The High Court · 2025

I-{eard Sri G- Ashok Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri l-' Sru.ian Kulnar, learned Standing Counsel for the Clll/respondent. I' fhe present criminar revision case is prefierred by the petitiorrers/accused Nos.l and 4 aggrieved by the order dated 30.0g.2024 Passed by the leamed xxl Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum- Spccial Judicial Magistrate First Class for trial of cBI ca.ses, Hyderabad, {'cul c'ourr'), in crl.M.p.No.403 of 20lg in c.c.No.2.l of 20lg (old ('rl'tv{.P.No.189 ,rf 2or4 in ord c.c.No.77 of 20r3), wherein petition fbr discharge of accused Nos-1 and 4 from the offences under Sections 120-B rcacl r'irh q09, 420, 471 read with 46g of the Indian penal code, rg60 ('II'(" ) was disntissed i ' I'he brief fircts of the case are that a criminal case was regist ered vide 'r7.04.2012 ', frlR No.RC-5 (,r:.)r20r2 on by the lnspector, cB[, Bank Sccurities & Fraud celr ('BS & FC'), Bangalore, against Kumar @ Sarr.iay Agarr.val (Arlpetitioner No.l), Ajay Ku-u.'6) Ajuy Kumar As.aru'al (A2), Vinay Kumar @ yinay Kumar Agarwar (A3) and M/s. Ghanshy'arttdas Getlts and Jewels (A4lpetitioner No.2) regarding availment !;anjay \\ RY,J cRl.RC 1268-2024 of Gold Metal Loan timits in the name of petitioner No.2 by providing security of gold and jewellery hypothecated to the Punjab National Bank (,defacto complainant') and other collateral securities' Thereafter, accused havd removed the primary security without the knowledge and consent of the de focf.o complainant and thereafter, committed default in repayment of the outstanding liabilities and thereby, committed criminal breach of trust and cheating resulting in wrongful loss of Rs.30,09,63,890.00 * contractual interest to the de facto complainant and consequent wrongtul gain to petitioner No.2.

4. Additionally, there is allegation of submission of copy of f-alse and tbrged sanction letter No.F.No.IDB/GB, dated 2l'lO'2010 allegedly issued by the State Bank of India addressed to petitioner No'2 bearing rubber stamp and impression of petitioner No.2 falsety reflecting'sanction of Gold Metal Loan timit of 600 kg to petitioner No.2 at an interest rate of 3]5oh against Fixed Deposits, to the de facto complainant' Further, letter dated

06.04.201 I is addressed to the Assistant General Manager of the de fctctl complainant falsely stating that petitioner No.2 is already availing Gold Metal Loan from the State Bank of India at3.750 and said sanction letter was submitted to the de facto complainant. The said letter falsely stated that petitioner No.2 firm had divefted the business from the State Bank of 2 RY.J clRt,RC 1268 2024 lndia to the de facto complainant and requested for competitive rate as compared to interest rate of the State Bank of India. Thus, based on the request o[ petitioner No.l, the New Delhi office of the de .facto comp.lainant relaxed the rate of interest by 2Yo from the applicable rate of interest ot'4o/o. Petitioner No.l has taken delivery of Gold on thirteen dif ferent dates during the period from 27 .06.201I to 10.08.201 I aggregating to 275 kgs against the sanctioned limit by duly acknowledging in the delivery register of the de facto complainant by creating Fixed Deposits in the name of petitioner No.2 and also in the name of Smt. Shanta Bai, who is the partner of petitioner No.2 firm. The gold deliveries made on 27.06.2()l I and 29.06.201 1 aggregating 50 kgs were duly repaid on 29.07.201 I, thereby leaving an outstanding of 225 kgs. Thereafter, at tlre recluest ol'petitioner No.l, the defacto complainant haJI placed indent rvith its Treasury Division, Head Office, New Delhi, for importing 100 kgs gold lbr petitioner No.l on 27.07.2011 and when consignment was received on 06.08.2011 fiom overseas supplier, petitioner No.l took delivery of Metal Gold tiom de facto complainant against the consignment' 'at of 100 kgs gold on 08.08.2011,09.08.2011, 10.08.2011 and 11.08.201I by duly acknorvled;-Iing in the delivery register and arranged deposit of tk.2.05 lakhs on 13.08.2011 in the name of petitioner No.2. Then, \ 3 RY..I CRLRC 1268 2024 petitioner No.l sold the entire gold deliveries taken from the de facto complainant on loan basis to one Tippu Soni by receiving cash without truly reflecting the transactions in the books of accounts of petitioner No-2 and without issuing sale invoices.

