IN the COURT of VIII TH ACMM at BANGALORE CC No. 6711 of 2012 Complainant

IN THE COURT OF VIII TH A.C.M.M AT BANGALORE

C.C. No. 6711 of 2012

Complainant : State by Vidhana Soudha Police

Vs.

Applicant / Accused : Digvijay Mote

APPLICATION FOR DISCHARGE UNDER SECTION 239 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE . The Applicant Digvijay Mote respectfully submits as follows :

1. That the Applicant accused submits that the complainant P.R.O. and Dy. Commissioner, Office of Lokayukta has filed a complaint on 29 th October 2011 against the applicant accused, the same case was investigated by the I.O. and the charge sheet is submitted before the court against the applicant accused with the surprising facts and Un-Scientific Evidences which are more fully described below .

2. 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.

3. Applicant is LEGALLY ILLITERATE and Literally P.U.C. pass. He has NO ADVOCATES’ Assistance.

This Applicant accused is publisher of websites across globe through www.IndianCorruptJudges.com , www. Judges Plot4Plot.com ,

www.Jail867CorruptJudges.wordpress.com , having his presence in social media under https://www.facebook.com/digvijay.mote , https://www.youtube.com/user/Digvijaymote , https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL8D49820FAFEB9CB1 by www.IndianCorruptJudges.com ; and on Twitter with accounts viz., @India0corrupt @JailLokayuktas@IndiaCourts .

4. All these accounts are in presense on net for more than a five to ten years or more. The evidences admit the fact that website was hosted way back in 2002. The contents of these media was, is and shall be made known to all Constitutional Functionaries of India viz., President Of India, Prime Minister Of India, Chief Justice of India, Central Bureau of Investigation, Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court, Chief Minister of Karnataka, Karnataka Lokayukta, DG & IG of Police of Karnataka by emails, by CDs couriered , by social media inter-actions. Few of the acknowledgements as is in www.IndianCorruptJudges.com are pasted below, in box, as matter may be easy to refer-to:-

“The CDs were couriered in 2003, intimating and alerting them to initiate action against the 867 Corrupt Judges involved in LOKAYUKTA HUSH- UP SCAM – to tll date to almost all Constitutional Authorities in India and Karnataka viz., His Excellancy The Hon’ble President of India Shri Abdul Kalam, Shri L.K.Advani , Shri P.C. Sharma, The Director, C.B.I., New Delhi etc., of which details from website http://indiancorruptjudges.com/ , of which CD is in custody of this Court from link in Index to Documents in Home-page @ 000.03 Acknowledgements of Constitutional Functionaries , having received Compact Disc i.e., CD; which the I.O., too has seized from Applicant’s Office upon court’s search and seizure warrant in 2012.

Our Complaint against Lok Ayukta: Contents on the cover we have couriered. Hon’ble Lokayukta Justice

000.03.01 s N.Venkatachala, the Lokayukta and D.G.P. of Lokayukta Police Mr. A.R.Infant on 7 th July 2004 with latest up- dates; which was adduced as Evidence in this very Hon’ble Court of VIII ADDL C.M.M., B’LORE in C.C.NO:

8838/2005 on 22 nd August 2005 and on 2 nd September 2005, against Complaint Mr. D. Krishnappa, The Registrar, Karnataka Lokayukta. And Applicant’s family was acquitted.

Acknowledgment of Lok Ayukta having received our complaint + CD dated 8 th July 2004; ; which was adduced as Evidence in this very Hon’ble Court of VIII ADDL 000.03.02 s C.M.M., B’LORE in C.C.NO: 8838/2005 on 22 nd August 2005 and on 2 nd September 2005, against Complaint Mr. D. Krishnappa, The Registrar, Karnataka Lokayukta. And Applicant’s family was acquitted.

Acknowledgments of L.K. Advani + C.B.I.New Delhi 000.03.03 s +C.B.I.Bangalore in May 2003

Acknowledgments of Manohar Joshi + B.D.A. 000.03.04 s Commissioner Jaikar Jerome dated May 2013

Acknowledgments of N.D.A President Mrs. Sonia Gandhi 000.03.05 s + Hon’ble Chief Minister S. M. Krishna, in May 2003

Acknowledgments of DG & IG of Karnataka T.Madiyal + 000.03.06 s S. Mariswami , the Police Commissioner, in May 2003

Acknowledgments of Chief Justice of India V.N.Khare + 000.03.07 s President of India A.P.J.Kalam + N.K.Jain, Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court, in May 2003

C.M.of Karnataka through ‘Mr. Jawaid Akhtar, Additional Secretary to Chief Minister , dated 13 th August 2004 on 000.03.08 s our letter head “COMPLAINT AGAINST KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA Mr. N. Venkatachala”

Chief Secretary to Karnataka Government Mr. K.K. Mishra, I.A.S., on 13 th August 2004 on our letter head 000.03.09 s “COMPLAINT AGAINST KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA Mr. N. Venkatachala”

Principal Secretary. Home Dept of Karnataka Govt. Shri Brahma Dutt., I.A.S., dated 13 th August 2004, on our 000.03.10 s letter head “COMPLAINT AGAINST KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA Mr. N. Venkatachala”

Reply of Government da ted 14 th October 2004. Karnataka Home Department , Vidhana Soudha, Blore., stating that 000.03.11 s “Department of Personnel & Adminstrative Reforms, Vidhana Soudha is’ EXAMINING & Going to TAKE ACTION’

000.03.12 s Postal Covers of Government Replies.Scan Copy

5. This Court has to initiate Criminal proceedings the Constitutional Authorities, by whose names the CDs were courierd . The inaction by this Court against said authorities and against 867 Corrupt Judges and Lokayuktas, shall crumble THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM of India and invites ANARCHY, which is impermissible under Indian Constitution and laws made there under.

6. Serious Crimes committed by 867 Corrupt Judges and Lokayuktas and punishable under Criminal Contempt of High Court, Sections of ‘various chapters of I.P.C’. Prevention of Corruption Act, Goonda Act, Criminal Procesure Code; is covered in Applicant’s

websites www.judgesplot4plot.com & www .indiancorruptjudges.com are based on un-impeachable evidences gathered against 867 Corrupt Judges and Lokayuktas involved in LOKAYUKTA INSTITUTIONAL CORRUPTION, which came to be hushed-up. The following amongst other investigations with criminal intent to ILLEGALLY protect the proven 867 Corrupt Judges and Lokayuktas is below:-

[A] 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

4 heading “IRREGULARITIES, NEPOTISM AND CORRUPT ACTIVITIES IN ALLOT MENT OF SITES”.

[B] 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”.

[C] 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

[D] 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.

[E] 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.

[F] Applicant is XII standard passed. He was a successful businessman in Pest Control Services, having had my office in eleventh floor, High Point- IV, Hotel Chalukya Circle, Bangalore-1. He closed the business voluntarily to do national service. He 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”. He 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”. He 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”.

7. Applicant to see that Indian Society is free of CRIMINALS more so at HIGH CONSTITUTIONAL PLACES such as Lokayukta, Chief Justices of High Court, Supreme Court who are part and parcel of “ persons accused of Serious Crimes committed by 867 Corrupt Judges and Lokayuktas on and punishable under Sections of ‘various chapters of I.P.C’. Prevention of Corruption Act, Goondas Act, Criminal Procedure Code.

8. Such National cause had a catastrophic effect on his family, childen education filled with anxiety, tension, stress. Financially Applicant had to liquidate all his Properties & Children school funds and invest for national Causes.

9. In the bargain, my elder son Deepak Mote had to working & earn to manage my house & mission. He is owner of www.judgesPlot4Plot.com along with other son Sant Mote , who is in final year in Christ University B.A in Mass Communication. DEEPAK MOTE while he was in school also used to help accompany me raise voice against CORRUPTION IN INDIAN JUDICIARY. In 2004, DEEPAK MOTE as a minor, also was arrested along with me & my wife on the Police Complaint of Lokayukta; for our Voice was raised against Pushing- under Carpet of the Rs. 8,454 Crores JUDICIAL SCAM of 867 Judges &

Lokayuktas, which is more fully explained in Applications and Memos, which is on Court Records.

10. Applicant’s second son Sant Mote apart from college studies, is also part- time earning to support his expenses & Family. Similarly my wife is working as School teacher in Private school which helps family to survive Hand-To-Mouth and also Mission in low profile.

11. 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; who have hushed-up the SCAM and our our Voice was raised in in the form of world wide web sites for “Pushing-under Carpet of the Rs. 8,454 Crores JUDICIAL SCAM of 867 Judges & Lokayuktas”. Both N. Venkatachala and Registrar D. Krishnappa are illegal beneficiaries sites in JUDICIAL Layout formed by Karnataka Employees HBCS and privy to the SCAM.

12. In the former Complaint Applicant allowed himself to suffer along with his 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.

13. The 30.01.14 : www.IndianCorruptJudges.com Appeal to Hob’ble CJ:- “Request to STOP allotment of Cases to ‘ 28 present sitting-Employee- Cum-Judges-Of-High-Courtto Hon’ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Waghela is in Chief Justice Secretariat is Numbered as CJC No. 276/14; Dt. 30.01.2014; of which Content is as follows:-

30.01.14 : www.IndianCorruptJudges.com Appeal to Hob’ble CJ:- “Request to STOP allotment of Cases to ‘ 28 present sitting-Employee-Cum-Judges-Of-High- Court . www.IndianCorruptJudges.com Appeal to “The Hon’ble Chief Justice of Karnataka . Copies to CJI Justice Sathashivam, Advocate General etc.,” 30 th January 2014.

82 Judges allotted plots of land at dirt cheap rates in Karnataka

DNA NEWS: Friday, November 18, 2011 – 10:05 IST | Place: Bangalore

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 g iving 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.”

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.

House building cooperative societies, by definition, are meant for the poor and needy. Essentially, for employees who cannot afford to buy land or a house at market rates.

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.” This indicates that only employees of the judicial department —and not retired or sitting judges— are eligible to become members of the society and be allotted sites at concessional rates.

Justice M.F. 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 was allotted a 9,600-sq ft plot of land under Allalasandra, Chikkabommasandra and Jakkur Plantation villages and Yelahanka hobli in March 2000 for just `2.94 lakh.The current market value is `3.84 crore.

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.

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.”

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.”

14. [A] The one of “867 Corrupt 867 Judges and Lokayuktas”, Chief Justice M. Ramakrishna spills the BEANS ‘OF CRIMINAL CONSPIRACIES of CHIEF JUSTICES of KARNATAKA HIGH COURT. In his letter to Justice G.P. Shivaprakash, the Upa- Lokayukta, to get his site in JUDICIAL LAYOUT registered, who as per ILR 1995 KAR 3139 is an Employee under Chief Justice D.H. Waghela and his successors: answers Advocate General’s Query to Chief Minster, which in box below: and the gist is :-

[B] My Dear Brother, you are aware with what amount of difficulty we were able to persuade the then Chief Minister of Karnataka to hand over possession of the land to the Office bearers of the above society with the special efforts of Mr. Justice Mohan, the then Chief Justice. You are also aware that at that point of time none of us was able to pay entire value of the site in a lump sum. Hence there had been some delay in that behalf. However , may I now request you to grant exemption from your Stay Order so as to enable the Sub Registrar to register the Document of the site referred to above and oblige. This does not mean that I am coming in the way of your investigation of the Complaint registered, in accordance with law.

[C] The entire letter of Chief Justice M. Ramakrishna spills the BEANS ‘OF CRIMINAL CONSPIRACIES of CHIEF JUSTICES of KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

Mr. JUSTICE M. RAMAKRISHNA Res: No. 3792, Ist Floor,

CHIEF JUSTICE [ Rtd] 7th Main, HAL IInd Stage, BANGALORE – 560 038. Ph. : 5250475

————————————————————————————

Date: 7-3-2001

My dear Justice Shiva Prakash,

Sub: Registration of Document in respect of Site No. 858

– The Karnataka State Judicial Officers House Building Co -op. Society Ltd., Jakkur, Bangalore.

Ref: Your Letter No. Compt Upa Lokayukta BCD.64/99- 2000 ARE-2 Dt. 18-1-2001.

- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – -

I write to inform you that during my service as Judge of the Karnataka High Court at Bangalore, on 4-1-1993, a site was allotted to me in the above layout measuring 80’ x 120’ . I had paid part of the value of the site at that time. As you are aware I was elevated and posted as the Chief Justice of Jammu and Kashmir where I assumed charge as such on the 26th October, 1994.

As you are also aware that no certain prescribed procedure had been adopted for allotment of sites in the above layout for Hon’ble Judges and other staff members of the Judiciary. However having paid the initial amount, I left Bangalore and began to serve in Jammu and Kashmir High Court. From there I was shifted to Gauhati High Court, Assam, and on retirement on the 14th april 1998 when I came back to Bangalore, to my surprise I was informed by Mr. Shivalingaiah, the President of the Society that on account of certain orders of injunction of certain civil court, the registration of my site was postponed despite the fact that I paid the entire amount of Rs. 4,34,650/-. including registration charges and stamp duty as per law.

Eversince then, the authorities of the Society had been dodging me to register the document of my site. However on persuasion the authorities have passed formal orders of allotment of site bearing 858 in the above layout on 3-1-2001 and an endorsement has been given to me. Therein it is indicated that the entire amount of site value of Rs. 4,34,650/- had been paid, besides indicating that this is as per the proceedings of 4-1-1993. For ready reference, I am enclosing herewith the copy of the allotment letter.

A few days earlier one Sri Ramakrishna an employee of the Society informed me on the phone that the document for purpose of registration of the above site had been prepared and submitted to the Sub Registrar, yelahanka for registration. He however informed me

that there appeared to be Stay Order granted by Lokayukta. To ascertain the correctness of the above facts, I personally visited the Sub registrar concerned who on enquiry disclosed me that there had been a general Stay order granted by you on 18th of January 2001. Hence this representation.

My Dear Brother, you are aware with what amount of difficulty we were able to persuade the then Chief Minister of Karnataka to hand over possession of the land to the Office bearers of the above society with the special efforts of Mr. Justice Mohan, the then Chief Justice . You are also aware that at that point of time none of us was able to pay entire value of the site in a lump sum. Hence there had been some delay in that behalf. However , may I now request you to grant exemption from your Stay Order so as to enable the Sub Registrar to register the Document of the site referred to above and oblige. This does not mean that I am coming in the way of your investigation of the Complaint registered, in accordance with law.

Thanking you,

Yours sincerely,

….. Signed…

M. Ramakrishna

Copy to the Sub-Registrar, Bangalore.

for needful action.

…………………………….

On the front page it is hand written as follow:

Sri R. Devdas, Advocate s/o Hon’ble Justice Ramkrishna presented this letter. G.P .. 7/3 .. ARE-2

15. Frauds on this Court by Karnataka Lokayukta in 2004 to 2006 in C.C 8838/2005 by 867 Judges & Lokayuktas worth of of Rs. 8,454 Crores

worth property JUDICIAL SCAM :- This Court has failed in its Judicial duties to act Judicially in C.C 8838/2005 and failed to array the 867 Judges & Lokayuktas in bring to Justice who are the REAL CULPRITS .

16. This Court having failed in its Judicial duties 867 Plus Corrupt Judges & Judicial Officers who happened to be members in their personal capacity for personal enrichment; have again un-leashing FRAUDS abusing their powers and fraudulently filing the present & past false complainants; so as to postpone their arrest and to stand trial in this Court; which duty is now fallen upon Ld. Judge and Sr.APP.

17. This court must not shirk its duties under criminal law and must proceed against “867 Judges & Lokayuktas; who admit they have fradulantly have secured more than 27 Judgments from High Court of Karnataka.

18. Above said action must have been initiated by this Court in previous case; and sent them to jail where they rightly belong, as per admission of their crimes in no less than High Court and Lokayukta, which are Public Institutions to bring anti-social elements to Justice. Should this Court have acted without bias against “Corrupt 867 Judges & Lokayuktas” in 2004-2006 ; the fame and name of ACMM-VIII Court would have become internatiuonally famous and recognized as THE BEST TRIAL COURT even in India and would have INCRESED PEOPLES CONFIDENCE in RULE of LAW.

19. Failure on part of this Court as afore mentioned resulted in mis-carriage of JUSTICE colored with BIAS in protecting “Corrupt 867 Judges & Lokayuktas” ; as mentioned in the present CC 6711/12 Court Order on 22.10.2013, i.e., “ The complainant in his application has alleged that there are 867 corrupt judges named there under and he has no confidence upon this court as the Magistrate is personally interested to protect those judges”.

20. “99 criminal may go SCOT FREE; but 1 “ is the admitted legal adiga across Indian Courts. But in this case the adiga is being other way around i.e., “One Innocent Must Go To Jail; but protecting “Corrupt 867 Judges & Lokayuktas” shall not go be Jailed.

21. This Court has already expressed its BIAS in hearing this case and by even Sr.APP. in the proceedings; which as follows:- [A] 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. [B] “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” is part and parcel of this Court’s Order dated:22.10.2013 .

[C] This Court has gone on record of this Court on its order dated 22.10.2013, which cannot be rescinded by any Order under any law or direction by any authority. The Court order by this court 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 complainant in his application has alleged that there are 867 corrupt judges named there under and he has no confidence upon this court as the Magistrate is personally interested to protect those judges”.

“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".

22. Under the aforesaid this Court proceedings the duty is cast upon by Hon’ble High Court to act as per LAW; while dismissing Court’s Criminal Case Transfer Order.

23. Hence this Court is left with no choice except to proceed forth with by initiating criminal proceedings against “Powerful lobby of 867 Corrupt Judges and Lokayuktas; who are accused of secured more than 27 judgments fraudulently in Hon’ble High Court for developing Judicial Layout” and DISCHARGE the Applicant Honorably.

24. This Court has already shown legal bias and JUDICIAL FRUDULANT SELECTIVE APPLICATION of Criminal Procedure Code, I.P.C., etc., by NOT ORDERING of “Arrest warrants against “Powerful lobby of 867 Corrupt Judges and Lokayuktas and presenting the 867 Accused before this Court by Vidhna Soudha police” and of failing to directing Police u/s 93 CrPC the “Search and Seizure of Records from Complaint Lokayukta Office” ; are shown as PROSECUTION EVIDENCES and so also “Applicant has brought to the kind Notice of Sr.APP and Court by producing evidences of serious criminal offences available within the Complainat’s Lokayukta Office”; of which omissions amounts to commission of serious crimes by this Court.

25. The Sr.APP and the Court, who are professionals in Criminal Law turning BLIND EYE to the said crimes mentioned; shall result in SERIUOS MISCARRIAGE of JUSTICE, Court Loosing People’s Confidence and inviting Criminal Contempt of this Court.

26. What amounts to fraud is explained by Supreme Court of India by CJI P. Sathashivam bench and the remedies available to this Applicant against the Fraudsters including the Complainant, “Powerful lobby of 867 Corrupt Judges and Lokayuktas; who are accused of securing more than 27 judgments fraudulently from Karnataka High court” and others.

27. 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. ” 23. Again in A.V. Papayya Sastry and Ors. Vs. Government of A.P. and Ors., AIR 2007 SC 1546 , this Court reviewed the law on this position and reiterated the principle. In paras 38 and 39 it was held as follows: 38. The matter can be looked at from a different angle as well. Suppose, a case is decided by a competent Court of Law after hearing the parties and an order is passed in favour of the applicant/plaintiff which is upheld by all the courts including the final Court. Let us also think of a case where this Court does not dismiss Special Leave Petition but after granting leave decides the appeal finally by recording reasons. Such order can truly be said to be a judgment to which Article 141 of the Constitution applies. Likewise, the doctrine of merger also gets attracted. All orders passed by the courts/authorities below, therefore, merge in the judgment of this Court and after such judgment, it is not open to any party to the judgment to approach any court or authority to review, recall or reconsider the order.

