Former Karnataka Chief Minister B S Yediyurappa on Saturday argued before the High Court that the one-year deadline under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act to complete a trial has not yet commenced in the case registered against him.
Section 35 of the POCSO law mandates that trials be concluded within a year of taking cognisance. However, Yediyurappa's counsel maintained that the period would begin only after charges are framed and that, in this instance, cognisance itself has been stayed.
The case stems from a complaint filed in March 2024 by a woman who alleged that Yediyurappa had inappropriately touched her minor daughter during a meeting at his residence. The FIR was registered by Bengaluru police on March 14, 2024.
Appearing for Yediyurappa, senior advocate C V Nagesh submitted that the complainant had a record of filing multiple complaints against senior officials, police officers, and even her own family members.
He urged the court to view the present allegations with caution, describing her conduct as habitual.
Nagesh further questioned the delay in filing the complaint, pointing out that the complainant had met the Commissioner of Police on the very day of the alleged incident.
Special Public Prosecutor Ravivarma Kumar, opposing these submissions, countered that all such arguments had already been considered in earlier proceedings. He referred to the order of Justice M Nagaprasanna in February, which had directed a fresh cognisance to be taken, while affirming the validity of earlier steps in the process.
The petition is currently being heard by Justice M I Arun.
After Saturday's hearing, the matter was adjourned to September 2 for further arguments.
Section 35 of the POCSO law mandates that trials be concluded within a year of taking cognisance. However, Yediyurappa's counsel maintained that the period would begin only after charges are framed and that, in this instance, cognisance itself has been stayed.
The case stems from a complaint filed in March 2024 by a woman who alleged that Yediyurappa had inappropriately touched her minor daughter during a meeting at his residence. The FIR was registered by Bengaluru police on March 14, 2024.
Appearing for Yediyurappa, senior advocate C V Nagesh submitted that the complainant had a record of filing multiple complaints against senior officials, police officers, and even her own family members.
He urged the court to view the present allegations with caution, describing her conduct as habitual.
Nagesh further questioned the delay in filing the complaint, pointing out that the complainant had met the Commissioner of Police on the very day of the alleged incident.
Special Public Prosecutor Ravivarma Kumar, opposing these submissions, countered that all such arguments had already been considered in earlier proceedings. He referred to the order of Justice M Nagaprasanna in February, which had directed a fresh cognisance to be taken, while affirming the validity of earlier steps in the process.
The petition is currently being heard by Justice M I Arun.
After Saturday's hearing, the matter was adjourned to September 2 for further arguments.
You may also like
Arsenal dealt huge double injury blow as Bukayo Saka forced off in Leeds match
Rajasthan HC bans use of 86,000 dilapidated classrooms in govt schools
Greater Noida: Woman killed for dowry, husband arrested
Premier League: Quattara's goal on debut seals 1-0 victory for Brentford
EastEnders' Cheryl Fergison, 59, suffers devastating stroke after losing life savings