5. Petitioner No.l was regularly placing buy orders for gold as well as US Doltars for fixing gold rate for the loan availed by petitioner No'2' Ap order fbr USD 4.77 million was placed on 26.07 -2011 for rneeting the payment due on 29.07 .2Ol 1. Petitioner No. t has pursued with the 'freasury Division on 27.07.201I for booking forward contract for two montfts fbr l..tsD 4.77 million by stating that his then outstanding against Gold tv{etal Loan timits was USD 15 million. Out of outstanding, petitioner No. I made repayment of 4.76 miltion USD on29.07.2011 and placed gold rate order tbr 200 kgs gold outstanding with Treasury Division of the cle f'ucttt complainant, on 09.08.2011 and further placed for 100 kgs gold on a

10.08.201l, thus ptacing gold rate order for 300 kgs gold. During Ar'rgrrst. 201 l, the security furnished to the defacto.o*pluitfunt against the Gold Metal Loan limits of Rs.19.00 crores and Rs.50.00 crores were falling short of the required margin. Petitioner No.l vide letter dated 22.08-2011 assured that adequate margin wilt be provided in short period. Petitioner No.l requested to cooperate and accept original documents of property 4 / l ITY,J cr{LRC 1268 2024 admeasuring Ac.l-04 guntas situated at Palmakole Village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, standing in the name of Parmila Bai, who is partner of petitioner No.2, as temporary additional collateral. There was criminal conspiracy among the accused to remove the entire stock of gold and jewellery, rvhich was hypothecated to the de facto complainant from the business prenrises of petitioner No.2 without its permission and consent. thus, czulsed wrclngful loss to the de facto complainant. T'he stock statement was not lurnished and when the de facto compltrinant conducted a stock audit, it revealed that there was stock of pearl relating to iterns worth Rs. I ,22,500/- approximately as against 300 kgs of'gold against both lirnits. Having assurcd to provide rnargin by providing original documents of landed property, petitioner No.l disputed liability with respect to 100 kgs gold and did not nrake payments to de facto complainant and thereby caused wrongful loss of Rs.31,97,60,175.00/-.as on 10.06.2012 to the de ./bcto complainant. J-herefbre, a case was registered against the petitioners herein and accused Nos.2 and 3 for availing Gold Metal Loan at reduced .; interest fiaudulently and dishonestly on the basis of forged sanction letter prrrportedl,r, issued by the State Bank of India.

6. [Jpon conducting investigation and collecting required oral and doculrentary evidence char-ee sheet rvas filed against the petitioners herein I ) 5 ITY.J CRLRC 1268 2024 and accused Nos.2 and 3. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners herein moved petition under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. seeking discharge from the criminal charges vide crl.M.P.No.403 of 2018 in C.c.No.23 of 2018 and the said petition was dismissed by way of the impugned order with the tbl lowing observation: .-46. ...on a careful consideration of contents of final report. statements of witnesses and documents filed along r'vith it and in view ol' ltrrcgoing reasons, this court holds that prima facie case is made out againsithc petitioners/Al and 44 for offences under Sections 420. +68 and 471 of IPC and no prima facie case is made out f<rr the ollence under Section 120-B rlw 409 0f IPC and that the petitioners/AI and r\4 are not entitled fbr discharge. Accordingly. thc point is answered against the petitioners.?' 7 Aggrieved by the impugned order, the present revision is prefered.