39. The above principle, however, is subject to exception of fraud. Once it is established that the order was obtained by a successful party by practising or playing fraud, it is vitiated. Such order cannot be held legal, valid or in consonance with law. It is nonexistent and non est and cannot be allowed to stand. This is the fundamental principle of law and needs no further elaboration. Therefore, it has been said that a judgment, decree or order obtained by fraud has to be treated as nullity, whether by the court of first instance or by the final court. And it has to

17 be treated as nonest by every Court, superior or inferior . [emphasis supplied]

If a judgment obtained by playing fraud on the Court is a nullity and is to be treated as non est by every Court superior or inferior, it would be strange logic to hear that an enquiry into the question whether a judgment was secured by playing fraud on the Court by not disclosing the necessary facts relevant for the adjudication of the controversy before the Court is impermissible. From the above judgments, it is clear that such an examination is permissible. Such a principle is required to be applied with greater emphasis in the realm of public law jurisdiction as the mischief resulting from such fraud has larger dimension affecting the larger public interest. Therefore, the conclusion reached by the judgment under appeal that no Court can examine the correctness of the contents of the impugned FIR, is unsustainable and without any basis in law. The very complaint in the FIR is that the judgment of the Calcutta High Court, as affirmed by this Court, is a consequence of a deliberate and dishonest suppression of the relevant facts necessary for adjudicating the rights and obligations of the parties to the said litigation. 24. Coming to the question as to what amounts for securing a judgment by playing fraud in the Court- In Chengal Varaya Naidu (supra), this Court categorically held that the non-disclosure of all the necessary facts tantamounts to playing fraud on the Courts. At para 6 of the said judgment, it was held as follows: “…………..If he withholds a vital document in order to gain advantage on the other side then he would be guilty of playing fraud on the court as well as on the opposite party .” 28. In State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others AIR 1992 SC 604, this Court after reviewing large number of cases on the question of the quashing the FIR held at paras 108 and 109 as follows: “108.In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers Under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it

18 may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. 1. Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima-facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

2. Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers Under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. 4. Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated Under Section 155(2) of the Code.

5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an

ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

30. For all the above reasons, we are of the opinion that the judgment under appeal cannot be sustained and the same is required to be set aside and we, accordingly, set aside the same. The appeal stands allowed

28. 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”.

29. The I.O., has played fraud by not making as ACCUSED Justice S.H. Kapadia, the 100 and odd judges whose names and photos appear in DNA News paper, and the ‘Publisher, printer and reporters of the said news document; in the records of this Court’.

30. This Court of Law, has utterly failed in its duty to apply the law to take cognizance of failure of I.O., and failure to direct the arrest of the persons named in the prosecution evidence of the 100 and odd judges whose names and photos appear in DNA News paper, and the ‘Publisher, printer and reporters of the said news document; in the records of this Court’.

31. The Fraudulent Complaint and its consequential proceedings, inquiries, court proceedings are contrary to law and Apex court Judgments.

32. Fraudulent Allegation of Complainant PRO Riaz is aforesaid three publications are distributed from 25th October, 2011 to 29th October, 2011,. reflected in CC. 6711/2012 at pages 9 & 10, reflects that Applicant is either GOD or DEVIL. For he can not put words into mouth

of Chief Justice of India Hon’ble Justice S.H. Kapadia and force Him to deliver Law Day speech in the manner whatever he chose to make. Nor the Courts can punish God or Devil, as courts can punish Persons & Citizens, or their pets & animals. I am neither pet nor animal!

33. It is Applicant’s case for DISCHASRGE that “all the seven sermons to all courts of India by Supreme Court of India in reported judgment are applicable in the present case CC 6711/12 , the sermons as reported in [STPL(Web) 978 SC 19 . Union of India Vs. Ramesh Gandhi[, P. SATHASIVAM & J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ” and are applicable for HONORABLE DISCHARGE of the applicant.

In this case the complainant, the complaint, F.I.R., and Charge sheet are manifestation of “ Collusion, Fraud of Lokayukta represented by powerful lobby of 867 Corrupt Judges and Lokayuktas using Complainant as a MASK colluding with Police.” in accordance with sermon No. 5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

34 . 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:-

29 th October, 2011

To, The Station House Officer, M.S. Building Police station [Out Post] Vidhana Soudha, 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 Engli sh 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 t his 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 reques t 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. Yours Sincerely,

Syed Riaz. Deputy Commissioner [Public Relations], Karnataka Lokayukta, Bangalore-1

[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. ….Signed…. ASI

35. The complainant P.R.O. and Dy. Commissioner, Office of Lokayukta Mr. Riaz was selected by Government of India to represent India in “The World Bank sponsored ‘International Corruption Hunters Alliance Event’ in year 2010”. In the Video, link of which is given below, he is seen Twice in Video, while hearing the Speech and later he hand-shaking with President of World Bank in the said Conference. The facts of which when I called him in or around 20th October, 2011; and he was happy to mention and confirm that Government of India chose him to represent along with another Officer from C.B.I. or so; from amongst all the Indian Country Men. The Video Uploaded by WorldBank on Dec 8, 2010 Video Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZZCYpoK2 _c&feature=relmfu . The Reading Contents below the Video in the website is thus: “Corruption steals from the poor and those responsible must be held accountable" says Robert Zoellick, President of the World Bank at the launch of theInternational Corruption Hunters Alliance today in Washington DC. More than 250 anti corruption officials from 134 countries are working on a global enforcement regime to benefit the poor by sharing information, monitoring results and coordinating action on corruption cases.

36. The I.O. failed and played FRAUD in investigations by failing to name as accused of the several persons who incidentally happened to be holding some post in higher echelon of DISPENSATION of JUSTIOCE ; and similarly the Sr.APP and this Court have failed take to task the IO of his serious Ommissions of I.O. resulting in miscarriage of justice and amounting to FRAUD ON this COURT: and putting the affecting parties viz., the Applicant, the Sr.APP and th e Ld. Judges.

37. The several evidence produced by Prosecution against accused, are in fact and in law are against “ 867 corrupt judges named there under” as is reflected it this Court Order dated 22.10.2013.

38. Prosecution’s every evidence is against “867 corrupt judges named there under” as is indirectly reflected it in this Court's Order dated 22.10.2013.

39. Justice Dattu’s Plot4Plot, High Court Judges R.M.Reddy & Billappa Frauds being perpetrated on Karnataka High Court:- [a] “ Page 14 -15 of Charge Sheet in present CC 6711/2012 titled ‘February 2010 JUSTICE BULLETIN” , is document publicized in our http://indiancorruptjudges.com/ site in 2010. The said Society has committed various crimes which are reported in the said pamphlet. [b] The Crimes are named in the pamphlet:- “ Criminal Conspiracies, Cheating, Frauds, Forgery, Criminal Contempt, Imposters, Land Grabbing, AKRAMA-SAKRAMA , Coercion of Govt. & Legislature”. “Judges become Traitors”, “867 Judges R more Corrupt & Dangerous than CJ Dinakaran”. [c] Pamphlet further reads “Defuncting ‘UD, BDA, BBMP, Dy Commr, Police, BWSSB .. etc.,’”. “Professing Hypocrisy & Sycophancy”. [d] Pamphlet also contains articles under Sub-titles:- “Corruption breeds inefficiency as incompetent people get into positions by corrupt methods” , “The Bar is said to be the Watchdog of the Bench” , “Role of JUDICIARY EXPLAINED & CLARIFIED”. The Pamphlet decorated with CORRUPT Judges’ photos. They include, to name a few, Ram Mohan Reddy, H.Billappa, R.V.Raveendran, T.S. Thakur, H.L. Dattu, N.Venkatachala, V.Gopal Goda, Majula Chellur, K.Sreedhar Rao, Rama jois, Adi S. Bashetti etc.,. [e] Those Pamphlets were with pride received & admired by Bar & Bench of Karnataka High Court since 2010 till date, and no one much less a Police complaint was made or Petitioned to High Court of whose photos were there in Bad Taste.

40. The two Judges of Karnataka High Court Mr. Ram Mohan Reddy & H. Billappa adore the “ Page 14 -15 of Charge Sheet in present CC 6711/2012 titled ‘February 2010 JUSTICE BULLETIN”, for the Brother Judges who are constituted as special Bench. They have passed ‘Orders in Contempt of their very Court Orders’ to appease Brother-Corrupt-867 -Judges-Lokayuktas with CORRUPT MOTIVES directing Bangalore Bruhat Mahanagar Palike [BBMP] to take over Layout and or C.A. Sites; when B.D.A, HUD, Society have claimed that th e JUDICIAL LAYOUT is REVENUE LAYOUT. That Layout is within BDA

jurisdiction as one of Thousands of unauthorised Layouts in Bangalore.

41. [a] “CJI Kapadia: New Delhi: Nov 26: Chief Justice Of India S.H. Kapadia said if any Judge is believed to be corrupt he should be named in public; take a stand & name in public & tell the Chief Justice”; adjacent to which is in hand writing denoting date as 26/11/2011 .

[b] DNA CITY: Tuesday, November 22, 2011: FULL PAGE ARTICLE [Reduced to A4] By www.judgesPlot4Plot.com

[c] INDIAN DEMOCRACY IS IN REAL DANGER; WHENCE 120 CORRUPT JUDGES OF SUPREME COURT, HIGH COURTS & LOKAYUKTA ARE TREATING INSTITUTIONS AS THEIR PATERNAL PROPERTY.

[d] “Follow WP.PIL 44135/2011 Filed on on 25/11/2011”

[e] “THE JUDGES WITH PLOTS” , WHICH IS PUBLSHED BY DNA CITY: Tuesday, November 22, 2011.; WHICH NAMES & PHOTOS INCLUDE T.S. Thakur, H.L. Dattu, on left hand side of page and on right hand side of page appear NAME & PHOTO OF V. Gopal Gowda. Note: The said three are presently are Hon’ble Judges of Supreme Court of India.

And H.L. Dattu is likely to Head Indian Judiciary as Chief Justice of India, within months from now, if this Court fails to take action : and if persons such as Prashanth Bhushan, M.L. Sharma and many more public spirited advocates and NGO's have in possession of the FRADULENT Sale Deeds of the three Hon'ble Judges mentioned above : who may move the Supreme Court of India against the Backd rop of the FRADULENT Sale Deeds, which in turn shall bring bad name to this Hon'ble Court, If it fails in duty to act as per law against the said persons who are with criminal intent of the police are left out to be named in the FIR.

It unfortunate of High court intentionally listing the crimnal Transferred Case and 'FRAUDULANTLY REGISTERING the same as Criminal reference case and listing before the "Judges whoose name with photo of K. Bhaktavatsala and name of C.R. Kumaraswamy appear in the said prosec ution evidence. This Court was courteous enough to follow law; but it the registry of High Court played Fraud, which the applicant has brought to kind Notice of hon'ble Chief

Justice Mr. Justice D.H. waghela and is being investigated and my letter representation is numbered as Chief Justice Chamber Number. It is the good feeling of many Apex court Judgments, which state that persons come and go, but Institutions are eternal; of which sanctity must not be allowed to diminish in people's confidence in courts.

[f] at the bottom of said document mentioned is “ On TRIAL : INDIAN JUDICIARY INSTITUTIONAL CORRUPTION OF 867 Judges of India & LOKAYUKTA INSTITUTIONAL CORRUPTION “

[g] on the left side of document is an extract fro m “colored PAPHLET” ; which was hosted on said www.judgesPlot4Plot.com &www.IndianCorruptJudges.com which is in completely visible and readable at “Page No. 11 of Charge Sheet” containing Two Pamphlets of which one relates to “colored PAPHLET” published on September 26 th , 2011 titled as On “TRIAL : INDIAN JUDICIARY INSTITUTIONAL CORRUPTION OF 867 Judges of India & LOKAYUKTA INSTITUTIONAL CORRUPTION.

[h] on right side of document Applicants email accounts are there “Follow us on TWITTER: India0Corrupt , @IndiaCourts , @JudicialLayout , @JailLokayuktas” .

The I.O. failed to name the said Judges and DNA News paper editors, publishers to stand trial; which th is court must consider seriouly and initiate criminal action against the persons responsible for such FRAUD on this Court and putting the court to embarassment.

42. Prosecution Evidence at page 10 of Charge Sheet is inter-alia [a] DNA CITY: Wednesday, November 23, 2011: FULL PAGE ARTICLE contains Eleven portions in parts of English. [b] , Published document of which head lines read “PLOT THICKENS MY LORD” containg sub-titles as “RETIRED CHIEF JUSTICES OF HIGH COURT” , “RETIRED JUDGES OF HIGH COURT” , [c] it contains “Follow WP.PIL 44135/2011 Filed on on 25/11/2011” [d] it contains “Follow WP.PIL 44135/2011 Filed on on 25/11/2011” on left side of document .

[e] it contains www.JudgesPlot4Plot.com on top of document. the document contains names of Judges numbering around 60 - 70, but the

The prosecution has utterly failed to array the names of persons who are part

and parcel of “867 Corrupt Judges and Lokayuktas”; rightly mentioned in this Court Order dated 22.10.2012.

The I.O. failed to name the said Judges and DNA News paper editors, publishers to stand trial; which this court must consider seriously and initiate criminal action against the persons responsible for such FRAUD on this Court and putting the court to embarrassment.

43. Applicant provided this Court with high time criminal conpiracies supported with Judicial evidences of FRAUDS being played upon by State Instrumentality under Art. 12 the Lokayukta then in 2004-2006 in CC 8838/2005 and now again by Lokayukta P.R.O & D.C in fraudulently slapping false , fictitious , groundless complaint now registred as C.C. 6711/2012 . The complainant is a Mask ‘behind Powerfull Lobby of 867 Employees-Cum-Judges & Lokayuktas’ and playing fraud upon other State instrumentalities viz., Police and this court; by hiding all ‘Evidences of Crimes of securing more than 27 Judgments from Hon’ble High Court by Powerfull Lobby of 867 Employees- Cum-Judges & Lokayuktas’, which was being hushed-up, based on which facts alone we had to open an website in 2002 / 03 and update all the LOKAYUKTA INSTITUTIONAL CORRUPTION on website, youtube, Blogs, Twitter, of which copies on Compact Discs are sent to all Constitutional Functionaries viz., President Of India, Pri me Minister of India, Chief Justice of India, Central Bureau of Investigation, Chief Minister of Karnataka, chief Justice of Karnataka High Couyrt, Karnataka Police DG & IGP etc., of which acknowledgements are in web-site and CDs seized from Applicant’s Of fice by Vidhana Soudha Police.

In the intervening period of C.C.NO: 8838/2005: Complainant Lokayukta Registrar Vs Digvijay Mote & others;

[44-A] The Karnataka Assembly Debated the Lokayukta Institutional Corruption vis-à-vis JUDICIAL Layout, LOKAYUKT A INSTITUTIONAL CORRUPTION, on 27 th July, 2005 and the debate though amonts to Criminal Contempt and Constitution India forbids all State Assemblies under Article 211. The Article reads thus:-Restriction on discussion in the Legislature : “No discussion sha ll take place in the Legislature of a State with respect to the conduct of any Judge of the Supreme Court or of a High Court in the discharge of his duties”.

[44-B] The debate was widely broadcasted on T.V., published many local and national news papers also. Despite Supreme Court, Karnataka High court, Karnataka Lokayukta having read the news neither any Judge nor P.I.L or Police Complaint was lodged against M.L.A.s or Speaker allowing debate against

867 Judges involved in JUDICIAL Layout , Lokayukta Institutional Corruption; which is as follows:-

PÀ£ÁðlPÀ «zsÁ£À¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ £ÀqÀªÀ½PÉUÀ¼ÀÄ KARNATAKA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY DEBATES

C¢üPÀÈvÀ ªÀgÀ¢ OFFICIAL REPORT

ºÀ£ÉßgÀqÀ£ÉÃ «zsÁ£À¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ JgÀqÀ£ÉAiÀÄ C¢üªÉÃ±À£À SECOND SESSION OF THE TWELTH LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

¸ÀA¥ÀÄl – 16 (PÀæªÀiÁAPÀ 1 jAzÀ 3) Volume – 16 (1 to 3)

(27 £ÉÃ dÄÉÊ 2005 , 28 £ÉÃ dÄÉÊ 2005 ºÁUÀÆ 29 £ÉÃ dÄÉÊ 2005 ) (27 th July 2005, 28 th July 2005 and 29 th July 2005)

PÀ£ÁðlPÀ «zsÁ£À¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀaªÁ®AiÀÄ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ Karnataka Legislative Assembly Secretariat, Bangalore

179-1

PÀ£ÁðlPÀ «zsÁ£À¸À¨sÉ

ºÀ£ÉßgÀqÀ£ÉÃ «zsÁ£À¸À¨sÉ JgÀqÀ£ÉAiÀÄ C¢üªÉÃ±À£À

CzsÀåPÀëgÀÄ ²æÃ PÀÈÀÚ

²æÃ J£ï.ªÉÊ. UÉÆÃ¥Á®PÀÈÀÚ G¥ÁzsÀåPÀëgÀÄ

PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ð ²æÃ. n.gÁdtÚ

PÀ£ÁðlPÀ «zsÁ£À¸À¨sÉ «ÀAiÀÄ£ÀÄPÀæªÀÄtÂPÉ ¸ÀA¥ÀÄl16 (PÀæªÀiÁAPÀ 1 jAzÀ 3) (27£ÉÃ dÄÉÊ 2005, 28£ÉÃ dÄÉÊ 2005 ºÁUÀÆ 29£ÉÃ dÄÉÊ 2005)

§ÄzsÀªÁgÀ, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 27£ÉÃ dÄÉÊ 2005 ¥ÀÄl ¸ÀASÉå 1. «wÛÃAiÀÄ PÁAiÀÄðPÀÁ¥À: 1-30 200506£ÉÃ ¸Á°£À C£ÀÄzÁ£À ¨ÉÃrPÉUÀ¼À ªÉÄÃÉ ªÀÄÄAzÀÄªÀgÉzÀ ZÀZÉð (¨ÉÃrPÉUÀ¼À ¸ÀASÉå: 14,7,13,12,11,27,28,24,20,8,22,3,26, 15,5,21,4,19 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 25) ²æÃ ©.J. fÃ«dAiÀÄ ²æÃ CgÀUÀ eÁÕ£ÉÃAzÀæ

2. CzsÀåPÀëgÀ C¥ÀàuÉ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ ¥Àæ¸ÁÛ¦¸ÀÁzÀ «ÀAiÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ: 30-31 C) ²PÀj¥ÀÄgÀ vÁ®ÆèQ£À CA§½ºÀÄ¼À dÁ±ÀAiÀÄ vÀÄA© PÉ®ªÀÅ ºÀ½îUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄÄ¼ÀÄVºÉÆÃUÀÄªÀ §UÉÎ ²æÃ ©.J¸ï. AiÀÄrAiÀÄÆgÀ¥Àà («gÉÆÃzsÀ ¥ÀPÀëzÀ £ÁAiÀÄPÀgÀÄ) ²æÃ. JA.¦.¥ÀæPÁ±ï (PÀAzÁAiÀÄ ¸ÀaªÀgÀÄ)

C) w¥ÀlÆj£À FZÀ£ÀÆgÀÄ PÉgÉUÉ ¤ÃgÀÄ vÀÄA©¹ PÀÄrAiÀÄÄªÀ ¤ÃjUÉ ªÀåªÀ¸ÉÜ ªÀiÁqÀÄªÀ §UÉÎ. ²æÃ. ©.J¸ï.AiÀÄrAiÀÄÆgÀ¥Àà («gÉÆÃzsÀ ¥ÀPÀëzÀ £ÁAiÀÄPÀgÀÄ) ²æÃ. ºÉZï.r.gÉÃªÀtÚ (ÉÆÃPÉÆÃ¥ÀAiÉÆÃV ºÁUÀÆ EAzsÀ£À ¸ÀaªÀgÀÄ)

3. «wÛÃAiÀÄ PÁAiÀÄðPÀÁ¥À: 37-67 200506£ÉÃ ¸Á°£À C£ÀÄzÁ£À ¨ÉÃrPÉUÀ¼À ªÉÄÃÉ ªÀÄÄAzÀÄªÀgÉzÀ ZÀZÉð

²æÃ. J¸ï. gÁeÉÃAzÀæ£ï ²æÃ. ªÁmÁ¼ï £ÁUÀgÁeï

4. CzsÀåPÀëgÀ C¥ÀàuÉ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ: 67 JA.¹.J¥sï. PÁ«ÄðPÀgÀÄ G¥ÀªÁ¸À ªÀÄÄÀÌgÀ £ÀqÉ¸ÀÄwÛgÀÄªÀ §UÉÎ. ²æÃ. PÉ.dAiÀÄ¥ÀæPÁ±ï ºÀUÉØ ²æÃ. ¦.f.Dgï.¹AzÁå (PÉÊUÁjPÁ ¸ÀaªÀgÀÄ)

5. «wÛÃAiÀÄ PÁAiÀÄðPÀÁ¥À: 68-81 200506£ÉÃ ¸Á°£À C£ÀÄzÁ£À ¨ÉÃrPÉUÀ¼À ªÉÄÃÉ ªÀÄÄAzÀÄªÀgÀzÀ ZÀZÉð

²æÃ. J.n.gÁªÀÄ¸Áé«Ä ²æÃ. r.J£ï.fÃªÀgÁeï

6. CzsÀåPÀëgÀ C¥ÀàuÉ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ 81-85 ºÀjAiÀiÁtzÀ°è PÁ«ÄðPÀgÀ ªÉÄÃÉ £ÀqÉzÀ CªÀiÁ£ÀÄÀªÁzÀAvÀºÀ zÁ½ §UÉÎ RAqÀ£É PÀÄjvÀÄ.

