Gauri Lankesh murder case: SC restores KCOCA charges against accused, sets aside HC order
New Delhi, Oct 21: The Supreme Court Thursday restored the charges under the Karnataka Control of Organised Crimes Act (KCOCA) against one of the accused in the journalist Gauri Lankesh murder case by setting aside the high court order which had quashed the charge sheet for alleged offences under the stringent law.
A three-judge bench headed by Justice A M Khanwilkar allowed the two separate appeals filed by the state and Kavitha Lankesh, the sister of Gauri Lankesh, who have challenged the April 22 order of the Karnataka High Court. The apex court said the conclusion reached by the high court in partly allowing the plea filed before it by accused Mohan Nayak N was "manifestly wrong" and "cannot be countenanced".
The bench, also comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and C T Ravikumar, noted that the high court had quashed the August 14, 2018 order issued by the Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru City, according to prior approval to invoke offences under section 3 of the KCOCA against the accused. "Further, the high court has clearly exceeded its jurisdiction in quashing the charge sheet filed against the writ petitioner-Mohan Nayak N for offences punishable under section 3(2), 3(3) and 3(4) of the 2000 Act at this stage (of prior approval under section 24(1)(a))," the bench said in its 29-page judgement.
Lankesh was shot dead on the night of September 5, 2017, from close range near her house in Rajarajeshwari Nagar in Bengaluru. In its verdict, the top court noted that as regards offences punishable under section 3(2), 3(3), 3(4), or 3(5) of the Act, it can proceed against any person "sans such previous offence registered against him, if there is material to indicate that he happens to be a member of the organized crime syndicate who had committed the offences in question and it can be established that there is material about his nexus with the accused who is a member of the organized crime syndicate."
It said the high court has "completely glossed" over the crucial fact that the writ petition was filed before it by the accused only after the sanction was accorded by the competent authority and more so, cognizance was also taken by the competent court of the alleged offence of organized crime, to which there was no challenge. "Taking any view of the matter, therefore, these appeals deserve to be allowed and the impugned judgement and order of the high court needs to be set aside," the bench said.
It said the rejection of the plea filed by the accused would not come in his way in pursuing other remedies as may be available to him and permissible in law. The bench said its judgement is limited to the consideration of the question of whether the prior approval of August 14, 2018, granted by the Commissioner of Police was valid or not and it has held that the same "does not suffer from any infirmity".
It said the high court had opined that in the absence of at least two charge sheets filed against the accused in respect of specified offences and of which cognisance had been taken by the competent court as required to attract the offence of organized crime, he was not engaged in continuing unlawful activity. "Notably, the high court was not called upon nor has it analysed the entire material collected by the investigating agency, which had been made part of the charge sheet filed before the competent court and in respect of which cognizance is also taken," the bench said.
It
said
the
moot
question
to
be
answered
in
these
appeals
is
about
the
purport
of
section
24
of
the
Act
which
deals
with
cognisance
of
and
investigation
into
an
offence.
The
apex
court
said
what
is
crucial
in
this
provision
is
the
factum
of
recording
of
offence
of
organised
crime
and
not
of
recording
of
a
crime
against
an
offender
as
such.
It
said
the
approval
was
not
for
registering
crime
against
individual
offenders
as
such,
but
for
the
recording
of
information
regarding
the
commission
of
the
offence
of
organised
crime
and
therefore,
the
specific
role
of
the
concerned
accused
is
not
required
to
be
and
is
not
so
mentioned
in
the
stated
prior
approval.
"That
aspect
would
be
unravelled
during
the
investigation,
after
registration
of
offence
of
organized
crime.
The
high
court,
thus,
examined
the
matter
by
applying
an
erroneous
scale.
The
observations
made
by
the
high
court
in
the
impugned
judgement
clearly
reveal
that
it
has
glossed
over
the
core
and
tangible
facts,"
it
said.
The
bench
said
at
the
stage
of
granting
prior
approval
under
section
24(1)(a)
of
the
Act,
the
competent
authority
is
not
required
to
wade
through
the
material
placed
by
investigating
agency
before
him
along
with
the
proposal
for
grant
of
prior
approval
to
ascertain
the
specific
role
of
each
accused.
"As long as the incidents referred to in earlier crimes are committed by a group of persons and one common individual was involved in all the incidents, the offence under the 2000 Act can be invoked," it said. It said if the role of the offender is merely that of a facilitator or an abettor as referred to in section 3(2), 3(3), 3(4), or 3(5) of the Act, the requirement of named person being involved in more than two charge sheets registered against him in the past is not relevant.
The top court said he can be proceeded under the Act if the material collected by the investigating agency reveals that he had nexus with the accused who is a member of the organised crime syndicate or such nexus is related to the offence like the organized crime.PTI