8. In the grounds of revision, it is pleaded that contents of the charge sheet and material produced do not make out case against the petitioners for tlre ot-fences under Sections 120-8, 409,420,471 read with 468 ol'thc IpC. The findings of the trial Court were referred comparing the said -! findings with the contents of the annexures. This Court is not inclined to give a11y f,rndings about the contentions raised by the petitioners under the caption 'alternative security available with the bank', 'no deception since the inception of the contract' and 'concession in the rate of interest not due to the borrower i.e., the accused' and that the nature of'the liabilityl is civil / 6 RY,J (:RLRC_I268 2024 ln nature and that there can be no criminal Iiability. Further, the petitioners referred to princ:ipres of discharge to be folrowed whire dearing with discharge petition under secrion 239 of cr.p.c. by a Magistrate. 9' 'During the arguments, leamed counsel for the petitioners referred to the contents of copy of Reserve Bank of India circular regarding Gord Merar l-oan dared 05.09.2005 addressed ro a, schedured commerciar Banks, circular rr:*er No.r/2006 dared rg.07.2006, circura r No.2gr2007 dated 26'04-2007, Circurar No.39l20rr dated 2r.05.20r,Ierter dated 21.05.2010 issued regarding precious metar business, proposar of overdraft Iimit favour petitioner No.2 dated 05. I0.20 r0, sanction of overdraft limit to petitioner No.2 dated r2.10.20 r0, which contains hypothecation of imrnovable property aflter considering the strength and rveakness of the borrower' Further" refbrence is rnade to sanction uutho.itf letter dated 03'l I .2010, retrer dared 03.r r.20r0 issued by the de facttt comprainant about receipt of pr.posar for ov,erdraft rirnit of Rs.rg crores, letter dated 04'03'20rr informing about the M/s. MBS Jewelrers. put.'Ltd and MBS [rnpex pvt' t,td errjoying concession interest rate at 2%. retter dated 0g'04'20r r and lerter dated 06-04.20r l of petitioner No.2 sh.wing interest .ate of 3.75% provided by the State Bank of India. Refererce is fumher to intemal co'respondence dated r5.04.201 l between trre officers of a:'uo" 7 RY..I CRLRC_I268-2024 the de facto complainant and petitioner No.2 pertaining to return of Fixed Deposit and statement of account ledger inquiry showing no liability as on

04.08.2011

10. By referring to contents of the aforementioned documents, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the accused availed Gold Metal Loan facility, overdraft and hypothecation from de facto complainant and have purchased about 300 kgs of gold and thereafter, part of the loan obtained for the gold was repaid. The said part payment by the accused shows that there was no intention to cheat the de facto complainant' For constitution of offence under Section 420 0fthe [Pc, there must be intention t'o cheat at the incePtion of the transaction'

11. tn that regard ret'erence is made to the judgment of the l-lon'ble suprerne court in the case between Mohammad rut"r'inl n' State of Bihar l wherein it is held that there is growing tendency of the complainants attempting to give the cloak of a criminal offence to the matters which are essentially and purely civil in nututJ' The constitution of offence under Section 420 ofthe IPC there must be three ingredients which are to be proved i.e., (i) deception of a person either by making a false or misleading representation or by dishonest concealment or by any other act r lzoo;l)8 scc 7s1 / 8 RY.J CRLRC 1268 2024 or omission; (ii) liaudulent or dishonest inducement of that person to either deliver any property or to consent to the retention thereof by any person or to intentionally induce that person so deceived to do or ornit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived; and (iii) such act or ornission causing or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property.