²æÃ. f.«.²æÃgÁªÀÄgÉrØ

²æÃ. eÉ.¹.ªÀiÁzsÀÄ¸Áé«Ä ²æÃ. zsÀªÀÄð¹AUï (ªÀÄÄRåªÀÄAwæUÀ¼ÀÄ) ²æÃ. PÉ. dAiÀÄ¥ÀæPÁ±ï ºÉUÉØ

7. «wÛÃAiÀÄ PÁAiÀÄðPÀÁ¥À: 85-117 200506£ÉÃ ¸Á°£À C£ÀÄzÁ£À ¨ÉÃrPÉUÀ¼À ªÉÄÃÉ ªÀÄÄAzÀÄªÀgÉzÀ ZÀZÉð

²æÃ. r.J£ï. fÃªÀgÁeï (ªÀÄÄAªÀgÉzÀ ¨sÁÀt) ²æÃ. PÉ. gÀWÀÄ¥Àw¨sÀmï ²æÃªÀÄw. ±ÀPÀÄAvÀÁ n.±ÉnÖ

8. CzsÀåPÀëgÀ C¥ÀàuÉ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ: 117-119 ²PÁj¥ÀÄgÀ vÁ®ÆèQ£À CA§½ÃºÀÄ¼À dÁ±ÀAiÀÄ vÀÄA© PÀ®ªÀÅ ºÀ½îUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄÄ¼ÀÄVºÉÆÃVgÀÄªÀ §UÉÎ. ²æÃ. ©.J¸ï.AiÀÄrAiÀÄÆgÀ¥Àà («gÉÆÃzsÀ ¥ÀPÀëzÀ £ÁAiÀÄPÀgÀÄ) ²æÃ. ªÀÄ°èPÁdÄð£À RUÉð (d®¸ÀA¥À£ÀÆä® ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÁjUÉ ¸ÀaªÀgÀÄ)

9. «wÛÃAiÀÄ PÁAiÀÄðPÀÁ¥À: 119-121 200506£ÉÃ ¸Á°£À C£ÀÄzÁ£À ¨ÉÃrPÉUÀ¼À ªÉÄÃÉ ªÀÄÄAzÀÄªÀgÉzÀ ZÀZÉð

²æÃªÀÄw. ±ÀPÀÄAvÀÁ n.±ÉnÖ

5. «wÛAiÀÄ PÁAiÀÄðPÀ¯Á¥À 200506£ÉÃ ¸Á°£À C£ÀÄzÁ£À ¨ÉÃrPÉUÀ¼À ªÉÄÃÉ ªÀÄÄAzÀÄªÀjzÀ ZÀZÉð

²æÃ J.n. gÁªÀÄ¸Áé«Ä (CgÀPÀ®UÀÆqÀÄ): ªÀiÁ£Àå CzsÀåPÀëgÉ, ¸ÀPÁðgÀ ªÀÄAr¹gÀvÀPÀÌAxÀ 20 ¨ÉÃrPÉUÀ½UÉ £À£Àß ¸ÀºÀªÀÄvÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀåPÀÛ¥Àr¸ÀÄvÁÛ, PÉ®ªÀÅ £ÀÆå£ÀvÉUÀ¼À §UÉÎ F PÀqÉ PÀÄ½vÀÄ ª ÀiÁvÀ£ÁrzÀgÉ, K£À¥Àà DqÀ½vÀ ¥ÀPÀëzÀ°è PÀÄ½vÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ nÃPÉ ªÀiÁqÀÄvÁÛgÉ J£ÀÄßªÀ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÀÄß D PÀqÉÉÉ¬ÄAzÀ PÉ®ªÀgÀÄ ºÉÃ¼ÀÄvÁÛgÉ. FUÀ ¤ÃªÀÅ D PÀqÉ PÀÄ½vÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ «gÉÆÃzsÀ ªÀiÁqÀÄªÀÅzÀ°è PÀÄ½w¢ÝÃj, £ÁªÀÅ F PÀqÉ PÀÄ½vÀÄ ¥ÀgÀªÁV EgÀÄªÀÅzÀPÉÌ PÀÄ½PÀÄPÉÆArzÉÝÃªÉ…….

²æÃ. f.«. ²æÃgÁªÀÄgÉrØ – F jªÀiÁPïð ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è, «gÉÆÃzsÀ ªÀiÁqÀÄªÀÅzÀPÉÌ PÀÄ½wzÉÝÃªÉ JAzÀÄ ºÉÃ¼ÀÄªÀAvÀºÀ jªÀiÁPïð ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è.

²æÃ J.n.gÁªÀÄ¸Áé«Ä : £Á£ÀÄ ZÀZÉðAiÀiÁVzÀÝ£ÀÄß ºÉÃ¼ÀÄwÛzÉÝÃ£É, ¤ÃªÉÃ «gÉÆÃzsÀ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛ¢ÝÃj J£ÀÄßªÀ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÀÄß ºÉÃ½zÀÝjAzÀ £Á£ÀÄ CzÀ£ÀÄß ¥Àæ¸ÁÛ¥À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÉÝÃ£É, JAzÀÄ ªÀiÁ£Àå ²æÃgÁªÀÄgÉrØAiÀÄªÀgÉ,

31 vÁªÀÅ C£ÀåxÁ ¨sÁ«¸À¨ÉÃr. ¤ÃªÀÅ FUÀ D PÀqÉ PÀÄ½vÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ¥ÀÆtðªÁV «gÉÆÃzsÀªÀ£ÉßÃ ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ. £ÁªÀÅ F PÀqÉ PÀÄ½vÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ¥ÀÆtðªÁV ¥ÀgÀªÁUÉ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ J£ÀÄßªÀ ¨sÁªÀ£É F d£ÀvÀAvÀæ ªÀåªÀ¸ÉÜAiÀÄ°è CzÀÄ CÉÆÖAzÀÄ ¸ÀÆPÀÛªÀ®èªÉAzÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ ¨sÁ«¸ÀÄvÉÛÃ£É. CzÀgÀ°è DgÉÆÃUÀåPÀgÀªÁzÀ nÃPÉ n¥ÀàtÂAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ. £ÀªÀÄä ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ°è vÀ¥ÉàÃ E®è, £ÀªÀÄä ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ°è ÉÆÃ¥ÀzÉÆÃÀUÀ¼ÀÄ DUÀÄwÛ®è JAzÀÄ D ªÀÄnÖUÉ ºÉÃ¼ÀÄªÀÅzÀPÉÌ £À£Àß DvÀä¸ÁQë M¥ÀÄàªÀÅ¢®è. PÉ®ªÀÅ PÉÆ¼É EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ, D PÉÆ¼ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀªÀÄ¥ÀðPÀªÁV vÉÆ¼ÉAiÀÄvÀPÀÌAxÀ PÉ®¸À ¤ÃªÀÅ ªÀiÁqÀzÉ EzÁÝUÀ, ªÀÄ£À¸ÀÄì vÀqÉAiÀÄÁgÀzÉ DPÉÆ¼É vÉÆ¼ÉAiÀÄÄªÀÅzÀPÉÌ £ÁªÀÇ PÀÆqÀ PÉ®ªÀÅ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ ¤ªÀÄä eÉÆvÉ zsÀé¤ UÀÆr¸À¨ÉÃPÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ. CzÀgÀ°è ¨ÉÃgÉ Cx ÀðªÀ£ÀÄß PÀ®à¸ÀvÀPÀÌAxÁzÀÄÝ CÉÆÖAzÀÄ ¸ÀÆPÀÛªÀ®èªÉ£ÀßvÀPÀÌAxÀ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÀÄß F ¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðzÀ°è £Á£ÀÄ vÀªÀÄäUÀ¼À UÀªÀÄ£ÀPÉÌ vÀgÀÄvÁÛ, EªÀvÀÄÛ ¨sÀæÁÖZÁgÀzÀ §UÉÎ C£ÉÃPÀ ¸Áj ºÁUÀÆ FUÀ®Æ PÀÆqÀ ZÀZÉðAiÀiÁ¬ÄvÀÄ. ¸ÀzÀ£ÀzÀ M¼ÀUÉ EgÀ§ºÀÄzÀÄ, ¸ÀzÀ£ÀzÀ ºÉÆgÀUÉ EgÀ§ºÀÄzÀÄ ¨sÀæÀÖZÁgÀzÀ §UÉÎ ªÀiÁvÀªÁqÀÄªÀÅzÉÃ MAzÀÄ vÀ¥ÀÄà J£ÀÄßªÀ C©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄPÉÌ EªÀvÀÄÛ ¸ÀªÀiÁd §AzÀÄ©nÖzÉ. DzÀgÉ ªÀÄ£À¸ÀÄì vÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆ¼ÀÄîªÀÅ¢®è, PÉ®ªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ. Á ªÀÄAwæUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÁUÀÆ gÉ«£ÀÆå ªÀÄAwæUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÀgÉ¹zÀÝgÉ ZÉ£ÁßVvÉÛÃ£ÉÆÃ. zÀAiÀÄ ªÀiÁr ªÀiÁ£Àå CzsÀåPÀëgÀÄ CªÀj§âgÀ£ÀÄß PÀgÉÉ¹zÀgÉ ¸Àà®à ºÉZÀÄÑ CªÀgÀÄ «ÀAiÀÄªÀ£ÀÄß UÀæ»¹PÉÆ¼ÀÄîªÀÅzÀPÉÌ CªÀPÁ±À DUÀÄvÀÛzÉ. zÀAiÀÄ«lÄÖ PÀgÉ¸ÀÄªÀÅzÀPÉÌ ºÉÃ¼À¨ÉÃPÀÄ. FUÀ CªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ §gÀªÀªÀgÉUÀÆ £ÀªÀÄä ±Á¸ÀPÁAUÀzÀ°è ªÉÆzÀ®Ä ªÉÄÃ®ä£É ªÀÄvÀÄÛ «zsÁ£À¨sÀUÉ MAz ÉÃ PÁAiÀÄð®AiÀÄ EvÀÄÛ. FUÀ JgÀqÀÄ PÁAiÀÄð®AiÀÄªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁrzÁÝgÉ. F JgÀqÀÄ PÁAiÀÄð®AiÀÄUÀ¼À MlÄÖ ¹§âA¢AiÀÄ ¸ÀASÉå ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ 1200. JgÀqÀÄ PÁAiÀÄð®AiÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ MnÖUÉ EzÁÝUÀ ¸ÁªÀÄgÀ¸Àå ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ËºÁzÀðvÉ EvÀÄÛ. EªÀvÀÄÛ CªÀÅUÀ¼ÀÄ ¨ÉÃgÉ ¨ÉÃgÉ DzÁUÀ ¸ÁªÀÄgÀ¸Àå ª ÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ËºÁzÀðvÉUÀÆ PÀÆqÀ zsÀPÉÌ §A¢zÉ. EzÀjAzÀ ±Á¸ÀPÁAUÀzÀ zÀPÀëvÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÁæªÀiÁtÂPÀvÉ ªÉÄÃÉ PÉlÖ ¥ÀjuÁªÀÄ ©ÃjzÉ J£ÀÄßªÀÅzÀÄ £À£Àß C©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄ. EwÛÃZÉUÉ £ÁªÀÅ £ÉÆÃrzÁUÀ ±Á¸ÀPÁAUÀzÀ PÁAiÀÄð®AiÀÄzÀ°è ¥ÀjtÂvÀgÀÄ PÀqÉªÉÄ DUÀÄwÛzÁÝgÉ. ±Á¸ÀPÁAUÀzÀ ««zsÀ ¸À«ÄwUÀ½UÉ, ±Á¸ÀPÁAUÀ PÁAiÀiÁð®AiÀÄzÀ ¹§âA¢ ªÀUÀðzÀªÀgÀÄ UÉÊqï ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ; ªÀiÁ»wUÀ¼À£ÀÄß MzÀV¸À¨ÉÃPÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ. DzÀgÉ EªÀvÀÄÛ CAvÀºÀ ¥ÀjtÂvÀgÀÄ ±Á¸ÀPÁAUÀzÀ PÁAiÀiÁð®AiÀÄzÀ°è PÀrªÉÄ DUÀÄwÛgÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ EzÀÄ M¼ÉîAiÀÄ ¨É¼ÀªÀtÂUÉ C®è JAzÀÄ ºÉÃ½ £Á£ÀÄ ¨sÁ«¹P ÉÆArzÉÝÃ£É. D ¢QÌ£À°è ««zsÀ ¸À«ÄwUÀ¼À ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ««zsÀ EÁSÉUÀ¼À C©üªÀÈ¢ÞAiÀÄ ZÀlÄªÀnPÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £ÁªÀÅ ¸À«ÄÃPÉë ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ. CzÀ£ÀÄß ±Á¸ÀPÁAUÀzÀ PÁAiÀiÁð®AiÀÄzÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ. C°è ¥ÁæªÀiÁtÂPÀvÉ E®èzÉ, C°è zÀPÀëvÉ E®èzÉ EzÀÝgÉ EzÀÄ ªÀÄÄ AzÉ F gÁdåPÉÌ gÁdåzÀ d£ÀjUÉ M¼ÉîAiÀÄzÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁqÀÄªÀÅzÀPÁÌUÀÄªÀÅ¢®è. D ¢QÌ£À°è ±Á¸ÀPÁAUÀzÀ PÁAiÀiÁð®AiÀÄ ºÉZÀÄÑ ¥ÀjuÁªÀÄPÁjAiÀiÁV, zÀPÀëvÉ¬ÄAzÀ, ¥ÁæªÀiÁtÂPÀvÉ¬ÄªÀÄzÀ PÉ®¸ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁqÀÄªÀÅzÀPÉÌ, £Á£ÀÄ CvÀåAvÀ PÀ¼ÀPÀ½¬ÄAzÀ «£ÀAwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁrPÉÆ¼ÀÄîwÛzÉÝÃ£ É. FUÁUÀÉÃ PÉlÖ ¸ÀAzÉÃ±ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÉÆgÀUÀqÉ ºÉÆÃUÀÄvÁÛ EzÉ. CzÀPÉÌ CªÀPÁ±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁrPÉÆqÀÉÃ¨ÁgÀzÉA§ «£ÀAwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß, £Á£À CvÀåAvÀ PÀ¼ÀPÀ½¬ÄAzÀ, «£ÀªÀÄæ£ÁV ªÀiÁ£Àå CzsÀåPÀëgÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÁæxÀð£É ªÀiÁrPÉÆ¼ÀÄîvÁÛ EzÉÝÃ£É, ªÀÄvÉÆÛAzÀÄ

«ÀAiÀÄªÉÃ£ÉAzÀgÉ with due respec t to the Legislative Council and Legislative

Council Members, EªÀvÀÄÛ ªÉÄÃ®ävÉAiÉÄAzÀgÉ, D ªÉÄÃ®ä£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁrzÀAvÀºÀ GzÉÝÃ±À §ºÀ¼À zÉÆqÀØzÀÄ EvÀÄÛ. D ªÉÄÃ®ä£ÉAiÀÄ°è C£ÀÄ¨sÀ«UÀ¼ÀÄ, vÀdÕgÀÄ, »jAiÀÄgÀÄ EgÀ¨ÉÃPÉA§ ¨sÁªÀ£É EvÀÄÛ. EªÀvÀÄÛ

CzÀjAzÀ £ÁªÀÅ J Áè ¥ÀPÀëzÀªÀgÀÄ »AzÉ §A¢zÉÝÃªÉ. EªÀvÀÄÛ £ÁªÀÅ ªÀÄvÉÛ »A¢gÀÄV £ÉÆÃqÀ¨ÉÃPÁVzÉ. D ªÉÄÃ®ä£É F PÁgÀtUÀ½AzÀ EgÀ¨ÉÃPÁ, ¨ÉÃqÀªÁ JAzÀÄ D ¢QÌ£À°è FUÀ vÁªÀÅ K£ÀÄ JgÀqÀÄ PÁAiÀiÁð®AiÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀiÁr¢ÝÃj, CªÀÅUÀ¼À£ÀÄß MlÄÖUÀÆr¸ÀÄªÀAvÀºÀ PÉ®¸ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁrzÀgÉ M¼ÉîAiÀÄz ÀÄ KPÉAzÀgÉ E°è EgÀÄªÀ ¹§âA¢ 1200 d£ÀjUÉ JgÀqÀÄ ¸ÉPÉæljAiÉÄÃmï EgÀ¨ÉÃPÁzÀAvÀºÀ CªÀ±ÀåPÀvÉ E®èªÉAzÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ ¨sÁ«¹zÉÝÃ£É. CzÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄvÉÛ ¥ÀÄ£Àgï ¥Àj²Ã®£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÉ£ÀÄßªÀAvÀºÀ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÀÄß vÀªÀÄä UÀªÀÄ£ÀPÉÌ vÀgÀÄvÉÛÃ£É. EªÀvÀÄÛ ªÉÄÃ®ä£É PÉ¼ÀªÀÄ£É ¸ÀA WÀÀðPÉÌ E½AiÀi¨ÁgÀzÀÄ. EªÀÅ ¸ËºÁzsÀðvÉ¬ÄAzÀ PÉ®¸ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ. D ¢QÌ£À°è £Á£ÀÄ F ªÀiÁvÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÉÃ¼ÀÄwÛzÉÝÃ£É, ªÀÄvÉÛ CºÀðgÀ£ÀÆß PÀÆqÀ, C£ÀÄ¨sÀ«UÀ¼À£ÀÆß PÀÆqÀ, vÀdÕgÀ£ÀÆß PÀÆqÀ, »jAiÀÄgÀ£ÀÄß PÀÆqÀ, vÀgÀvÀPÀÌAxÀ PÉ®¸ÀªÁUÀÄwÛ®è. D £ ÉÆÃ«¤AzÀ, F ªÀiÁvÀ£ÀÄß C©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀåPÀÛ¥Àr¸ÀÄwÛzÉÝÃ£É.

²æÃ. PÉ.Dgï.gÀªÉÄÃ±ïPÀÄªÀiÁgï : ªÀiÁ£Àå ZÉÃgÀä£ïgÀªÀgÉ, E°èUÉ JAxÀªÀgÀÄ Dj¹ §gÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ, JAxÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÉA§ÄzÀÄ, gÁdQÃAiÀÄ ªÀåªÀ¸ÉÜAiÀÄ ªÉÄÃÉ DzsÁgÀ¥ÀnÖzÉ. ±Á¸ÀPÁAUÀzÀ°è PÉ®¸À ªÀi ÁqÀÄªÀAvÀºÀ £ËPÀgÀ±Á»UÀ¼ÀÄ AiÀiÁgÀÄ EgÀÄvÁÛgÉ, CªÀgÀÄ ¸À¨sÁzsÀåPÀëgÀ C¢üÃ£ÀPÉÌ, ¸À¨sÁ¥ÀwAiÀÄªÀgÀ C¢üÃ£ÀPÉÌ §gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. E°è PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄªÀAxÀ £ËPÀgÀjUÀÆ C°èUÉ §gÀvÀPÀÌAxÀ PÁé°nUÀÆ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ«gÀÄªÀÅ¢®è. ¤ªÀÄä

ªÁåSÁå£À CÀÄÖ Coherent DV®èªÉA§ÄzÀÄ £À£Àß C©ü¥Á æAiÀÄ. E°è ¤ÃªÀÅ K£ÀÄ ºÉÃ¼À¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ E¢ÝgÉÆÃ, CzÀ£ÀÄß ¤ªÀÄä PÉÊAiÀÄ°è ¸ÀàÀÖªÁV ºÉÃ¼ÀÄªÀÅzÀPÉÌ DUÀÄvÁÛE®è. CxÀªÁ K£ÉÆÃ zÁQëtåPÉÌ…...

