ACB’s ‘mode and method’ in Yeddyurappa case raises suspicion, says HC

The “mode and method” adopted by the State’s Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) on receipt of complaint of corruption against former Chief Minister B.S. Yeddyurappa came under the scrutiny of the High Court of Karnataka on Friday. In its order staying the ACB probe, the court raised “suspicions” about the manner of registration of FIRs against the BJP leader. After analysing the complaint, the reports of preliminary enquiry (PE) conducted by the ACB prior to registration of FIRs, statement of objections filed by the ACB opposing Mr. Yeddyurappa’s petitions challenging the legality of the FIRs, and the ACB case diary and station house diary, Justice Aravind Kumar pointed out the four stages that raised these suspicions. On the ACB’s claim that the contents of the complaint itself constituted commission of cognizable offences, the court asked why the bureau did not register an FIR soon after receipt of complaint on June 6 or 7, 2017, as is mandatory if the investigating agency or officer notices commission of cognizable offence. If this claim of the ACB is to be accepted, then there was no need to conduct a PE, which is essential only if the complaint does not disclose any cognizable offence, Justice Kumar said, describing this as the “first suspicion”. He then moved on to the fact that even though the complaint pointed out 21 files related to Mr. Yeddyurappa’s order for deletion of 257 acres of land, the ACB ignored the first 10 files and focussed on the 11th file that related to a particular landowner. This raised the “second suspicion” as the ACB’s record does not indicate the reason for this “pick-and-choose” method, the court observed.