12. Further, reference is made to the judgment o[ Ilon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar2, wherein it is helcl that unless fraudulent or dishonest interest is shown right at the beginning of the transaction that is the time when the of'fence is said to have been committed

13. Reliance is also placed on the judgrnent in Manish v. State of Maharashtras, wherein it is held that the test to determine whether a case 0 would attract pehal consequences is whether the off,en<Jing party made dishonest representation at the inception of- the transaction and induce the other party to part with property, or act in a trranner which but for such representation, the latter would not have done '(zooo) 4 scc 168 \'zozs scc online sci'ol 9 RY..I CRLRC 1268 2074

14. Learned counsel for the petitioners also relied on the judgment in between uma Shankar Gopalika v. state of Bihara, wherein it is held that if the intention to cheat developed later on, the same cannot amount to cheating.

15. On the basis of the aforementioned citations, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that mere factum of availment of Gold Metal Loan lirnit does not give raise to any ground to allege that there was intention to cheat at the very beginning/inception of the loan and the said fact is confirmed bv the conduct of the petitioners in part payment of the loan availed. ln case there is any default in payment of loans, the same becomes a civil dispute and it does not give raise to any criminal liability as held by the l{on'ble Supreme Court in Mohammed lbrahim (cited supra), wherein it is held that conversion of civit cases into crirninal.disputes mdst be discouraged 0 and civil cases must not be covered under threat of criminality'

16. With respect to furnishing of letter purportedly issued by the State Bank of India showing that Gold Metal Loan il already availed by petitioner No.2 with interest at 3.75Yo being forged document, it is argued \ thatlthe said document in original was never produced before the CBI Court. [t is vehemently argued that a photocopy of the said letter w'as o lzoos) 10 scc 336 10 .---,, .,7 - allegedly produced by CBI for leveling charges under Sections 471 read RY,J CRI_RC 1268 2024 r'vith 468 of the IPC without producing the original. It is lurther argued that a photocopy of a document cannot be received in evidence and therefore, the qfflences alleged under Sections 471 read with 468 o['the IpC are not sustainable. In that regard reference is made to the judgment of the I-lon'ble Supreme court in Mohammad Ibrahim (cited supra), wherein there is categoriz,ation of false documents, the relevant pgrtion is extracted and produced below:

14. An analysis of Section 464 of the Penal Coclc shorvs that it clivides lalse documents into three categories: l. 'fhe tirsr. is where a person dishonestly or liaudulentl' makes or executes a document with the intention of causing it to b.: believed that such document was made or executed by some other person. or by the aut.horify of some other person. by whom or ry whose authority he knows it was not made or executed.

2. fhe second is where a person dishonestll, or fiaucl,ltntll,, by cancellation or otherwise. alters a document in an,r, mat"-rial'part, rvithout lawful authority, after it has been made or e\ccuted bv cither himself or any other person.

3.'fhe third is where a person dishonestly or liauclulenrlv causes any person to sign, execute or alter a document knorvinq that such person co,ld not by reason of (a) unsoundness of mirrtl: or (b) intoxication; or (c) deception practised upon him. [rnow the contents of'the document or the nature of the alteration. In short, a person is said to have made a..false documcrrt--. if (i) he rnade or executed a document claiming to be some()ne else or authorised by someone else; or (ii) he altered or tampercd :t document: or (iii) he obtained a document by practising declption. or frorn a pers()n not in control of his senses." \ L1. RY,J CRLRC 1268 ?024

17. Referring to the above mentioned categorization, it is argued that the alleged document issued by the State Bank of tndia was never produced by' the petitioners herein and they have no knowledge about the existence of ,u"h u document. In any case, the said document was not issued on behalf of the petitioners. In case the said document is referred to as being issued by the State Bank of India, the same cannot be attributed to the petitioners' lg. Further, reference is made to the judgment of Supreme Courl ol' lndia in Parminder Kaur v. State of uttar Pradeshs, wherein it is held that when forgery does not cause injury or damage there cannot be said to be any intention to commit fraud'