²æÃ J.n.gÁªÀÄ¸Áé«Ä : ªÀiÁ£Àå bÉÃgÀä£ïgÀªÀgÉ, E®è, £À£ÀUÉ zÁQëtåªÉAzÀÄ E®èªÉÃ E®è. £Á£ÀÄ MAzÀÄ ¨sÁUÀ, zÀPÀë, ¥ÁæªÀiÁtÂPÀvÉ ªÀÄvÉÆÛAzÀÄ ¨sÁUÀ, ªÉÄÃ®ä£É AiÀiÁªÀ GzÉÝÃ±ÀPÁÌV gÀZÀ£ÉAiÀiÁVzÉ. F ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ±Á¸À£À¢AzÀ D GzÉÝÃ±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß FqÉÃj¸ÀÄªÀ°è £ÁªÀÅ ¸À¥sÀ®gÁV®èªÉA§ÄzÀÄ £À£Àß ¨sÁªÀ£ÉAiÀiÁVzÉ. EzÀÄ ¨ÉÃgÉ ¨ÉÃgÉ F JgÀqÀ£ÀÄß E°è MlÄÖUÀÆr¸ÀÄvÁÛ E®è, ªÀÄvÉÛ F JgÀqÀÄ ±Á¸ÀPÁAUÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¨ÉÃgÉ ¨ÉÃgÉ ªÀiÁr¢ÝgÀÁè. EzÀÄ CªÀ±ÀåPÀvÉ EgÀ°®è. E°è 1200 d£À ¹§âA¢ ªÀUÀðPÉÌ JgÀqÀÄ ±Á¸ÀPÁAUÀ PÁAiÀÄð®AiÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ KPÉ ¨ÉÃPÁVvÀÄÛ? EzÀ£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ RavÀªÁV, ¸ÀàÀÖªÁV, ¥ÀævÉåÃPÀªÁV £Á£ÀÄ ºÉÃ¼ÀÄvÁÛ EzÉÝÃ£É. EgÀzÀ°è AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ ªÀÄÄÁfUÀÆ F PÀqÉ PÀÄ½wzÀÝgÀÆ £Á £ÀÄ M¼ÀUÁV®è. £ÁªÉ®ègÀÆ EzÀgÀ §UÉÎ DÉÆÃZÀ£É ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ ºÉÃ¼ÀÄwÛzÉÝÃ£É.

²æÃ. PÉ.dAiÀÄ¥ÀæPÁ±À ºÉUÉØ : ªÀiÁ£Àå bÉÃgÀä£ïgÀªÀgÉ, FUÀ ¥ÁæªÀiÁtÂPÀvÉ §UÉÎ E°èAzÀ ¸ÀÄ¢Ý ºÉÆgÀUÀqÉ ºÉÆÃUÀÄvÁÛ EzÉ. ¥ÀæªÀiÁtÂPÀvÉ E®èªÉ£ÀÄßªÀAxÁzÀ£ÀÄß £ÁªÀÅ £ÉÃgÀªÁV ºÉÃ¼ÀÄªÀAº ÀvÀ ¥ÀæAiÀÄvÀßªÀ£ÀÄß E°è ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ. £ÁªÀÅ ±Á¸ÀPÁAUÀzÀ §UÉÎ E°è ZÀZÉð ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÁgÀzÉA§ ¨sÁªÀ£É ¨ÉÃqÀ. EzÀgÀ §UÉÎ MAzÀÄ ZÀZÉð £ÀqÉAiÀÄ°. F ±Á¸ÀPÁAUÀzÀ° CzsÀåPÀëgÀÄ ºÉÆÃV vÀ¥Á¸ÀuÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ. K£ÉÃ£ÀÄ ¸ÀÄ¢ÝUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÉÆgÀUÀqÉ §A¢zÉAiÉÄAzÀÄ §UÉÎ ¸ÀA¥ÀÆtð vÀ¤SÉAiÀÄÄ MAzÀÄ ¨sÁUÀzÀ°è DUÀ°. CzÀPÉÌ ¨ÉÃgÉ J®ègÀ §UÉÎ ZÀZÉðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁr, £ÀªÀÄä°è ºÀÄ¼ÀÄPÀ£ÀÄß ElÄÖPÉÆ¼Àî¨ÁgÀzÀÉA§ ¨sÁªÀ£É, £ÀªÀÄäzÀÄ EzÉ. CzÀPÉÆÌÃ¸ÀÌgÀ EzÀgÀ §UÉÎ ZÀZÉðªÀiÁqÀÄªÀÅzÀPÉÌ MAzÀÄ ¢ªÀ¸À ¤UÀ¢ ¥Àr¹, CzÀgÀ §UÉÎAiÀÄÆ ZÀZÉðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß

ªÀiÁqÉÆÃt.

²æÃ. J.n.gÁªÀÄ¸Áé«Ä : ªÀiÁ£Àå bÉÃgÀä£ïgÀªÀgÉ, CzÀPÉÌ £Á£ÀÄ ºÉÃ½zÀÄÝ. FUÀ £ÀªÀÄä ±Á¸ÀPÁAUÀzÀ ««zsÀ ¸À«ÄwUÀ¼ÀÄ K£ÀÄ EªÉ, D ¸À«ÄwUÀ¼ÀÄ ±Á¸ÀPÁAUÀzÀ PÁAiÀiÁð®AiÀÄzÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ , ¨ÉÃgÉ ¨ÉÃgÉ EÁSÉAiÀÄ C©üªÀÈ¢Ý ZÀlÄªÀnPÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸À«ÄÃPÉë ªÀiÁr¸ÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ. F ±Á¸ÀPÁAUÀzÀ PÁAiÀÄð®AiÀÄzÀÉèÃ zÀPÀëvÉ, ¥ÁæªÀiÁtÂPÀvÉ E®èzÉÃ EzÀÝgÉ, £ÁªÀÅ «ªÀÄ±Éð ªÀiÁqÀÄªÀAxÁzÀÝgÀ°è £ÁªÉ®ègÀÆ ¸Àé®à JqÀ«zÉÝÃªÉA§ ¨sÁªÀ£É §gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. CzÀPÁÌV, ªÉÆzÀ®Ä J®èQÌAvÀ ºÉZÁÑV E°è zÀPÀëvÉ, ¥ÁæªÀiÁtÂPÀvÉ EgÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ.

²æÃ. J¸ï.J¸ï. ¥ÁnÃ¯ï : E°è ¥ÁæªÀiÁtÂPÀvÉ K£ÀÄ PÀAqÀÄ§A¢zÉ, CzÀ£ÀÄß K£ÀÆ ºÉÃ¼ÀÄªÀÅ¢®èªÉÃ? CzÀ£ÀÄß vÁªÀÅ ºÉÃ½.

²æÃ. J.n.gÁªÀÄ¸Áé«Ä : ªÀiÁ£Àå bÉÃgÀä£ïgÀªÀgÉ, CzÀPÉÌ ºÉZÀÄÑ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀiÁªÀPÁ±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß PÉÆmÁÖUÀ ªÀÄvÀ£ÁqÀ§ºÀÄzÀÄ. FUÀ ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï EÁSÉUÉ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖ ºÁUÉ EªÀvÀÄÛ £ÁªÉÁè P É¼ÀV£À ºÀAvÀzÀ°è ¨sÀæÁÖZÁgÀ«gÀ¨ÁgÀzÉAzÀÄ ºÉÃ¼ÀÄªÀÅzÀQÌAvÀ ªÉÄÃ°£À ºÀAvÀzÀ°è ¨sÀæÁÖZÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ EgÀ¨ÁgÀzÉA§ÄzÀ£ÀÄß £ÁªÉ®ègÀÆ UÀªÀÄ¤¸À¨ÉÃPÀÄ. D ¢QÌ£À°è ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï EÁSÉAiÀÄ°è »AzÉ ¨ÉvÀÛzÀ Áp EzÉ. D ¨ÉvÀÛzÀ ÁpUÉ MAzÀPÉÌ 15 gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄUÀ½AzÀ 17 gÀÆ¥À¬ÄUÀ¼ÀªÀgÉUÀÆ E vÀÄÛ. F ¨ÉvÀÛzÀ ÁpAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉÆAqÀÄPÉÆ¼ÀÄîªÀAxÁzÀPÉÌ, ©¢jUÉ ¤ÉÃzsÀ«zÉAiÉÄAzÀÄ ºÉÃ½, ¥Á°PÁ¨ÉÆð£ÉÃmï ÁpUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀgÀÄ. CzÀgÀ MAzÀÄ ¨ÉÉ 203 gÀÆ¥Á¬Ä 84 ¥ÉÊ¸É, CzÉÃ MAzÀÄ ¨ÉvÀÛzÀ ÁpAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀgÉ 15 gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄUÀ½AzÀ 17 gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄUÀ¼ÀÄ DUÀÄv ÀÛzÉ. EªÀgÀÄ K£ÀÄ ºÉÃ½zÀgÉAzÀgÉ ©¢jUÉ, ¨ÉvÀÛzÀ PÀmÁ«UÉ ¤ÉÃzsÀ«zÉAiÉÄAzÀÄ ºÉÃ½, ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï EÁSÉAiÀÄ°è ªÉÄÃÉ PÀÄ½wgÀÄªÀªÀgÀÄ, EzÀ£ÀÄß vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀgÀÄ. EzÀgÀ §UÉÎ ¹.J.f.AiÀÄgÀªÀgÀÄ ÉPÀÌ vÀ¥Á¸ÀuÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ºÉÆÃV, EzÀgÀ §UÉÎ ¥Àj²Ã®£É ªÀiÁrzÁUÀ, PÀ£ïìgïªÉÃlgï C£ÀÄß PÉÃ½zÁUÀ, CªÀgÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ jÃwAiÀÄ ¤ÉÃzsÀ«gÀ°®èªÉAzÀÄ CªÀgÀÄ zÁRÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉÆlÖgÀÄ. EzÀjAzÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¨ÉÆPÀÌ¸ÀPÉÌ ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ 90®PÀë gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄUÀ¼ÀÄ MAzÀÄ ªÀÀðzÀ°è £ÀÀÖªÀ¬ÄvÀÄ. FUÀ ¨ÉÃgÉAiÀÄªÀgÀÄ ªÉÆÃ¸À ªÀiÁrzÀgÉ, ¨ÉÃgÉAiÀÄªÀgÀÄ ªÀAZÀÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁrzÀgÉ, ¨ÉÃgÉAiÀÄgÀÄ ¨sÀæÁÖZÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁrzÀgÉ, PÉÃ¸À£ÀÄß ºÁPÀÄªÀ F WÀ£ÀAzÁj D¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÉÄÃ®älÖzÀ°è EzÁÝgÀÁè, EªÀgÀÄ ªÉÆÃ¸À ªÀiÁrzÀÝgÀÁè, ªÀAZÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁrzÁÝgÀÁè, EªÀgÀÄ ºÀUÀ®Ä zÀgÉÆÃqÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁrzÁÝgÀÁè, EªÀjUÉ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀªÀgÀÄ A iÀiÁªÀ jÃw PÀæªÀÄªÀ£ÀÄß vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆ¼ÀÄîvÁÛgÉ, JAvÀºÀ PÉÃ¸À£ÀÄß ºÁPÀÄvÁÛgÉ? EªÀjUÉ JAvÀºÀ ÁpAiÀÄ°è Kl£ÀÄß PÉÆqÀ¸À¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ ºÉÃ½, CzÀPÉÌ £Á£ÀÄ ºÉÃ½zÀÄÝ, PÉ¼ÀºÀAvÀzÀ°è ¨sÀæÁÖZÁgÀ EgÀ¨ÁgÀzÉAzÀÄ £ÁªÀÅ ºÉÃ¼ÀÄªÀÅzÁzÀgÉ, ªÉÆzÀ®Ä ªÉÄÃ®älÖzÀ®Æè PÀÆqÀ ¨sÀæÁÖZÁgÀ«gÀ¨ÁgÀzÀÄ. D ¢QÌ£À°è EzÀÄ ¹.J.f.AiÀÄªÀgÀ j¥ÉÆÃmïð£À°è ªÀgÀ¢AiÀiÁVzÀÄgÀªÀAxÁzÀÄÝ. EAvÀºÀ ªÀgÀ¢UÀ¼ÀÄ DzÁUÀ CzÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀPÁðgÀ ¸ÀÄªÀÄä£É ¹éÃPÀj¹ CzÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀzÀ£ÀzÀ° UÀªÀÄ£ÀPÉÌ vÀgÀ§AiÀÄ¸ÀÄvÉÛÃ£É. E£ÉÆßAzÀÄ «ZÁgÀªÉÃ£ÉAzÀgÉ gÉ«£ÀÆå EÁSÉAiÀÄ°è 199899 jAzÀ ¨sÀÆzÁR ÉUÀ¼À UÀtQÃPÀgÀt ªÀiÁqÀÄªÀ PÁAiÀÄðPÀæªÀÄzÀ AiÉÆÃd£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß eÁjUÉ vÀgÀÄªÀÅzÀPÉÌ, MAzÀÄ vÁAwæPÀ ¸À«ÄwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß gÀZÀ£É ªÀiÁqÀÁVvÀÄÛ.

CzÀgÀ°è mÉAqÀgï C£ÀÄß PÀgÉzÀgÀÄ, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 2.3.1999 gÀAzÀÄ F vÁAwæPÀ ¸À«ÄwAiÀÄÄ PÀÄ½vÀÄ, F mÉAqÀgï£À ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã® £É ªÀiÁrvÀÄ. EzÀÄ ¥Àj²Ã®£É ªÀiÁrzÁUÀ F ‘©’ ªÀiÁgÁqÀUÁgÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¥sÉÆdðj ªÀiÁr ¸ÉÃj¹vÀÄÛ. CªÀgÀÄ CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÆß PÉÆnÖ®è, mÉAqÀgï C£ÀÄß ºÁQ®è. ¢£ÁAPÀ: 2.3.1999gÀ°è vÁAwæPÀ ¸À«ÄwAiÀÄ ¸À¨sÉ £ÀqÉ¢zÉ. CªÀvÀÄÛ F «ÀAiÀÄzÀ §UÉÎ ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÉÄÃ E®è. DzÀgÉ ªÀiÁgÀ£ÉÃ ¢ªÀ¸À D ‘©’ ªÀiÁgÁlUÁgÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀgÀ£ÀÄß C¦èPÉÃÀ£ï C£ÀÄß, mÉAqÀgï ¥sÁgÀA C£ÀÄß ¸ÉÃj¹, F ‘©’ ªÀiÁgÁlUÁgÀjUÉ UÀtPÀAiÀÄAvÀæUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÉÆqÀÄªÀÅzÀPÉÌ »A¢£À gÉ«£ÀÆå EÁSÉAiÀÄ ¥ÀæzsÁ£À PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ðAiÀÄªÀgÀÄ DzÉÃ±ÀªÀ£ÀÄßö ªÀiÁqÀÄvÁÛgÉ. vÀzÀ£ÀAvÀgÀzÀ ¢£ÀUÀ¼À°è K£ÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀÄvÀÛgÉAzÀgÉ, D ‘J’ ªÀiÁgÁlUÁgÀgÀÄ ¤UÀ¢ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ¸ÀgÀ§gÁdÄ ªÀiÁqÀ°®èªÉAzÀÄ CªÀjUÉ Cfð ºÁPÀ°PÉÌ ¸ÀºÀ CªÀPÁ±ÀÀ

PÉÆqÀzÉ, ¸ÀA¥ÀÆtðªÁV ‘©’ ªÀiÁgÁlUÁgÀjUÉ D UÀtPÀAiÀÄAvÀæUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀgÀ§gÁdÄ ªÀiÁqÀ°PÉÌ Order

C£ÀÄß PÉÆqÀÄvÁÛgÉ. EzÀÄ C.A.G. ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ °è PÀÆqÀ £ÀªÀÄÆzÁVzÉ. ‘©’ ªÀiÁgÁlUÁgÀgÀÄ K£ÀÄ UÀtPÀAiÀÄAvÀæUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀgÀ§gÁdÄ ªÀiÁrzÀgÀÄ, CzÀÄ CvÀåAvÀ PÀ¼À¥É ªÀÄlÖzÁVvÀÄÛ. C¢üPÀ ªÉÆvÀÛzÀ°è CzÀ£ÀÄß PÉÆArzÁÝgÉ. ºÁUÉAiÉÄÃ PÁÁªÀ¢ü K£ÀÄ PÉÆnÖzÀÝgÉÆÃ CzÀQÌAvÀ ºÉZÀÄÑ PÁÁªÀ¢üAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ¸ÀgÀ§gÁ dÄ ªÀiÁrzÁÝgÉ J£ÀßvÀPÀÌAxÀ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ÉPÀÌ ¥Àj±ÉÆÃzsÀPÀgÀÄ PÉÆnÖzÀÝgÀÆ PÀÆqÀ K£ÀÆ PÀæªÀÄ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆ¼Àî°®è. CzÉÃ M§â Village Accountant, Revenue Inspector ªÉÄÃÉ EªÀgÀÄ PÀæªÀÄ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆ¼Àî°PÉÌ ºÉÆÃUÀÄvÁÛgÉ. EAxÀ Principal Secretary UÀ½UÉ K£ÀÄ £ÉÊwPÀ ºÀPÀÄÌ EzÉ? EªÀvÀÄÛ ¥ÀºÀtÂAiÀÄ°è AiÀiÁªÀ¤UÀÆ ¨sÀÆ«Ä ªÀÄAdÆgÁwAiÀiÁV®è. CªÀ£À£ÀÄß ªÀÄAdÆgÁwAiÀiÁVzÉAiÀÄAzÀÄ

¸ÉÃj¸ÀÄvÁÛgÉAzÀÄ PÉ®ªÀÅ ¸À® CªÀgÀ ªÉÄÃÉ PÀæªÀÄ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆ¼ÀÄîvÁÛgÉ. CzÀgÉ EªÀgÉÃ forgery ªÀiÁr Cfð PÉÆqÀ¢gÀÄªÀªÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀgÀ£ÀÄß mÉAqÀgï ºÁPÀ¢gÀÄªÀªÀg À ºÉ¸ÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¸À«ÄwAiÀÄ ¤tðAiÀÄ DzÀªÉÄÃÉ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ

ºÉÆÃV ¸ÉÃj¹zÁÝgÉ. CªÀjUÉÃ Order C£ÀÄß PÉÆnÖzÁÝgÉ. CªÀgÉÃ PÀ¼À¥É ªÀÄlÖzÀ UÀtPÀ AiÀÄAvÀæUÀ¼À£ÀÄß

ºÉZÀÄÑ rate UÉ ¸ÀgÀ§gÁdÄ ªÀiÁrzÁÝgÉ. EªÀgÀ ªÉÄÃÉ K£ÀÄ PÀæªÀÄ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆArj? EzÀÄ ¤dPÀÆÌ PÀÆqÀ vÀÉvÀVÎ¸ÀvÀPÀÌAxÀ «ÀAiÀÄ J£ÀßvÀPÀÌAxÀ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÀÄß F ¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðzÀ°è £Á£ÀÄ vÀªÀÄä ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ UÀªÀÄ£ÀPÉÌ vÀgÀÄvÁÛ. D ¢QÌ£À°è ¸À£Áä£Àå ¸ÀaªÀgÀÄ zÀAiÀÄªÀiÁr D ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÀj¹PÉÆAqÀÄ AiÀiÁgÀÄ F MAzÀÄ

ÉÆÃ¥ÀPÉÌ PÁgÀtPÀvÀðgÀÄ DVzÀÝgÀÄ, CªÀgÀÄ E£ÀÆß ¸ÉÃªÉAiÀÄ°èzÀÝgÉ serious DV PÀæªÀÄ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆ¼Àî¨ÉÃPÀ£ÀßvÀPÀÌAxÀ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÀÄß F ¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðzÀ°è vÀªÀÄä ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ UÀªÀÄ£ÀPÉÌ vÀgÀ°PÉÌ £Á£ÀÄ EaÒ¸ÀÄvÉÛÃ£É. E£ÀÄß £ÁªÉÃ£ÁzÀgÀÆ £ÁåAiÀiÁAUÀzÀ §UÉÎ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁrzÀgÉ, ±Á¸ÀPÁAUÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÁåAiÀiÁAUÀ ªÀÄzsÉå ¸ÀAWÀÀð JAzÀÄ w½zÀÄ PÉÆAqÀÄ©qÀÄvÁÛgÉ. zÀAiÀÄ«lÄÖ D zÀÈ¶Ö¬ÄAzÀ £ÉÆÃqÀ¨ÁgÀzÀÄ. EzÉÆAzÀÄ DgÉÆÃUÀåPÀgÀªÁzÀ ZÀZÉð JAzÀÄ £ÁªÀÅ w½zÀÄPÉÆ¼Àî¨ÉÃPÀÄ, d£ÀgÀ vÉjUÉ ºÀt ¸ÀzÀã¼ÀPÉ DUÀ¨ÉÃPÉ£ÀÄßªÀ ¨sÁªÀ£É £ÀªÉÄäÃ®ègÀ®Æè PÀÆqÀ EgÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ. £ÁåAiÀiÁAUÀªÀÇ PÀÆqÀ ºÀvÀÄÛ ºÀ®ªÁgÀÄ ¨sÁj ±Á¸ÀPÁAUÀzÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÁAiÀÄðAUÀzÀ PÉ®ªÀÅ PÁAiÀÄðPÀæªÀÄzÀ §UÉÎ, PÉ®¸ÀzÀ §UÉÎ zÀÆÀuÉ ªÀiÁrzÉ, cªÀiÁjAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÀÆqÀ ºÁQzÉ. CzÀ£ÀÄß vÀ¥ÀÄà JAzÀÄ £Á£ÀAvÀÆ ¨sÁ«¹PÉÆ®ÄîªÀÅ¢®è. ºÁUÉAiÉÄÃ £ÁåAiÀiÁAUÀzÀ §UÉÎ, £ÁåAiÀiÁAUÀzÀ wÃ¦ð£À §UÉÎ C®è. £ÁåAiÀiÁAUÀzÀ ªÀÄzsÉå ¸ÀAWÀÀðPÉÌ £ÁA¢ DUÀÄvÀÛzÉ J£ÀßªÀ ¨ÁªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ElÄÖPÉÆ¼Àî¨ÁgÀzÉ£ÀÄßªÀ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÀÄß F ¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðzÀ°è £Á£ÀÄ vÀªÀÄä ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ UÀªÀÄ£ÀPÉÌ vÀgÀÄvÁÛ,

ªÉÆ£Éß 25 vÁjÃT£ÀAzÀÄ ‘»AzÀÆ ¥ÀwæPÉAiÀÄ°è’ MAzÀÄ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀiÁVvÀÄÛ. ªÀÄzÁæ¸ï ºÉÊPÉÆÃnð£À ªÀÄÄRå

£ÁåAiÀiÁ¢üÃ±ÀgÁzÀ Mr.Katju J£ÀÄßªÀªÀgÀÄ MAzÀÄ ºÉÃ½PÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉÆnÖzÁÝgÉ. In a democracy, the people have a right to criticize the judges and take them to task if they fail to perform properly, the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court said here on Sunday. At the anniversary celebrations of the Madurai Bench of the High Court Mr.Justice Katju said, we are proud servants of the people. So, Don’t take as offence when they criticize. Nobody has administrative control over a High Court judge. Our conscious is the control JAzÀÄ CªÀgÀÄ ºÉÃ½zÁÝgÉ. So, CzÀPÉÌ AiÀiÁgÀÆ nÃPÉ ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÁgÀzÀÄ J£ÀßvÀPÀÌAxÀ ¨sÁªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £ÁªÀÅ ElÄÖPÉÆ¼Àî¨ÁgÀzÉ£ÀÄßªÀ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÀÄß ºÉÃ½, FUÀ ¨sÀæÁÖZÁgÀ, C²¸ÀÄÛ, CzÀPÀëvÉ, §jÃ ±Á¸ÀPÁAUÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÁAiÀiÁðAUÀzÀ°è ªÀiÁvÀæ EzÉAiÉÄAzÀÆ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ EzÀÄ £ÁåAiÀiÁAUÀPÉÌ vÀUÀ°®èªÉAzÀÄ ¨sÁ«¹PÉÆArz ÉÝªÀÅ. FUÀ £ÁåAiÀiÁAUÀPÀÆÌ PÀÆqÀ F MAzÀÄ ¸ÉÆÃAPÀÄ vÀUÀ°©nÖvÀÛÁè J£ÀÄßªÀ ªÉÃzÀ£É £À£Àß ªÀÄ£À¹ì£À°èzÉ. £ÁåAiÀiÁAUÀ EÁSÉAiÀÄªÀgÀÄ ºÀtPÁ¹£À ¸ÁéAiÀÄvÀÛvÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉÃ½zÁÝgÉAiÉÄÃ JAzÀÄ »AzÉ £Á£ÉÆAzÀÄ ¥Àæ±ÉßAiÀÄ£ÀÄß F ¸ÀzÀ£ÀzÀ°è ¥Àæ¸ÁÛ¥À ªÀiÁrzÉÝ, ªÉÆzÀ®Ä GvÀÛgÀzÀ°è ‘PÉÃ½zÁÝgÉ PÉÆnÖzÉÝÃªÉAzÀÄ’ ºÉÃ½zÀgÀÄ. vÀzÀ£ÀAvÀgÀzÀ ¢£ÀUÀ¼À°è ªÀÄvÉÛ D ¥Àæ±ÉßUÉ PÉÆlÖAxÀ GvÀÛgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÁ¥À¸ÀÄì ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ, ‘E®, CªÀgÀÄ PÉÃ½AiÀÄÆ E®è

£ÁªÀÅ PÉÆnÖ®è’ JAzÀÄ ªÀÄvÉÆÛªÉÄä ºÉÃ½zÀgÀÄ. 12.07.2002gÀ°è MAzÀÄ notification ¸ÁPÁðgÀ¢AzÀ issue DVzÉ. CzÀgÀ°è §ºÀ¼À ¸ÀàÀÖªÁV ºÉÃ¼ÀÄvÁÛgÉ. CzÉÃ£ÉAzÀgÉ The Chief Justice shall have the following powers: Appropriation and reappropriation of funds within the budget allotment; full powers for reappropriation in respect of appropriation relating to th e Subordinate Courts coming under Demand

No.36”. F ªÀiÁvÀ£ÀÄß KPÉ ºÉÃ¼ÀÄwÛzÉÝÃ£ÉAzÀgÉ, EªÀvÀÄÛ JgÀqÀÄ vÀgÀºÀzÀ §eÉmïUÀ½UÉ £ÁªÀÅ ªÀÄAdÆgÁw

ªÀiÁrPÉÆqÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ. MAzÀ£ÉAiÀÄzÀÄ. Vote Expenditure. ªÀÄvÉÆÛAzÀÄ charged expenditure.

F charged expenditure £À°è gÁd å¥Á®gÀzÀÄÝ EgÀ§ºÀÄzÀÄ, ºÉÊPÉÆÃnð£ÀzÀÄÝ EgÀ§ºÀÄzÀÄ, CxÀªÁ

¹àÃPÀgïUÉ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖAxÀ PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄzÀÄÝ EgÀ§ºÀÄzÀ. CzÀÄ charged expenditure £À°è §gÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

CªÀgÀÄ PÉÆlÖAvÀ ºÀtzÀ°è, CÁmï DzÀAxÀ, ºÀtzÀ°è CªÀgÉÃ re-appropriation ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ

RZÀÄð ªÀiÁrPÉÆ¼Àî§ºÀÄzÀÄ. DzÀgÉ Vote Expenditure K¤zÉ, EzÀ£ÀÄß re-appropriation

ªÀiÁqÀ°PÉÌ EªÀvÀÄÛ F ±Á¸ÀPÁAUÀzÀ°è £ÁªÀÅ K£ÀÄ approval ªÀiÁrPÉÆqÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ, EzÀgÀ°è MAzÀÄ gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÀÆqÀ re-appropriation ªÀiÁqÀ°PÉÌ EªÀvÀÄÛ F ±Á¸ÀPÁAUÀzÀ°è £ÁªÀÅ K£ÀÄ approval ªÀiÁrPÉÆqÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ, EzÀgÀ°è MAzÀÄ gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÀÆqÀ re-appropriation ªÀiÁrPÉÆ¼Àî°PÉÌ ±Á¸ÀPÁAUÀzÀ PÁAiÀiÁð®AiÀÄPÀÆÌ ¸ÀºÀ ¸À£Áä£Àå «zsÁ£À¸À¨sÁzsÀðAiÀÄPÀëjUÀÆ PÀÆqÀ C¢üPÁgÀ«®è.

CAxÀzÀÝgÀ°è subordinate courts UÉ PÉÆlÖAvÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß re-appropriation ªÀiÁrPÉÆ¼Àî°PÉÌ

±Á¸ÀP ÁAUÀzÀ PÁAiÀÄð®AiÀÄzÀPÀÆÌ ¸ÀºÀ ¸À£Áä£Àå «zsÁ£À¸À¨sÁzsÀåPÀëjUÀÆ PÀÆqÀ C¢üPÁgÀ«®è. CAxÀzÀÝgÀ°è subordinate court UÉ PÉÆlÖAvÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß re-appropriation ªÀiÁqÀ°PÉÌ ¸ÀA¥ÀÆtðªÁzÀAxÀ

C¢üPÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß £ÁåAiÀiÁAUÀ EÁSÉAiÀÄªÀjUÉ PÉÆnÖzÁÝgÉ. ºÁUÉ PÉÆnÖgÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ F vote expenditure £À ªÀÄºÀvÀé, ªÀiÁ£ÀåvÉ, ¨ÉÉ G½zÀÄPÉÆ¼ÀÄîªÀÅzÉÃ E®è. CzÀPÁÌV FUÀ CªÀjUÉ PÉÆlÖ

ªÉÄÃÉ F ±Á¸ÀPÁAUÀzÀ PÁAiÀiÁð®AiÀÄPÀÆÌ PÉÆlÄÖ©r. ºÁUÁzÀgÉ EzÀPÉÌÃ£ÀÆ check and balances ¨ÉÃqÀªÉÃ J£ÀßvÀPÀÌAxÀzÀÄÝ £À£Àß C©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄ J£ÀßvÀPÀÌAxÀ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÀÄß ºÉÃ ½, D ¢QÌ£À°è EªÀvÀÄÛ

K£ÀÄ CªÀjUÉ re-appropriation ªÀiÁrPÉÆ®î°PÉÌ F £ÁåAiÀiÁAUÀ EÁSÉAiÀÄªÀjUÉ subordinate courts UÉ C¢üPÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß PÉÆnÖzÁÝgÉ, CzÀ£ÀÄß ªÁ¥À¸ÀÄì ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆ®î¨ÉÃPÉ£ÀÄßªÀ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÀÄß ºÉÃ½, F

«ÀAiÀÄªÀ¨ÁV ºÉÊPÉÆÃnð£À collegiums £À°è PÀÆqÀ ZÀZÉðAi ÀiÁVzÉ. C®Æè PÀÆqÀ EzÀgÀ §UÉÎ C¥À¸ÀégÀUÀ¼ÀÄ J¢ÝªÉ. ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ £ÁÉÌöÊzÀÄ ªÀÀðUÀ¼À »AzÉ ºÀ¢£ÁgÀÄªÀgÉ PÉÆÃn gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄUÀ¼À ªÉZÀÑzÀ°è

£ÁåAiÀiÁAUÀzÀ C¢üÃ£À £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄUÀ½UÉ computerization ªÀiÁqÀ°PÉÌ, UÀtQÃPÀgÀt ªÀiÁqÀ°PÉÌ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ªÀw¬ÄªÀÄzÀ ºÀ¢£ÁgÀÄªÀgÉ P ÉÆÃn gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÉÆlÖgÀÄ. D ºÀ¢£ÁgÀÄªÀgÉ PÉÆÃn gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀzÀã¼ÀPÉAiÀiÁV®è. D UÀtQÃPÀgÀt AiÀÄAvÀæUÀ¼À£ÀÄß, PÀA¥ÀÆålgÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÉÆ¼ÀÄîªÀÅzÀgÀ°è zÀÄgÀÄ¥ÀAiÉÆÃUÀªÁVzÉ JAzÀÄ ªÀiÁzsÀåªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÆ PÀÆqÀ ¥ÀæZÁgÀ ªÀiÁrzÀªÀÅ. £Á£ÀÄ EªÀvÀÄÛ F ¸ÀzÀ£ÀzÀ ªÀÄÆ®P À MvÁÛAiÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀÄvÉÛÃ£É, F ¸ÀzÀ£À ¤tðAiÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀ°, CxÀªÁ ¸ÀÄ¦üæÃAPÉÆÃnð£À ªÀÄÄRå £ÁåAiÀiÁ¢üÃ±ÀgÀ£ÀÄß MvÁÛAiÀÄ ªÀiÁqÉÆÃt. K£ÀÄ D ºÀ¢£ÁgÀÄªÀgÉ PÉÆÃn gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄUÀ¼À ªÉZÀÑzÀ PÀA¥ÀÆålgïUÀ¼À RjÃ¢AiÀÄ°è ÉÆÃ¥ÀzÉÆÃÀªÁVzÉ CzÀgÀ §UÉÎ vÀ¤SÉ ªÀiÁr¸À° JAzÀÆ PÀÆqÀ £ÁªÀÅ MvÁÛAiÀÄ ªÀiÁqÉÆÃt, ¤tðAiÀÄ ªÀiÁr PÀ¼ÀÄ»¸ÉÆÃt J£ÀßvÀPÀÌAxÀ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÀÄß ºÉÃ½, D ¤nÖ£À°èAiÉÄÃ £Á£ÀÄ

ºÉÃ½gÀÄªÀAxÀzÀÄÝ, ºÉÊPÉÆÃnð£À collegiums £À°è PÀÆqÀ F PÀA¥ÀÆålgïUÀ¼À RjÃ¢ ªÀiÁqÀÄªÀ°è CªÀåªÀºÁgÀ DVzÉ J£ÀßvÀPÀÌAxÀ ZÀZÉð £ÀqÉ¢vÀÄÛ J£ÀßvÀPÀÌAxÀ ¨sÁªÀ£É, C©ü¥Á æAiÀÄ §A¢vÀÄÛ J£ÀßvÀPÀÌAxÀzÀÆÝ PÀÆqÀ £À£Àß UÀªÀÄ£ÀPÉÌ §A¢zÉ J£ÀßvÀPÀÌAxÀzÀÆÝ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÀÄß F ¸ÀAzsÀ¨sÀðzÀ°è ¸ÀzÀ£ÀzÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ vÀªÉÄä®ègÀ UÀªÀÄ£ÀPÉÌ vÀgÀ°PÉÌ EaÒ¸ÀÄwÛzÉÝÃ£É. PÁAiÀiÁðAUÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ±Á¸ÀPÁAUÀQÌAvÀ £ÁåAiÀiÁAUÀ CvÀåAvÀ ºÉZÀÄÑ ¥ÁæªÀiÁtÂPÀªÁV EgÀ¨ÉÃPÉ£ ÀßvÀPÀÌAxÀzÀÄÝ J®ègÀ C©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄªÁVzÉ. PÁAiÀiÁðAUÀ, ±Á¸ÀPÁAUÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÁåAiÀiÁAUÀ EªÀÅ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ ¸ÀºÀ ¥ÀæªÀiÁtÂPÀªÁVgÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ. DzÀgÉ MAzÀÄ ªÉÃ¼É PÁAiÀiÁðAUÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ±Á¸ÀPÁAUÀzÀ°è vÀ¥ÀÄà EgÀ§ºÀÄzÀÄ. CªÉgÀqÀgÀ ¨sÀæÀÖvÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¨ÉÃPÁzÀgÉ ¸À»¹PÉÆ®î§ºÀÄzÀÄ. Dz ÀgÉ £ÁåAiÀiÁAUÀzÀ ¨sÀæÀÖvÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸À»¹PÉÆ®î¨ÁgÀzÉAzÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ ºÉÃ¼ÀÄwÛ®è. ¸ÀÄ¦æÃAPÉÆÃnð£À ªÀÄÄRå

£ÁåAiÀiÁ¢üÃ±ÀgÁVzÀÝ R.C.Lahoti CªÀgÉÃ F ªÀiÁvÀ£ÀÄß ºÉÃ¼ÀÄwÛ®è. KvÀPÁÌV JAzÀgÉ, FUÀ ¨sÀæÀÖgÀ£ÀÄß ¨sÀÀÖgÀÄ JAzÀÄ CAwªÀiªÁV ºÉÃ¼ÀÄªÀªÀgÀÄ AiÀiÁgÀÄ CxÀªÁ CªÀjUÉ ²PÉë PÉÆqÀAiÀÄªÀªÀgÀÄ AiÀiÁgÀÄ? ¤ªÀÄUÉ vÉÆAzÀgÉAiÀiÁzÁUÀ, ¤ªÀÄä ºÀQÌUÉ ZÀÄåw §AzÁUÀ, AiÀiÁgÀ §½UÉ ¤ÃªÀÅ ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛÃj? £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ §½UÉ £ÁªÀÅ ºÉÆÃUÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ. CªÀgÉÃ, ¨sÀæÀÖgÁzÀgÉ, JAvÀºÀ wÃ¥Àð£ÀÄß £ÁªÀÅ ¤jÃPÉë ªÀiÁqÀ°PÉÌ ¸ÁzsÀåvÉ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ?

²æÃ. PÉ.Dgï.gÀªÉÄÃ±ïPÀÄªÀiÁgï : £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è £ÁåAiÀÄ PÉÆqÀÄvÁÛgÉ J£ÀßvÀPÀÌAxÀzÀÄÝ £ÀªÀÄä ¨sÁªÀ£É

CÉÖ. Justice V.R.Krishna Iyer, former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court

K£ÀÄ ºÉÃ¼ÀÄvÁÛgÉ JAzÀgÉ. The courts deliver judgment. They don’t deliver justice. Judgm ent and justice need not be together. Justice could lie elsewhere. Judgment is delivered by a court, Judgment is pronounced by a court based on the evidence that is produced before the court. So, Judgment and Justice are two different things altogether. Courts only deliver judgment, they don’t assure you of justice. Judgment need not coincide in delivering justice.

Sri. K.JAYAPRAKASH HEGDE: It’s a judicial order not a justice.

Sri. K.R.RAMESH KUMAR: Yes, it’s a judicial order.

²æÃ. PÉ.dAiÀÄ¥ÀæPÁ±ï ºÉUÉØ: CzÀPÉÌ CªÉÄjPÀ£ï dqïÓ M§âgÀÄ ºÉÃ½zÁÝgÉ, MAzÀÄ ºÀÄqÀÄUÀ ºÉÆÃV

PÉÃ½zÀ£ÀAvÉ, CzÀPÉÌ My boy, this is a court of law, not court of justice JAzÀÄ ºÉÃ½zÀÝgÀAvÉ.

Sri. M.P.PRAKASH: In accordance with the law, the judgment has to be delivered. So, in accordance with the law DzÁUÀ, CzÀÄ it may be in favour of a justice or it may not be. D vÀgÀºÀzÀ interpretations PÀÆqÀ EªÉ. D

PÁgÀtPÁÌVAiÉÄÃ MAzÉÆAzÀÄ ¸À® DUÀÄªÀÅ¢®è. FUÀ A Story of Judge JAzÀÄ ªÉ¸ïÖ

¨ÉAUÁï£À°èAiÀÄ M§â dqïÓ vÀ£Àß«ZÁgÀUÀ¼À PÀÄjvÁV §gÉAiÀÄÄªÁUÀ, MAzÀÄ autobiography vÀgÀºÀ

MAzÀÄ aPÀÌ ¥ÀÄ¸ÀÛPÀªÀ£ÀÄß §gÉ¢zÁÝ£É. £ÁªÀÅ punishment PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÉÆÃ, PÉÆqÀ¨ÁgÀzÉÆÃ JAzÀÄ ºÉÃ½zÁUÀ, ¸ÀA¢UÀÞvÉUÉ ©Ã¼ÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ, CªÀ£ÀÄ vÀ¥ÀÄà ªÀiÁrzÁÝ£É JAzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄUÉ ªÀÄ£ÀªÀjPÉAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. DzÀgÉ vÁAwæPÀ ÉÆÃ¥ÀzÉÆÃÀUÀ¼À ªÉÄÃÉ £ÁªÀÅ ¤tðAiÀÄ ªÀiÁr, DvÀ£À£ÀÄß ¤gÀ¥ÀgÁ¢ü JAzÀÄ WÉÆÃ¶¸ÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ.

DUÀ CzÀÄ £ÁåAiÀÄ¸ÀªÀÄävÀªÁVzÉ JAzÀÄ DUÀÄªÀÅ¢®è. All judgments need not meet the ends of justice. The requirement of t he rule of law will be met with that. That’s all.

²æÃ. J.n.gÁªÀÄ¸Áé«Ä : ¸À£Áä£Àå CzsÀåPÀëgÉ, ¨sÀæÁÖZÁjUÀ½UÉ ²PÉë PÉÆr¸ÀvÀPÀÌAxÀ £ÁåAiÀÄ®AiÀÄzÀ°è ¨sÀæÁÖZÁgÀ EgÀ¨ÁgÀzÀÄ C£ÀßvÀPÀÌAxÀzÀÄÝ £À£Àß ¨sÁªÀ£É. CªÀgÀÄ ªÀiÁzÀjAiÀiÁVgÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ, PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ¨Á»gÀªÁV

£ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆ¼Àî¨ÁgÀzÀÄ……

²æÃ. PÉ. dAiÀÄ¥ÀæPÁ±ï ºÉUÉØ: E°è EgÀÄªÀªÀgÀÆ ªÀÄ£ÀÄÀågÉÃ C®èªÉÃ? ²æÃ. J.n. gÁªÀÄ¸Áé«Ä : CªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÉÃ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ¨Á»gÀªÁV £ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆ¼Àî¨ÁgÀzÀÄ C£ÀßvÀPÀÌAxÀzÀÝ£ÀÄß….. ²æÃ. JA.¦.¥ÀæPÁ±ï: §ºÀ¼À GvÀÛªÀÄªÀzÀ «ÀAiÀÄªÀ£ÀÄß JwÛ¢ÝÃj, £ÀªÀÄä°è ºÉÃUÁ¬ÄvÀÄ JAzÀgÉ, M§â ¸ÀÄ¦æÃAPÉÆÃnð£À £ÁåAiÀiÁ¢Ã±ÀgÀÄ zÀQët ¨sÁgÀvÀzÀªÀgÀÄ DVzÀÝgÀÄ J£ÀÄßªÀ MAzÉÃ PÁgÀtPÁÌVAiÉÄÃ CªÀgÀ

ªÉÄÃÉ AiÀiÁªÀ PÀæªÀÄªÀ£ÀÆß PÉÊUÉÆ¼Àî¨ÁgÀzÀÄ JAzÀÄ. impeachment UÉ ºÉÆÃVgÀvÀPÀÌAxÀzÀÝ£ÀÄß ªÁ¥À¸ï vÉUÉ¹PÉÆArgÀvÀPÀÌAxÀ GzÁºÀgÀuÉ EzÉ. zÀQët ¨sÁgÀvÀzÀªÀgÀÄ J£ÀÄßªÀÅzÀÄ MAzÉÃ PÁgÀt. CzÀPÉÌ E£ÁåªÀÅzÉÃ PÁgÀtUÀ¼ÀÄ EgÀ°®è. DUÀ AiÀiÁjzÀÝgÀÄ J£ÀÄßªÀÅzÀÄ vÀªÀÄUÉÁè UÉÆwÛzÉ. vÀ«Ä¼ÀÄ£Ár£À M§â ¥Àæ¨sÁ« gÁdPÁgÀtÂ, CªÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀgÀ£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ ºÉÃ®ÄªÀÅ¢®è. CªÀgÀÄ FUÀ §zÀÄQ®è, CzÀÝjAzÀ ºÉÃ¼À¨ÉÃPÁzÀ CUÀvÀå E®è. ºÉÃ¼ÀÉÃ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀgÉ, CªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄÆ¥À£ÁgÀgÀªÀgÀÄ, CzÀgÀÉèÃ£ÀÆ ¥Àæ±Éß E®è. ªÀiÁr¹ J®ègÀ PÀqÉ¬ÄAzÀ ¸À» ªÀiÁr¹PÉÆAqÀÄ, CªÀgÀ£ÀÄß G½¹zÀgÀÄ.

²æÃ. PÉ.Dgï. gÀªÉÄÃ±ïPÀÄªÀiÁgï : dqïÓUÀ¼À£ÀÄß AiÀiÁgÀÄ appointment ªÀiÁqÀÄvÁÛgÉ? CzÀPÉÌ method K£ÀÄ? CªÀgÉ°èAzÀ §gÀÄvÁÛgÉ? CªÀgÉÃ£ÁzÀgÀÆ DPÁ±À¢AzÀ GzÀÄgÀÄwÛzÁÝgÉAiÉÄÃ? MAzÉÃ

MAzÀÄ ¤«ÄÀ FïØ DV. Out of context DzÀgÀÆ PÀÆqÀ £Á£ÀÄ ºÉÃ¼ÀÄvÉÛÃ£É. £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄºÁgÁdgÀÄ

EzÁÝUÀ, «±ÉéÃ±ÀégÀAiÀÄå£ÀªÀgÀÄ ¢ªÁ£ÀgÁVzÁÝUÀ, ªÉÄÊ¸ÀÆgÀÄ ¸ÀPÁðgÀPÉÌ Advocate General gÀ£ÀÄß appointment ªÀiÁqÀ¨ ÉÃPÁ¬ÄvÀÄ. £ÀAd£ÀUÀÆr£À M§â ÁAiÀÄgï, ªÀgÀzÀgÁeï LAiÀÄåAUÁgï C£ÀßvÀPÀÌAxÀªÀgÀÄ §ºÀ¼À GvÀÛªÀÄ ªÀQÃ®gÀÄ, CªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ JAzÀÄ ¥sÉÊï£À°è §gÉzÀÄ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¸ÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

ªÀgÀzÀgÁd LAiÀÄåAUÁgïgÀªÀgÀÄ §ºÀ¼À M¼ÉîAiÀÄ ªÀQÃ®gÀÄ ¤d. £ÀAd£ÀUÀÆr£À°è MAzÀÄ provision stores ¤AzÀ CªÀgÀÄ ¥Àæw wAUÀ¼ÀÄ CªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ¸ÁªÀiÁ£ÀÄ vÀgÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. zÀÄqÀÄØ PÉÆnÖgÀ°®è.

CAUÀrAiÀÄªÀ£ÀÄ zÁªÉ ºÁQzÀ. For want of time, limitation DV ºÉÆÃVzÉ JAzÀÄ zÁªÉ dismiss DVzÉ. ¥sÉÊï ªÀÄºÁgÁdgÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ §AzÁUÀ, zÁªÉ r¸ï«Ä¸ïì CVgÀvÀPÀÌAxÀzÀÄÝ, F ºÀt

PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÁVvÀÄÛ CxÀªÁ PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÁV®è J£ÀÄßªÀ «ZÁgÀPÀÌ®è, limitation «ZÁgÀzÀ°è. FvÀ£À ¥ÁæªÀiÁtÂPÀvÉ ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁ¸ÀàzÀªÁVzÉ. FvÀ §Ä¢ÞªÀAvÀ EgÀ§ºÀÄzÀÄ, ªÉÄÊ¸ÀÆgÀÄ ¸ÀPÁðgÀPÉÌ ¨ÉÃPÁVgÀvÀPÀÌAxÀzÀÄÝ

¥ÁæªÀiÁtÂPÀ Advocate General, §Ä¢ÝªÀAvÀ C®è JAzÀÄ he turns do wn the advice of the lower officers. F note C£ÀÄß PÀ¼ÀÄ»¸ÀvÀPÀÌAxÀªÀgÀÄ AiÀiÁgÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¢ªÁ£ÀgÀÄ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¸ÀÄvÁÛgÉ,

EAvÀºÀªÀgÀÄ, EªÀgÀ ZÀjvÉæ »ÃVzÉ JAzÀÄ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¸ÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¥ÀæeÁ¥Àæ¨sÀÄvÀé PÀÆqÀ C®è. ©æl£ï£À°è Chief

Justice UÉ press £ÀªÀgÀÄ PÉÃ¼ÀÄvÁÛgÉ. Whom do you prefer to be a judge? JAzÀgÉ, he who is gentlemen and knows a bit of law. A judge need not know law much but he should be a gentlemen. Question. The is, what type of

39 people are we appointing as judges Who are appointing judges? What is the consi deration for the appointment of judges? Have they dropped themselves from heaven? Don’t we know them? Haven’t we seen them?

Sri. M.P.Prakash: After all law is a common sense.

²æÃ J.n.gÁªÀÄ¸Áé«Ä : ªÀiÁ£Àå CzsÀåPÀëgÉ, FUÀ MAzÀÄ GzÁºÀgÀuÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÉÃUÉ PÁ£ ÀÆ¤£À ZËPÀlÖ£ÀÆß PÀÆqÀ «ÄÃj zsÁn, PÉ®ªÀÅ £ÁåAiÀiÁ¢üÃ±ÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ F ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¸Ë®¨sÀåUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆ¼Àî°PÉÌ £ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆArzÁÝgÉ J£ÀßvÀPÀÌAxÀ «ÀAiÀÄªÀ£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ ¥Àæ¸ÁÛ¥À ªÀÄqÀÉÃ¨ÉÃPÁVzÉ. FUÀ £ÁåAiÀiÁAUÀ £ËPÀgÀgÀ ºË¹AUï ¸ÉÆ¸ÉÊn EzÉ. F £ÁåAiÀiÁAUÀ £ËPÀgÀgÀ ºË¹AUï ¸ÉÆ¸ÉÊnUÉ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀÄ DUÀ¨ÉÃPÁVgÀÄªÀªÀgÀÄ, D £ÁåAiÀiÁAUÀ EÁSÉAiÀÄ £ËPÀgÀgÀÄ, UÀÄªÀiÁ¸ÀÛgÀÄ, £ËPÀgÀjUÉ , UÀÄªÀiÁ¸ÀÛjUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀÄÝ, D £ÁåAiÀiÁAUÀ £ËPÀgÀgÀ

ºË¹AUï ¸ÉÆ¸ÉÊn. ºÁUÉAiÉÄÃ £ÀªÀÄä Legislature Housing Society PÀÆqÀ DVgÀ§ºÀÄzÀÄ,

Legislature staff C®è¢gÀÄªÀªÀgÉÃ, ºÉÆgÀUÀqÉAiÀÄªÀgÀÄ ªÀiÁgÁérUÀ¼ÀÄ §AzÀÄ, ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÁVzÁÝgÉ JAzÀgÉ EzÀÄ §ºÀ¼À UÀA©üÃgÀªÁzÀ ¥Àæ±Éß. FUÀ £ÁåAiÀiÁ¢üÃ±ÀgÉÃ¤zÁÝgÉ EªÀgÀÄ £ÁåAiÀiÁAUÀzÀ £ËPÀgÀgÀ®è. EªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ªÁå¦ÛUÀÆ PÀÆqÀ M¼À¥ÀqÀÄªÀÅ¢®è. ¸ÀA«zsÁ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß JwÛ »rAiÀÄvÀPÀÌAx À ¤AiÉÆÃfvÀ ¥Àæw¤¢üUÀ¼ÀÄ EªÀgÀÄ. £ÁåAiÀiÁ¢üÃ±ÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀA«zsÁ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß JwÛ »rAiÀÄvÀPÀÌAxÀ ¤AiÉÆÃfvÀ ¥Àæw¤¢üUÀ¼ÀÄ, EªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ £ËPÀgÀgÀ°è, EªÀgÀÄ £ÁåAiÀiÁAUÀ £ËPÀgÀgÀ ºË¹AUï ¸ÉÆ¸ÉÊnUÉ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀÆ PÀÆqÀ DUÀ°PÉÌ §gÀÄªÀÅ¢®è. CªÀgÀÄ ¸ÉÆ¸ÉÊnAiÀÄ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÁ UÀ°PÉÌ CºÀðgÀ®è. »ÃVzÀÝgÀÆ PÀÆqÀ D MAzÀÄ £ÁåAiÀiÁAUÀ £ËPÀgÀgÀ ¸ÉÆ¸ÉÊnUÉ ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ 586 d£À £ÁåAiÀiÁ¢üÃ±ÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ D ¸ÉÆ¸ÉÊnAiÀÄ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÁVzÁÝgÉ, ¸ÉÊlÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆArzÁÝgÉ. ºÉÊPÉÆÃmïð£ÀÉèÃ, 1995gÀ°è EzÀgÀ §UÉÎ PÉÃ¸ï £ÀqÉzÀÄ, £ÁåAiÀiÁ¢üÃ±ÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÉÆ¸ÉÊnAiÀÄ°è ªÉÄA§gï DUÀ°PÉÌ. ¸ÉÊmï ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆ¼Àî°PÉÌ CºÀðgÀ®è JA§ wÃªÀiÁð£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß £ÀªÀÄä ºÉÊPÉÆÃmïð wÃªÀiÁð£À PÉÆnÖvÀÄÛ. DzÀgÉ E£ÀÆß PÀÆqÀ 586 d£À D ¸ÀAWÀzÀ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÁVzÁÝgÉ, ssssssssssssssssssss¸ÉÊlÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÀÆqÀ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆArzÁÝgÉ. £Á£ÀÄ EÉÃ F ¸ÀzÀ£ÀzÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ £Á£ÀÄ w½¸À°PÉÌ EZÉÒ¥ÀqÀÄvÉÛÃ£É. D £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ wÃ¦ð£À §UÉÎ D £ÁåAiÀiÁ¢üÃ±ÀgÀÄUÀ½UÉ UËgÀªÀ EzÀÝgÉ, CªÀgÉÁè ¸ÀAWÀzÀ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀåvÀéPÉÌ gÁfÃ£ÁªÉÄ PÉÆqÀ°. D ¸ÉÊmï K£ÀÄ ¥ÉzÀÄPÉÆArzÁÝgÉÆÃ, PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ¨Á»gÀªÁV, CªÀÅUÀ¼À£ÉßÃ®è ªÁ¥À¸ï PÉÆqÀ°. E£ÀÄß £ÁåAiÀi Á¢üÃ±ÀgÁV CªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄÄAzÀÄªÀgÉAiÀÄ¨ÉÃPÉÆÃ, ¨ÉÃqÀªÉÇÃ J£ÀßvÀPÀÌAxÀ «ªÉÃZÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß

CªÀgÀ DvÀä¸ÁQëUÉ £Á£ÀÄ ©qÀÄvÉÛÃ£É. CªÀgÀ Judicial conscious £ÁªÀÅ ©qÉÆÃt. CªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄÄAzÀÄªÀgÉAiÀÄ¨ÉÃPÉÃ? ¨ÉÃqÀªÉÃ JAzÀÄ, £ÁåAiÀiÁ¢üÃ±ÀgÀÄªÀ¼ÀÄ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ wÃªÀiÁð£ÀzÀAv É CªÀgÉÃ £ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆ¼ÀÄîªÀÅ¢®è JAzÀgÉ, F zÉÃ±ÀzÀ, F £É®zÀ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ JÀÖgÀªÀÄnÖUÉ eÁjAiÀiÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ, UËgÀªÀ ¹UÀÄvÀÛzÉ, EAvÀºÀªÀjAzÀ £ÁåAiÀÄzÀ ¥ÁoÀªÀ£ÀÄß £ÁªÉÁè d£ÀvÁ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ¢AzÀ §AzÀªÀgÀÄ, JÁè CVß¥ÀjÃPÉëVAvÀ d£ÀvÁ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ CVß¥ÀjÃPÉë §ºÀ¼À zÉÆq ÀØzÀÄ, §ºÀ¼À PÀÀÖPÀgÀ EzÀÄ. £ÁªÀÅ CªÀjAzÀ §Ä¢Þ PÉÃ¼À¨ÉÃPÁVzÉ C£ÀßvÀPÀÌAxÀ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ vÀªÀÄä ªÀÄÆ®PÀ w½¸À°PÉÌ EaÒ¸ÀÄwÛzÉÝÃ£É. F ©rJ §qÁªÀuÉ K£ÀÄ EzÉ, £ÁåAiÀiÁAUÀ §qÁªÀuÉ K£ÀÄ ¤ªÀiÁðtªÁVzÉ EzÀÄ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ¨Á»gÀªÉAzÀÄ

