad high court judgment, which upheld a trial court’s decision to close prosecution of Mayawati, her former cabinet colleague Naseemuddin Siddiqui and government officials R K Sharma and Rajendra Prasad on the ground that the governor had refused to grant sanction for their prosecution.
When the bench said, “We will examine the issue” and issued notices to the respondents, Mayawati’s counsel K K Venugopal argued that these petitions were not maintainable.
The petitions were filed by Kamlesh Verma, Anupma Singh, Kashi Prasad Yadav and Mamta Singh. Appearing for Verma, senior advocate Shanti Bhushan argued that the offences under Section 420 (cheating), 467, 468 and 471 (all related to forgery) of the IPC and corrupt acts could never be said to have been done by these officials in their official capacity and hence sanction was not a requirement for the court to carry on with the trial proceedings. Senior advocate Shanti Bhushan said the high court did not adjudicate the law point “whether sanction at all was needed for proceeding with the trial”. Instead, it “carved out a new case that sanction having been refused by the competent authority, the designated court did not have any jurisdiction to proceed with the matter; whereas, the order refusing sanction by the competent authority was not an issue at all.”
In July 6, 2012, the apex court had quashed a disproportionate assets (DA) case, allegedly linked to the Taj heritage corridor scam, saying the court had never desired the CBI to register a FIR against Mayawati in the case. But three months later, it entertained a review petition.

No comments: