<p>The High Court on Friday allowed Shivamurthy Murugha Sharana of the Murugha Mutt, Chitradurga, to sign salary cheques for the month of October.</p>.<p>The seer, who is at present in judicial custody in a Pocso case, has sought permission to sign cheques and other documents of Sri Jagadguru Murugharajendra Bruhanmutt, Chitradurga, and Sri Jagadguru Murugharajendra Vidyapeetha to disburse salaries of around 3,500 employees/staff.</p>.<p>Justice M Nagaprasanna has said that the seer can put his signatures only on cheques relating to disbursement of salary, in the presence of Investigating Officer and Jail Superintendent. The court has also said that only the authorised representatives of the mutt and the institution/s should be given entry into the prison for this purpose while the trial court will decide on the other issues.</p>.<p>The seer has moved the High Court after the special court in Chitradurga dismissed the application. The petition stated that there is no provision in the by-law of the society (trust) to give powers to others or to appoint a power of attorney to sign on the cheques and documents.</p>.<p>The seer had claimed that Section 40 of Karnataka Prisons Act provides for prisoners or undertrial prisoners to see their duly qualified legal advisors without the presence of any other person for the purposes of preferring an appeal or petition against their conviction or as the case may be. The petitioner had said that in this background it is not incumbent to deny/curtail the prisoner to see their duly qualified representative for affixing signature on cheques and such other documents.</p>
<p>The High Court on Friday allowed Shivamurthy Murugha Sharana of the Murugha Mutt, Chitradurga, to sign salary cheques for the month of October.</p>.<p>The seer, who is at present in judicial custody in a Pocso case, has sought permission to sign cheques and other documents of Sri Jagadguru Murugharajendra Bruhanmutt, Chitradurga, and Sri Jagadguru Murugharajendra Vidyapeetha to disburse salaries of around 3,500 employees/staff.</p>.<p>Justice M Nagaprasanna has said that the seer can put his signatures only on cheques relating to disbursement of salary, in the presence of Investigating Officer and Jail Superintendent. The court has also said that only the authorised representatives of the mutt and the institution/s should be given entry into the prison for this purpose while the trial court will decide on the other issues.</p>.<p>The seer has moved the High Court after the special court in Chitradurga dismissed the application. The petition stated that there is no provision in the by-law of the society (trust) to give powers to others or to appoint a power of attorney to sign on the cheques and documents.</p>.<p>The seer had claimed that Section 40 of Karnataka Prisons Act provides for prisoners or undertrial prisoners to see their duly qualified legal advisors without the presence of any other person for the purposes of preferring an appeal or petition against their conviction or as the case may be. The petitioner had said that in this background it is not incumbent to deny/curtail the prisoner to see their duly qualified representative for affixing signature on cheques and such other documents.</p>