©rJ PÀÆqÀ ºÉÃ½zÉ, DzÀgÀÆ PÀÆqÀ CzÀÄ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ¨Á»gÀ JAzÀÄ ¸ÀÄªÀÄä£É PÀÄ½wzÉ. K£ÀÄ eÁUÀ EzÉ D eÁUÀzÀ CzsÀð ¨sÁUÀzÀ°è gÀ¸ÉÛ, ±ÁÉUÉ, zÉÃªÀ¸ÁÜ£ÀPÉÌ ¥ÁQðUÉ eÁUÀ ©qÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ EzÉ. ¥ÁQðUÉ eÁUÀ ©qÀ°®è. ±ÁÉUÀÆ eÁUÀ ©qÀ°®è. gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ eÁUÀªÀ£ÉßÃ EªÀgÀÄ MvÀÄÛªÀj ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ ©lÖgÀÄ, EªÀjUÉÃ£ÀÄ ºÉÃ¼ÀÄªÀªÀgÀÄ PÉÃ¼ÀÄªÀªÀgÀÄ E®è. PÁ£ÀÆ¤VAvÀ EªÀgÀÄ zÉÆqÀªÀgÀÄ, ¸ÀA«zsÁ£ÀQÌAvÀ EªÀgÀÄ zÉÆqÀØªÀgÀÄ, F «ÀAiÀÄ K£Á¬ÄvÀÄ «ZÁgÀuÉUÁV ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛPÉÌ ªÀ»¹zÀgÀÄ. EzÀÄ §ºÀ¼À ªÀÄÄRå. J®gÀÆ FVgÀvÀPÀÌAxÀ ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ §ºÀ¼À qÉÊ£Á«ÄPï JAzÀÄ ºÉÃ¼ÀÄvÁÛgÉ. §ºÀ¼À ªÉÊ¨ÉæAmï ¥À¸ïð£Á°n, §ºÀ¼À qÉÊ£Á«ÄPï JAzÀÄ ºÉÃ¼ÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ªÀÄvÉÛ KPÉ D vÀ¤SÉ PÉÊUÉwÛPÉÆAqÀÄ ÉÆÃ¥ÀzÉÆÃÀUÀ¼À §UÉÎ ºÉÃ¼À°®è? C°è CªÀgÀÄ AiÀiÁjUÁzÀgÀÆ ¸ÉÊmï ¹QÌzÀAiÉÄÃ? EzÀ£ÀÄß £ÁªÉ®ègÀÆ PÀÆqÀ CvÀåAvÀ UÀA©üÃgÀªÁV aAvÀ£É ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ, ZÀZÉð ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ, JAzÀÄ ºÉÃ¼ÀÄvÁÛ, ¨ÉÃ°AiÉÄÃ JzÀÄÝ ºÉÆ® ªÉÄÃAiÀÄÝgÉ PÁAiÀÄÄªÀªÀgÀÄ AiÀiÁgÀÄ? ¨ÉÃ°AiÉÄÃ JzÀÄÝ ºÉÆ® ªÉÄÃAiÀÄÄwÛzÉ. AiÀiÁgÀÄ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ £ËPÀgÀgÀÄ C®è, UÀÄªÀiÁ¸ÀÛgÀÄ C®è, CªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀAWÀzÀ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÁUÀÄªÀÅzÀPÉÌ ºÀQÌ®è, CAxÀªÀgÀÄ D ¸ÉÆ¸ÉÊnAiÀÄ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÁV ¸ÉÊmïUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥Àq ÉzÀÄPÉÆArzÁÝgÉ. EªÀjAzÀ F gÁdåzÀ°è F zÉÃ±ÀzÀ°è ¸ÀA«zsÁ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß JwÛ»rAiÀÄvÀPÀÌAxÀ PÉ®¸À AiÀiÁªÀ jÃw DUÀÄvÀÛzÉ J£ÀÄßªÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ F ªÉÆzÀÉÃ ºÉÃ½zÀ ºÁUÉ CªÀgÀ DvÀä ¸ÁQëUÉ, CªÀgÀ «ªÉÃZÀ£ÉUÉ £Á£ÀÄ ©qÀÄvÉÛÃ£É. CzÀPÁÌV F ¸ÀzÀ£ÀzÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ £Á£ÀÄ MvÁÛAiÀÄ ªÀiÁq ÀÄvÉÛÃ£É, AiÀiÁgÀÄ CPÀæªÀÄªÁV D ¸ÀAWÀzÀ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÁVzÁÝgÉ, D ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀåvÀÛªÀ£ÀÄß ©qÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ EzÀÄ £À£Àß §ºÀ¼À ¸ÀàÀÖªÁzÀ MvÁÛAiÀÄ. FUÉÃ£ÀÄ CªÀgÀÄ 586 d£À ¸ÉÊmï ¥ÉzÀÄPÉÆArzÁÝgÉ D ¸ÉÊmïUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀPÁðgÀPÉÌ ªÁ¥À¸ï PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ. £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ wÃªÀiÁð£ÀPÉÌ K£ÀÄ UËgÀªÀ PÉÆnÖ®è, CªÀgÀ DvÀä¸ÁQëUÉ C£ÀÄUÀÄtªÁV CªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄÄA¢£À ¢£ÀUÀ¼À° £ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆ¼ÀÄîªÀAvÀ PÉ®¸À DUÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ. CªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄÄAzÉ §gÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ, CªÀgÀÄ vÁåUÀ ªÀiÁrAiÀiÁzÀgÀÆ aAvÉ¬Ä®è MAzÀÄ ºÉÆ¸À EwºÁ¸ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀÈ¶× ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÉA§ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÀÄß F ¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðzÀ° £Á£ÀÄ vÀªÀÄä ªÀÄÆ ®PÀ w½¸À°aÒ¸ÀÄwÛzÉÝÃ£É. ªÀiÁ£Àå gÀªÉÄÃ±ïPÀÄªÀiÁgïgÀªÀgÉ, EzÉÃ vÀgÀºÀ 86 ¸ÉÆ¸ÉÊnUÀ¼ÀÄ EªÉ. 1989gÀ°è ºÉÊPÉÆÃnð£À°è wÃªÀiÁð£ÀªÁV FUÉÃ£ÀÄ ©rJ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ºË¹AUï ¨ÉÆÃqïð£ÀªÀgÀÄ ¨sÀÆ«Ä ¸Áé¢üÃ£À¥Àr¹PÉÆAqÀªÀjUÉ PÉÆqÀ§ºÀÄzÀÄ CªÀjUÉ PÉÆqÀÄªÀ DV®èªÉAzÀÄ ºÉÊPÉÆÃnð£À°è w ÃªÀiÁð£ÀªÁ¬ÄvÀÄ CzÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀÄ¦æÃAPÉÆÃmïð£ÀªÀgÀÄ JwÛ»rzÀgÀÄ. D 86 ¸ÉÆ¸ÉÊnUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÁ¥À¸ï vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ©lÖgÀÄ gÉÊvÀjUÉ PÉÆr¹zÀgÀÄ. DzÀgÉ EzÉÆAzÀÄ WÀ£ÁAzÀj ¸ÀAWÀzÀÄÝ ªÀiÁvÀæ ªÁ¥À¸ï vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆ¼Àî°®è. gÉÊvÀjUÀÆ PÉÆr¸À°®è. EªÀgÀÄ F gÁdåPÉÌ F zÉÃ±ÀPÉÌ £ÁåAiÀiÁAU ÀzÀ ªÀiÁUÀðzÀ±Àð£À ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ, £ÁåAiÀÄzÀ §UÉÎ ªÀiÁUÀðzÀ±Àð£À ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ, JAxÀ ªÀiÁUÀðzÀ±Àð£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß £ÁªÀÅ EªÀjAzÀ ¤jÃPÉë ªÀiÁqÀ°PÉÌ ¸ÁzsÀå J£ÀßvÀPÀÌAxÀzÀÝ£ÀÄß £ÁªÉ®ègÀÆ UÀA©üÃgÀªÁV DÉÆÃZÀ£É ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ F ¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðzÀ°è vÀªÀÄä ªÀÄÆ®PÀ £Á£ÀÄ ¥Àæ¸ÁÛ¥À ªÀiÁqÀÄvÁÛ, ªÀiÁ£Àå ªÀÄÄRåªÀÄAwæUÀ¼ÀÄ E°èAiÉÄÃ EzÁÝgÉ £Á£ÀÄ MAzÀÄ «ÀAiÀÄªÀ£ÀÄß ¥Àæ¸ÁÛ¥À¸ÀÄwÛzÉÝÃ£É, ««zsÀ EÁSÉUÀ¼À°è C£ÉÃPÀ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ wAUÀ¼Á£ÀÄUÀlÖÉ, PÉ®ªÀgÀÄ ªÀÁð£ÀÄUÀlÖÉ EgÀ§ºÀÄzÀÄ, ªÉÃnAUï ¥sÁgï ¥ÉÆÃ¶ÖAUï JAzÀÄ ªÉÃAiÀiïÖ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÉ. ªÀÄÆgÀÄ wAUÀ¼ÀÄ, DgÀÄ wAUÀ¼ÀÄ, CªÀgÀ£ÀÄß D£ï qÀÆån JAzÀÄ næÃmï ªÀiÁr ¥sÀÄï ¸Áå®j PÉÆqÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ. KPÉ J®Æè ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ¼ÀÄ SÁ° E®èªÉ? CªÀjUÉ PÉ®¸ï PÉÆqÀ°PÉÌ PÉ®¸À E®èªÉ? KPÉ K£ÁVzÉ? MAzÀÄ ¢ªÀ¸À, JgÀqÀÄ ¢ªÀ¸À, MAzÀÄ ªÁgÀ, MAzÀÄ wAUÀ¼ÀÄ DzÀgÉ ¸Àj, DzÀgÉ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ wAUÀ¼ÀÄ, DgÀÄ wAUÀ¼ÀÄ, ªÀÀðUÀlÖÉÃ, ªÉÃnAUï ¥sÁgï

¥ÉÆÃnAUïì, ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è PÀÆj¹ CªÀjUÉ ¥ÀÆwð ¸ÀA§¼À PÉÆqÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ, §qÀªÀgÀ vÉjUÉ ºÀtPÉÌ £ÁªÀÅ JÉÆèÃ MAzÀÄ PÀqÉ ªÉÆÃ¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄvÀÛÉÃ EzÉÝÃªÉ. D ¢QÌ£À°è vÁªÀÅ §ºÀ¼À ¸ÀàÀÖªÁzÀ ¸ÀÆZÀ£ÉPÉÆlÄÖ AiÀiÁªÁåªÀ EÁSÉAiÀÄ°è F jÃw £ÀÆgÁgÀÄ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÉÃnAUï ¥sÁgï ¥ÉÆÃ¶ÖAUï EzÁÝgÉ CªÀgÀ£ÀÄß PÀÆqÀÉÃ, CªÀjUÉ ¸ÀÜ¼À vÉÆÃj¸À¨ÉÃPÀÄ, ªÀÄÄAzÉ PÀÆqÀ F jÃw DUÀzÀ ºÁUÉ ¸ÀPÁðgÀ UÀªÀÄ£ÀºÀj¸À¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ F ¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðzÀ°è ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ UÀªÀÄ£ÀPÉÌ vÀgÀÄvÉÛÃ£É. EÀÄÖ «ÀAiÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀÄªÀÅz ÀPÉÌ £À£ÀUÉ CªÀPÁ±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß

PÉÆnÖzÀPÉÌ vÀªÀÄUÉ PÀÈvÀdÕvÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÉÃ½ £À£Àß ªÀiÁvÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄV¸ÀÄwÛzÉÝÃ£É......

45. The Final Judgment of this Court in C.C.NO : 8838/2005 by order dated the 21 st day of June 2006 , Court acquitted Applicant and his family , on the Complaint by same Lokayukta, same Police and the this Court, which is reflected below in box:-

IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDL. C.M.M., B’LORE Dated this the 21 st day of June 2006 Present: Sri. K. Palakshappa , B.Sc., LL.B., VIII ADDL C.M.M., B’LORE C.C.NO : 8838/2005

COMPLAINANT: State by Vidhanasoudha PS

ACCUSED :1. Digvijaya Mote S/o Ramachandra Mote, 48 years

2. Uma Mote W/o Digvijaya Mote, 34 years.

A. Judgment Paragraph No.2 :

The brief facts of the caseare that on 8/7/2004 at about 1-30 pm the accused persons with common intention in front of Lok Ayukta office situated in Multistoried building, Dr. Ambedkar road, holding banners in their hand by distributing pamplets, CDs shouting slogans and demanding to close Lok Ayukta office and restrained CW-2 H.C Nagabushana CW-3 M.Krishnappa, CW-4 Arifulla Sharif, CW-5 Radhakrishna from entering the office and caused disturbance to perform their duty. Hence, this charge sheet.

B. Judgment Paragraph No.8 :

Point No. 1 :- Vidhanasoudha Police Station have registered a case against the

42 accused persons in their crime No. 48/04 based upon the complaint given by Sri. D. Krishnappa who was the Registrar of Lok Ayukta Office. The offences alleged against the accused persons are 341, 353 r/w 34 of IPC. After the investigation he has filed the charge sheet against only two accused persons, as third accused person was juvenile. The learned counsel for the accused persons has submitted his argument that the prosecution has not been able to prove the allegations as it was suffering from so many lacunae. He submitted that none of the witnesses have depos ed to attract the ingredients of Sec.353 of IPC. Therefore, he submits that accused persons are entitled for acquittal. Under this background now I would like to say the case of the prosecution.

C. Judgment Paragraph No.9 :

Sr. App has filed his written a rguments contending the same as alleged in the charge sheet. I find some force in the argument canvassed on behalf of the accused persons. To attract Sec. 353 of IPC the prosecution has to prove that by the act of the accused persons the witnesses have bee n wrongfully obstructed from discharging their duties. It is clear from the evidence of the witnesses that the accused persons have been wrongfully obstructed from discharging their duties. It is clear from the evidence of the witnesses that the accused pe rsons have not at all entered the office of the Lok Ayukta. It is clear from the cross-examination of PW-1 to the effect that the alleged incident took place outside the entrance of office of Lok Ayukta. The counsel for the accused persons drew my attention to the evidence of PW-1 to the effect that the accused persons were distributing hand bills and CDs to the publics near the gate. By that time publics have gathered there. Therefore, PW-1 felt some inconvenience to enter the premises of the office. He ne ver said that because of the act of accused person he could not able to discharge his duty as usual. But however, it is the evidence of PW-5 Muniyappa ASI that the accused persons have obstructed one Nagabushana, Krishnappa, Sharifulla and one Radhakrishna from doing their duty. Among them Nagabushan and Krishnappa have been examined as PW-1 and respectively. I have already said that they never deposed before the court that the accused persons wrongfully restrained them and caused obstruction. It is clear f rom the evidence of PW-1 that his movement was obstructed because of gathering of publics. There is no any piece of evidence of PW-1 that his movement was obstructed because of gathering of publics. There is no any piece of evidence to say that the accused persons physically restrained those employees and obstructed them from movements. Therefore, allegations u/s. 341 and 353 does not attract because there is no any direct involvement of the accused persons on that day.

D. Judgment Paragraph No. 10 :

It is another fold of argument that the accused No.1 and 2 were distributing the hand bills and shouting slogans against the Hon’ble Lokayuktha will not amounts to any offence, because it is a democratical power given to all the citizens to express their d issatisfaction or satisfaction. Therefore, the allegation that the accused persons were crying and it was amounts to obstruction to the officers holds no water.

E. Judgment Paragraph No.11 :

PW-3 D. Krishnappa,Registrar of the Hon’ble Lokayuktha office has deposed that both the accused persons were raising slogans against the Hon’ble Lokayuktha and tried to attract the publics in an indecent manner. He also deposed that by the act of the accused persons it was disrespect to the Hon’ble Lokayuktha and to the Judges. It is also the case of the prosecution that the accused persons have created false impression on the publics about the work of Hon’ble Lokayuktha. But I would like to say that it does not amounts to any offence, because the distribution of hand bills or holding a banner against any authority does not comes within the purview of sections as alleged in the charge sheet and which is sufficient to acquit the accused persons.

F. Judgment Paragraph No.12 :

As per the ingredients of Sec.353 of IPC the prosecution has to prove the criminal force used against the witnesses. As rightly pointed by the defence counsel there is no any such evidence from the mouth of PW-1& 2. I have already said that there was no any physical obstruction to the PW-1 & 2 by the accused persons. They never said that the accused persons physically stopped their movements and he has used the criminal force than the necessity. Even it is not the evidence of PW-1 & 2 that their obstruction is because of A1 & 2. It is not their evidence that they failed to attend their duty on that day, because of gathering of the A1 & 2 and publics. The defence counsel has specifically to all the witnesses about the contents of handbill and banner. All the witnesses have answered that the y have seen the contents, but they are not in a position to give the description. Further the nobody is not aware what the CDs are containing. Even the investigator also did not say anything about

44 the same. According to PW-1 and PW-2 the accused persons we re shouting by holding banner and distributing the handbills. According to investigator, he has seized handbills, banner and CDs and filed the charge sheet. Whether the contents of CDs, handbills and banners will amounts to any statement or not is not inve stigated. It is not the evidence of investigator he has sent the CDs to know what it contained. Therefore, there is evidence that those articles have been seized and nothing further proceedings has been proved by the prosecution.

G. Judgment Paragraph No. 13 :

The counsel for the accused persons has also drawn my attention to some technical defects. In the complaint marked as Ex.P1 the time of the alleged incident is mentioned as 1.30 am., But it was ought to be 1.30pm., In this connection the IO who is examined as PW-6 has said that he has recorded the further statement of CWI and wherein CW-1 had said that the timing was not 1.30am., but it was 1.30pm., But when the same was questioned to complainant PW-3 he did not admit that IO has recorded his furt her statement. It means the further statement as said by the IO is false one is the argument of the defence counsel. But however it is not a fatal point to throw the complaint itself. Because the presence of accused persons and distribution of CDs and hold ing of banner near the office of Lokayukta is not deride by the accused person. It is his case that this false complaint is lodged just because he has given a petition to the Hon’ble Lokayukta about the scandal. During the cross-examination of PW-3, an att empt has been made by the counsel to get admission over the same. But PW-3 has not admitted the same. There are no any such reasons to file a complaint against the accused persons by PW-3 who is Registrar of office. There are no any good reasons to claim against PW-3 it is clear that because of the act of accused persons and raising slogans against the Hon’ble Lokayukta in public was in fact disturbing the officials of the said office and also it made the publics to think other wise. But however the offence s alleged against the accused persons that they wrongly obstructed the officials and caused obstructions to their official duty is not correct and the same is not proved. Another lacuna on the part of the investigation is that as per the remand application dtd:8-7-2004 the IO has seized some handbills, one banner and one CD and the same have been subjected to PF.16/04. But in the PF it is mentioned as 8 CDs and according to the evidence of PW 6 he has seized 8 CDs, 48 handbills and one banner from the accused persons under mahazar marked as Ex.p3. In Ex.P-3 also it is said that some CDs and banner and handbills have been seized. But while in the remand application a different picture has been given. Therefore, he submits that the prosecution also not proper ly proved the seizure of those articles. PW 4 & 5 has deposed about the Ex.P3. But I would like to say that seizure of one CD or any

number of CDs, or banner etc., is not important what is the important was to be notapplication of sec. 353 of IPC. I have a lready said that the act of the accused persons does not attract the ingredients of sec.353 of IPC. Holding of banners, distributing of CDs will not come in the way.

Therefore, the allegation made by the prosecution itself has no any effect and it is not sufficient to convict the accused persons. Before passing final order, I would like to say that the property seized from the accused persons cannot be returned to them just because the offences alleged against them is not proved. Because, the same cannot be made use of by them and it is better to destroy them as they have no any monetary value. Hence, I answer point No.1 in the Negative .

H. Judgment Paragraph No. 14 : Point No.2:- Accordingly this court proceed to pass the following:

O R D E R

Acting U/s. 255 (1) of the criminal procedure code, the accused persons are acquitted for the offence punishable U/s. 341, 353 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The bail bounds and surety bonds shall stand cancelled. Accused persons are set at liberty

46. [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] Date: 29.05.2007

To:

Shri G.T. Devegowda ,

Minister for Co-operation,

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 contrar y 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,

….Signed….

[A.T. Ramaswamy]

CHAIRMAN

46. [B] Who will Guard the Guardians? Karnataka Legislature Joint House Committee on Encroachments in Bangalore Urban District.

Report No. Two, as presented to Karnataka Assembly. Karnataka Legislature Joint House Committee on Encroachments in Bangalore Urban District directed Karnataka Government “to Forfeit “LANDS & BUNGALOWS contained in JUDICIAL LAYOUT , Jakkur, Yelahanka, Bangalore” and to initiate Crminal action against persons responsible for abetting crimes , in its Annexures to Report, which annexure include names of 84 Judges of High Court and Supreme Court of India.

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 Karna taka 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 perso ns 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 P arks and the balance for roads. According to

49 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 ag ainst 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 direct ed 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 too k 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 distrib uted 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

50 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 t he 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 judic ial 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,

51 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.

47. The Applicant made Complaint in the form of representation to the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Karnataka on 2 nd August 2013, which content is as follows:-

[A] From:- Digvijay Mote, Bangalore [ With Photo] “Centre for Investigation & Prosecution of Corrupt Judges of India” ‘867 Corrupt Judges &^ Lokayuktas across India’ ‘Evidences: Courts & Lokayukta Judgments’ ... 16 years Investigation. www.IndianCorruptJudges.com , www.JudgesPlot4Plot.com with email, phone numbers etc., [ as contained on Sticker is Pasted, on Complaint ]

To :- The Hon’ble Chief Minister of Karnataka, Government of Karnataka, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore.

Dear Sir,

In Re. Public Interest Confidential

Sub : Re “867 Judges & Lokayuktas Names & Crimes & Unconstitutional Conspiracy with the past Chief Ministers” and creating a kind of Anarchy not only in Karnataka, but also across India. Ref: 1. Enclosed 12 pages of Documents with a copy of letter of retired Chief Justice Sri. Ramakrishna on his letter head dated: 7/3/2001, disclosing the kind of a corruption within the judiciary exemplified and corruption copied in Lokayukta too.

Ref: 2. 102 pages judicial records disclosing “867 Judges & Lokayuktas Names & Crimes & Unconstitutional Conspiracy with Chief Minsters” and “creating a kind of Anarchy not only in Karnataka, but also across

India.

The details of the documents enclosed is very much explained in the subject and Reference above which are enclosed herewith. To abort “ANARCHY” the documents be forwarded to Home Secretary for immediate and timewly action against the conspirators of crimes who have disturbed the law and order in Karnataka.

Yours Sincerely,

----Signed----

[DIGVIJAY MOTE]

Editor, www.IndianCorruptJudges.com

[B] The Joint Secretary to Chief Minster on 3 rd August, 2013 gave / sent me copy of letter addressed to “The Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, Bangalore” , which letter states in kannada, translated in English is, thus:-

[C] Joint Secretary to Chief Minister Chief Minister’s Secretariat Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore- 560 001

No. MUMA:JANKA:R.E.P:98:201 3 DATE: 03/08/2013

Shri Digvijay Mote, Editor, IndianCorruptJudges.com has addressed a Representation to Hon’ble Chief Minster is enclosed and sent along I am directed to intimate you that the said Representation be examine and take action as per law.

----Signed---- [Dr. Shinde Bheemsen Rao H]

Joint Secretary to Chief Minster

To,

The Principal Secretary to Government,,

Home Department, Bangalore.

Copy To: Shri Digvijay Mote, Editor, IndianCorrputJudges.com, 452, 15 th Cross, Lakkasandra, Bangalore-30

[D] Applicant received a copy of letter dated 27 th August, 2013 from Government Principal Secretary [P.C.A.S], Home Depart ment, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore addressed to “Director General & Inspector General of Police, Nrupatunga Road, Bangalore, which letter in kannada reads thus:-

Subject: Shri Digvijay Mote, Editor, IndianCorruptJudges.com representation regarding In the foresaid subject related-to, Joint Secretary to Hon’ble Chief Minster’s Note, and enclosures [Shri Digvijay Mote’s Represenatation] are enclosed. Examine all the points, contentions, enquire / Investigate and take necessary action as per law in relation to the Represenation and forward a s uitable letter / endorsement and send detailed report to the Government, I am directed to state.

Applicant humbly submits that he shall produce the said documents, if directed. The said Records are available with DG & IG of Police also.

