Revealing more details on the ‘threat’ faced by him through another judge for questioning the functioning of the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) and its head in a bribery case against an IAS officer, Justice H.P. Sandesh of the High Court of Karnataka on Monday said he had received the ‘threat’ during the dinner organised on the court premises on July 1 on the eve of retirement of the then Chief Justice.
“A sitting judge, who came and sat by the side of me, started with words, ‘he received a call from Delhi (not disclosed the name from whom the call was received). And said that the person, who called from Delhi, had enquired about me,” Justice Sandesh disclosed in his order dictated in the open court.
“I immediately replied that am not affiliated to any political party,” Justice Sandesh said.
“That judge did not stop there. He said that the ADGP (Seemant Kumar Singh) is from north India and he is powerful. That judge also gave an instance of transfer of a judge of the High Court earlier…”, said Justice Sandesh.
These details were recorded as part of the order during the hearing of a bail petition filed by Mahesh P.S., a deputy tahsildar, who was arrested for accepting ₹5 lakh as bribe allegedly on behalf of IAS officer J. Manjunath, who was the then Deputy Commissioner of Bengaluru Urban district.
‘Intimated concerned’
Earlier, Justice Sandesh orally said that he had already “intimated the concerned” about the “threat” and another judge. He made these observations when a senior advocate sought adjournment of the case while pointing out that Mr. Seemant Kumar Singh, who is the ACB’s head, has filed an appeal before the Supreme Court on the remarks made against him by the High Court in the bail matter.
“I have disclosed the name of the judge to those whom I have to intimate. But for the threat, I would not have summoned the service records and records of the ACB… as there was an attack on the independence of the judiciary and interference in judicial proceedings…,” Justice Sandesh told Mr. Singh’s advocate, who claimed that Mr. Singh has “not given any threat”.
When the advocate sought permission to intervene in the proceeding, Justice Sandesh said that he cannot in the absence of an application in writing.
Justice Sandesh reiterated that he had questioned the functioning of the ACB and ADGP (ACB) in public interest on noticing that Mr. Manjunath was not even arraigned as an accused despite having sufficient materials against him.
