#Wakf case: High Court notice to State for denying nod to CID to - TopicsExpress



          

#Wakf case: High Court notice to State for denying nod to CID to prosecute accused The Karnataka High Court on Monday issued a notice to the State government challenging the latter’s order refusing sanction to prosecute accused persons in an allegedly fraudulent transaction related to the sale of prime Wakf property near Lalbagh at sub-par prices.The allegation was related to decision of the board to end dispute over 2 acres 3 gunta of land near Lal Bagh. Justice A.S. Bopanna passed the order on a petition filed by the Karnataka Muslim Sangarsh Samiti that questioned the State government’s order of September 25. In its order, the government had refused to allow the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) to file a chargesheet against 10 accused persons in an allegedly illicit transaction involving the sale of prime Wakf property to a private individual near Lalbagh at throwaway prices. Prominent among the accused are: M.A. Khalid, a retired KAS officer; Khalid Ahmed, the former Wakf board office-bearer; A.M. Hindasgeri, the former Minister; Syed Mudeer Agha, MLC and Syed Zamir Pasha, a retired IAS officer.The CID, which had probed the allegations based on the government’s direction, had in January written to the State government seeking sanction to file a chargesheet against the accused. Sanction sought In its letter to the government, the CID had indicated that allegations against the accused persons were ‘established’. It accordingly sought sanction for prosecuting them. While rejecting CID’s plea for sanction, the government had said that “prima facie, the charges against the accused are not proper and it was not a fit case to grant sanction.” Terming the Cabinet’s rejection of the sanction “improper” and one which violated Supreme Court guidelines , the petitioner contended that when the CID, which was authorised to probe the case by the government itself, had found material for prosecution, there was nothing left for the government or other sanctioning authorities to disagree with the probe findings.
Posted on: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 07:08:05 +0000

Trending Topics



Recently Viewed Topics




© 2015