48. The complainant P.R.O. and Dy. Commissioner, Office of Lokayukta Mr. Riaz was selected by Government of India to represent India in “The World Bank sponsored ‘International Corruption Hunters Alliance Event’ in year 2010”. In the Video, link of which is given below, he is seen Twice in Video, while hearing the Speech and later he hand-shaking with President of World Bank in the said Conference. The facts of which when I called him in or around 20th October, 2011; and he was happy to mention and confirm that Gov ernment of India chose him to represent along with another Officer from C.B.I. or so; from amongst all the Indian Country Men.

49. The Video Uploaded by WorldBank on Dec 8, 2010 Video Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZZCYpoK2_c&feature=relmfu

The Reading Contents below the Video in the website is thus: “Corruption steals from the poor and those responsible must be held accountable" says Robert Zoellick, President of the World Bank at the launch of

theInternational Corruption Hunters Alliance today in Washington DC. More than 250 anti corruption officials from 134 countries are working on a global enforcement regime to benefit the poor by sharing information, monitoring results and coordinating action on corruption cases.

50. “The present Complaint and Proceedings GUINESS BOOK of WORLD RECORDS ”:-

[i] That the world wide renown editor of websites containg un-impeachable Criminal Evidences of “ 867 corrupt judges & Lokayuktas” ; was seen on foot path and roads , distributing ENLISH LEGALLY COMPLEX DOCUMENTS to Tea Vendors & Watchmans!

[ii] It is in Charge sheet that that the tea vendor and ‘Bicycle stand watchman complained to Lokayukta P.R.O & D.C complaining that “Accused was distributing Printed HAND BILLS containing PAMHLETS containg ABUSIVE / INSULTING contents etc., to PUBLIC ”; while the Police Station is just 300 feet from Lokayukta Complaint’s Office away .

[iii] Whether Complainant Syed Riaz is working for Vidhana Soudha Police or is working for Lokayuikta; whose premises NOTHING HAD HAPPENED; the failed to question t he authority of Lokayukta P.R.O and rather thought fot to collude with him and registered complaint.

[iv ] T he Police failed rather colluded with corrupt and malafide intentions with complainant and failing to ask as “why complainant to take interest in proceeding to lodge complaint to police, unless he had seen and confirmed that accused was in fact distributing and if so police would arrested him; unless some-thing more than IN REALITY IT WAS DEEPAVALI HOLIDAYS”.

[ v] The Police failed rather co lluded with corrupt and malafide intentions with complainant and failing to ask “Does the Complaint , much less appointed by NO LESS THAN WORLD FAMOUS KARNATAA LOKAYUKTA, is appointed to LOOK AFTER ‘LAW & ORDER’, which is function of State Police?”. The answer is “GROUND LESS COMPLAINT.

51. About Telephone Calling to P.R.O & Accused threatening on 29/10/2011; registred u/s 504 and 506 of Cr.P.C :-

[A] The complainant made the FIR with the allegation that on 29 th October 2011 was distributing Pamphlets at 4.00 p.m. in the campus of M.S. Building and around, to the general public. And that I called him from my Mobile No. 9886619410 etc.,The allegation is totally false and same is proved false by the summary of the call of mobile No. 98866 19410. According to call record the applicant accused was not present in the M.S. Building or around. He was travelling in a vehicle in around Electronic city at Bangalore as per the case diary and prosecution evidence collected by the Investigation Officer. This fact is shown by Prosecution at page No. 21 of the case diary for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble court.

[B] The witness No. CW-8 and 9 to alleged incident of the complainant are contradictory and having a differing statements in a true way which is which shows that the Complaint and the prosecution case is tainted with malafide, to harass the Patriotic Work being done by the Accused, to waste the Valued time of this Court and the Accused. As according Investigations, and the Mobile 9886619410 call record, the applicant accused was not present in the M.S. Building or around that Whole Day. As per Cell Call Records submitted by I.O. He left his Office in Lakkasandra and was travelling in a vehicle in around Electronic city at Bangalore as per the case diary and prosecution evidence collected by the Investigation Officer.

[C]. That the witness No. CW-8 Mr. Murugan, has stated in the statement recorded by the police, the incident of distribution of pamphlet taken place on 29-10- 2011 at 4.00 p.m at M.S. Building Roadside footpath and that Accused used to stop public and used to distribute alleged pamphlets.

[D]. Similarly the CW-9, Mr. S. Nagaraju, says in the statement the incident of the distribution of pamphlet taken place on 29-102011 at 4.30 p.m. But true facts are very different, on 29-10-2011, it was a Saturday, celebrating Deepavali festival and applicant accused was travelling near Electronic city as per the investigation and mobile call report cited in above paragraphs, which is the piece and parcel of scientific investigation.

[E] The I.O has failed to get the Voice Record of the Telephonic Talk alleged to have taken place between my mobile 9886619410 and Lokayukta’s office FAX Number 22250222. The Accused Tried to get the Voice details so as to bring the truth to this Court. But Vodafone Customer Care and its Nodal Agency Officers despite several requests, at last, Last week said that “Such Information shall be given to only to Law Enforcing Agencies.

[F]. Applicant Accused has Two Mobile Numbers of Vodafone viz., 9886619410 and 9986068510 uses all the Time. I.O. has utterly failed to to get the Call Details of both phones Mobile Movement, Voice Records etc., of period alleged crimes dates from 26 th October 2011 to 29 th October 2011. The Family of the Accused Applicant has no any hard and Fast Rule to use a particular Phone, especially during Sundays, Holidays etc., as One chooses his liking of Hand Set based on Soft Wares, Applications etc., though the SIM card may belong to other Family Member; which the I.O and Complainant Failed to take note of.

[G]. As per the record and material produced by the I.O., it the I.O. who has committed a serious error to file a charge sheet against the applicant accused instead of filling B-report to close the Case.

[H]. In a Scientific Era as is now I.O has utterly Failed to establish the Voice details of Accused to the Court to prove that the Applicant Accused Spoke, Or made a Statement, or the Complainant Coerced the Accused Applicant on 29 th October, 2011 alleged to have taken conversation.

52. The ingredients of Sec. 341, 504 and 506 of IPC stands seriously suspected as per the investigation made by the complainant police. The material which is produced by prosecution stands completely exposed that a Fake Case is made- up to please the ‘Influential Complainant’ as per Charge sheet contents. Innocence of Accused is stands proved by I.O’s Investigations and records submitted to Court; hence Accused is entitle to be discharged from the alleged offences.

53. This case has detoured the whole of Karnataka High court and including Hon’ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice D.H. Waghela; from “Clerks through Registrar General , to almost all sitting Judges”.

54. The Criminal Transfrred case was heard & disposed off by no less than the VERY ACCUSED JUDGES; forming Division Bench, who wondered at the initiation of criminal Proceedings and has used words against the Ld. Judge; not against the contents of Application contents; where in more than ten times they were referred to .

55. It may be note worthy to mention here that the Seven Calendar days from 23 rd October to 30 th October, 2011; consisted of DEEPAVALI Holidays. The 23 rd was Sunday . 24 th Monday. 25 th Tuesday Deepavali holiday .

26 th Wednesday was declared as Restricted holiday. 27 th Thursday Deepavali holiday . 28 th Friday. 29 th Saturday. 30 th Sunday .

56. That the applicant accused, as per his memory, submit that due to holidays of festival of Deepavali, the Government, Lokayukta and High Court had declared intermittent 2 or 3 working days as Restricted Holidays.

57. The Accused sacrificing his Family Fest and venturing to identify Public does not arise; as Claimed by Complainant and I.O. Also as mentioned above, the Call Records gathered by I.O. prove the Accused never was in City Centre and was in far-off place as Electronic City on 29 th October, 2011 the Saturday; even considering he had only Cell i.e., 9886619410.

58. No question arises of presence of the accused on the incident place since 26 th Oct. 2011 to 29 th Oct. 2011, as the applicant accused being Hindu was celebrating the Deepavali fest with his family members and relatives and friends away from High Court, Vidhana Soudha and M.S. Building.

59. The Complainant and his father is beneficiary of Membership of tainted Society; who is used as MASK to COVER THE REAL CULPRITS & ACCUSED viz., “Corrupt 867 Judges And Lokayuktas”.

60. Under circumstances, while discharging the Applicant ; direct the state to arrest and produce in this Court the “Corrupt 867 Judges And Lokayuktas”; and proceed against them and recover the ILLEGALLY ACQUIRED 193 ACRES of LANDS and BUILDINGS there-on and pass such Orders to see that “THE REAL OWNERS are PUT in POISESSION of LANDS & BUILDINGS”, direct the State to Recover the Government dues from “Corrupt 867 Judges And Lokayuktas”.

61. It shall be SERIOUS FRAUD on COURT and deemed as DIRECT BIAS and MISCARRIAGE of JUSTICE ; if it FAILS TO BRING TO JUSTICE THE CORRUPT 867 JUDGES and LOKAYUKTAS; which this Court has applied JUDICIAL MIND while passing an Order on 22.10. 2012:-

“The complainant in his application has alleged that there are 867 corrupt judges named there under and he has no confidence upon this court as the Magistrate is personally interested to protect those judges”,

“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”.

62. It shall be SERIOUS FRAUD on COURT by Sr.APP who represents State in FAILING TO BRING TO JUSTICE THE CORRUPT 867 JUDGES and LOKAYUKTAS” and shall be deemed as SERIOUS MISCONDUCT in NOT PROTECTING THE STATE’S INTERST and IN CLEANSING CRIMINALS FROM LARGER SOCIETY of KARNATAKA and INDIA; of whose Crimes and evidences are provided to him and to this Court during the proceedings of this case.

63. Initiate criminal proceedings against Mr. Naglingana Gowda Patil, for playing FRAUD on COURT PROCEEDINGS with CORRUPT CRIMINAL INTENTION COLLUDED with “Corrupt 867 Judges And Lokayuktas” ; including his predecessor for having TAKEN COGNIIZANCE of HEAR-SAY ILLEGIBLE COMPLAINT and CHARGE SHEET.

64. On 06.06.2012 this COURT having applied and the MIND while framing CHARGES and LOOKING AT THE GROUNDLESS COMPLAINT has CANCELLED the CHARGE SHEET; on which date itself the Applicant stood DISCHARGED.

65. As Applicant’s MISSION is of ALL INDIANS i.e., TO BRING TO JUSTICE THE CORRUPT 867 JUDGES and LOKAYUKTAS and continued with this case including taking the case to High Court.

66. It shall be SERIOUS FRAUD on COURT if any CHRGE or CHARGES are FRAMED against ACCUSEED; as ALREADY COURT has admitted that THE APPLICANT HAS NO CONFIDENCE in THIS COURT and to that extent even Sr.APP has gone on RECORD.

67. Applicant from amongst catena of Apex Court Judgments inter alia claims for DISCHARGE under the GUIDELINES issued by Apex Court which as follows:-

“…………..If he withholds a vital document in order to gain advantage on the other side then he would be guilty of playing fraud on the court as well as on the opposite party .”

we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

1. Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima-facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

4. Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated Under Section 155(2) of the Code.

7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

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

68. [A] The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 [ACT 70 OF 1971]

Sub - Section (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-

Sub Section [d] Scandalizes or tends to scandalize, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court, Or (ii) Prejudices, orinterferes 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 mann.

[B] 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] C.M. Basavarya and all other Directors have filed Affidavits on more than dozen times admitti ng 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.

[D] 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.

[E] It is prudent for this Court take note of a Criminal Contempt Proceedings; wo "Judges constituting the Division Bench” viz., A.M. FAROOQ and S.R. BANNURMATHTH 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; of which details are in vast detail in Applicant’ websites, I.O. seized CDs and DVDs. 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.

[F] IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE Dated this the 18th day of August, 2004 ….

Present: THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE A.M. FAROOQ AND THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE S.R. BANNURMATHCRIMINAL CCC No. 7/2002 C/W 12/2002:-

Between Advanta India Limited Vs B.N. Shivanna, Advocate.

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 resu ltant 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 com plained 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 proceed ings 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 a ctual 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 of Judgment :-

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 judic ial 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 of Judgment :-

AMFJ & SRBMJ:

18.8.2004

ORDER REGARDING SENTENCE

Having considered the facts and circumstanc es 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. Suc h 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 . ………

The said judgment is available at http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgments/bitstream/123456789/317578/1/CRL CCC7-02-18-08-2004.pdf

[G] On challenge by Criminal Contemner Advocat e 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, 2011 upheld the High Court Judgment and its suo-moto power of initiating Contempt . The said Reported Judgment is available on net , of which GIST is box below:-

Supreme Court of India B.N. Shivanna vs Advanta India Ltd. & Anr. on 14 March, 2011 Contemner’s Appeal from Karnataka High Court Judgment

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.

2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are that the appellant was enrolled as an advocate on 14.8.1998 and since then he has been practicing in the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore. Prior to joining the Bar, he had been working for the respondent company as Marketing Executive. Being well known to the officials of the company, he was engaged as Retainer for the Company and thus, the appellant used to report to the company's officials about the progress of its cases pending in various courts in Karnataka. However, on receiving some orders purported to have been passed by the High Court of Karnataka, the officials of the company became suspicious and verified from the original record, and then submitted a complaint to the High Court that the appellant had furnished to the company copies of fabricated and forged orders purported to have been passed by the Karnataka High Court. On the basis of the same, criminal contempt proceedings were initiated suo motu by the High Court against the appellant by registering a case CCC(Crl.) No. 12 of 2002, whereas CCC(Crl.) No. 7 of 2002 was initiated at the instance of the respondent company. The High Court took cognizance under the provisions of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as `Act 1971') against the appellant. The court proceeded with the allegations that the appellant had taken advantage of his position telling the said company's officials falsely that criminal cases have been launched in various courts in Karnataka against various purchasers and distributors of seeds under the Seeds Act for the alleged producing and selling of the spurious/sub-standard seeds by the agriculturists. The appellant made the officials of the respondent company believe that a large number of criminal cases had been filed against the company and its officials in various courts in Karnataka.

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.

4. The appellant advised the company officials to file criminal petitions in the High Court of Karnataka for quashing of the said criminal proceedings alleged to be pending in the courts at Hubli, Mysore, Chitradurga, Bellary, Sandur, Raichur etc., and the appellant asked the company in writing to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards the court fee in each case for filing of criminal petitions before the High Court in addition to other miscellaneous expenses like his professional fee, typing etc. The company having full faith in the appellant remitted the said amount of court fee of Rs.10,000/- in each case for purchasing the court fees from the vendor, namely, Smt. S. Gauri, who was none other than the mother-in-law of the appellant. The company sent cheques in the names of Smt. S. Gauri as well as the appellant towards the court fees and his professional charges and other expenses. As the appellant had told the officials of the company that more than 500 criminal cases had been filed by various persons against the company and its officials, a sum of Rs.62 lakhs was paid by the company through cheques in the name of the appellant as well as Smt. S. Gauri, the alleged stamp vendor. The appellant also got a huge amount from the company under the pretext of payment of professional charges to other advocates purported to have been engaged by him to represent the company in various subordinate courts of the State. Thus, in all, according to the company, a sum of Rs. 72 lakhs had been paid to the appellant apart from his professional charges. In order to justify his bonafides and to show the result of his professional engagement and on enquiry by the company, the appellant is alleged to have produced a copy of the order dated 3.10.2001, purported to have been passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice G. Patri Basavanagowda of Karnataka High Court, showing that 341 criminal petitions filed by the company, had been allowed by the High Court and criminal proceedings launched against the company in those cases stood quashed.

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:

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."

In view of the above, it is submitted that none of the matter had been placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice on the administrative side and the matter has been placed directly before the Division Bench which heard the matters after having some preliminary inquiry by the Registry of the High Court from the Secretary of Hon'ble Mr. Justice G. Patri Basavanagowda. Thus, the proceedings stood vitiated for non- compliance of the statutory requirement. It is further submitted that the

respondent company has also launched a criminal prosecution against the appellant and the police after investigating the case, has filed the chargesheet against the appellant, and Smt. S. Gauri, his mother-in-law. However, the trial has not started in view of the pendency of these appeals before this Court. The appellant's conviction would adversely affect the case of the appellant in the said criminal case. In fact, some officials of the company have hatched a conspiracy to amass wealth and that is why they have enroped the appellant and his relatives in these cases. The appeals deserve to be allowed and the impugned judgment and order of the High Court is liable to be set aside.

8. On the other hand, S/Shri Naresh Kaushik and Gurudatta Ankolekar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, have opposed the appeal contending that the appellant being an advocate, had indulged in criminal activity and succeeded in having embezzled huge amount of more than Rs. 72 lacs, thus, he committed fraud upon the company of which the appellant had earlier been an employee and at the relevant time, a Retainer. His illegal activities amounted to interference in the administration of justice, thus, the High Court has rightly convicted the appellant and imposed the maximum sentence provided under the Act 1971. The facts and circumstances of the case do not require any interference by this Court, the appeals lack merit and are liable to be dismissed.

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.

11. In P.N. Duda v. P. Shiv Shanker & Ors., AIR 1988 SC 1208, this Court while considering the provisions of Section 15(1)(a) and (b) of the Act 1971 and the Contempt of Supreme Court Rules, 1975, held that if any information was lodged even in the form of a petition inviting the Court to take action under the Act 1971 or the provisions of the Constitution dealing with the contempt of court, where the informant is not one of the persons named in Section 15 of the Act 1971, it should not be styled as a petition and should not be placed for admission on the judicial side of the court. Such a petition is required to be placed before the Chief Justice for orders in Chambers and the Chief Justice may decide either by himself or in consultation with the other Judges of the Court, whether to take any cognizance of the information. Thus, in a case where the Attorney General/Advocate General refuses to give the consent to initiate contempt proceedings; the aforesaid course is mandatory.

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 11 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.

16. It is evident that the charges had been framed in accordance with law on 22.7.2002 and that the appellant has been given full 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: "....The sole object of the court wielding its power to punish for contempt is always for the course of administration of justice. Nothing is more incumbent upon the courts of justice than to preserve their proceedings from being misrepresented, nor is there anything more pernicious when the order of the court is forged and produced to gain undue advantage. Criminal contempt has been defined in Section 2(c) to mean interference with the administration of justice in any manner. A false or misleading or a wrong statement deliberately and wilfully made by a party to the proceedings to obtain a favourable order would undoubtedly tantamount to interference with the due course of judicial proceedings. When a person is found to have utilised an order of a court which he or she knows to be incorrect for conferring benefit on persons who are not entitled to the same, the very utilisation of the fabricated order by the person concerned would be sufficient to hold him/her guilty of contempt, irrespective of the fact whether he or she himself or herself is the author of fabrication....." (Emphasis added).

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.

23. In view of the above, the appeals lack merit and are accordingly dismissed. We request the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore to take the appellant into custody and send him to jail to serve the remaining part of the sentence forthwith. A copy of the order may be transmitted by the Registry of this Court to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore for taking appropriate further steps.

...... J. (P. SATHASIVAM)

...... J.

(Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN) New Delhi,

69. Applicant has not traversed all prosecution evidences, documents, CDs, DVDs, Transcripts vis-vis the prosecution witnesses , police arresting, producing etc., the High Court records, the records received by this Court as THE WHOLE CASE IS:-

[a] FRADULENT, CORRUPT, ANARCHIC, CONTEMPTUOS, VEXACIOUS, MEANING LESS, GROUNDLESS and do not disclose cognizable offence.

[b] The Complainant guilty of playing fraud on Court, Sr.APP, State, Police, Lokayukta, General Public as well as on the opposite party i.e., accused.

[c] The allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence,

[d] The uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused,

[e] The allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused,

[f] The criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide, the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge,

[g] Rather all EVIDENCES are in FAVOUR of enabling this COURT to proceed against Complainant; who is a MASK behind “Powerful LOBBY of 867 CORRUPT 867 JUDGES and LOKAYUKTAS”,

[h] Prosecution CAN NOT PROOVE BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF

CRIMES ALLEGED against Applicant in the present case instituted by COMPLAINT and F.I.R., Charge Sheet.

THEREFORE this humble Applicant prays this Hon’ble Court To DISCHARGE the APPLICANT in the above case in the ends of Justice, Equity, GOOD CONSCIENCE, RULE of LAW, Purity of Stream of Justice and Good Governance

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: 10-06-2014

ACCUSED/APPLICANT

[ Applicant In Person]