19. Referring to the aforementioned judgments, it is argued that the cle facto complainant has already given concession of ZYorinterest to other customers such as Ws. MBS Jewellers. Pvt.'Ltd and MBS Impex Pvt' Ltd'' where requisition is made tbr concession of interest rate and the same is placed before the Board of Directors and by fotlowing due procedure such concession is given. In the instant case. a proposal was made by the bank ofhciats themselves as they were interested in attracting customers who were availing Gold Metal Loans from other banks and for the purpose of attracting such customers concessions are provided and when suclt '(zoro) :6cctzz '1.2 -7'. I RY,J CR.[,RC 1268 2024 concessions are provided to other customers, no offence can be attributed to the petitioners fbr seeking the same concession'

20. In response, learned Standing Counsel for CBI relied upon the .iudgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Narayan Popli v. CBI6.rvherein there is description about offence of criminal breach of,trust, the relevant paragraph is extracted and produced below: "i61. -[o constitute an offence of criminal breach of trust. there must bc an entruslment. there must be misappropriation or cc)tlversiotr t<l otlc's oln use. or use in violation of a legal direction or ol'an1'' legal contract; and the misappropriation or conversion or disposal must be ,,r ith a distronest intention. When a person allon's othcrs to rlisappropriate the money entrusted to him, that atnottnts lo a crirninal brcach o['trust as defined by Section 405. The section is relatablc to property in a positive part and a negative part. The positi','c part dcals ir ith crinrinal misappropriation or conversion of the property and the ncgative part consists of dishonestly using or disposing ol'thc propcrt,v in i,iolation of any direction and of law or any contract touching the discharge o1'trust." t I L In the same judgment, there is reference to offences under Sections 4?0,467,468, t[79 of the IPC, the relevant paragraphs itre extracted and prodr,rced below: -166. Section 420 deals with cheating and dishonestlf inducing delivery of property. The offence of cheating is trtade of trvcl ilrgredients : deception of any person and fraudulentll' tlr dishoncstll' inducing that person to deliver any property to an)' person or to' consent that any person shall retain any property. To put it dill'crentl-v. ) 3 scc 641 13 I\ '(2 RY.J CRLRC 1268 2024 the ingredients of the offence are that the person deceived delivers to someone a valuable security or property, that the person so deceived was induced to do so, that such person acted on such inducement in consequence of his having been deceived b1' the accused and that thc accused acted fraudulently or dishonestl1' rvhen so inducing the person. To constitute the offence of cheating, it is not necessary that the deception should be by express u'ords, but it rnay be by conduct or implied in the nature of the transaction itself-.

367. Section 467 relates to forgery of such documents as valuable securities and of other documents mentioned.

368. Section 468 deals with forgery for the purpose o[ cheating. The offence is complete as soon as there rvas forgerl, with a particular intent.

369. Section 471deals with using as genuine a fbrged docutnent. For the purpose of convicting an accused under Scction 467 read with Section 471IPC, it has to be shown that an accused either knerv or has reason to believe that the document was fbrged.

370. Section 463 defines forgery and Scction 464 deals r,vith making a flalse statement. Section 463 reads as flollorvs: "463. Forgery.-Whoever makes anl' false documents or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury. to the public or to an,v person" or to support any claim or title, or to cause an)' person to part with property, or to enter into any express or inrplied contract' or with intent to commit fraud or that fiaud may' be conlmitted, commits forgery."'.'

22. Further, reliance is placed in the case of State of'Tamil Nadu v. R. Soundirarasu', with respect to ambit and scope of exercise of power under Sections 239 and240 of Cr.P.C., wherein it is held that the accused can be discharged under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. when the Magistrate considers the '(zoz:) 6sF768 14 RY,J cP.LRC_1268_2024 charges against the accused are groundless. The Section mandates that the Magistrate shall discharge the accused recording reasons, after: (i) considering the police report and the documents sent with it under Section 173 ol'Cr.P.C., (ii) examining the accused, if necessary ancl (iii) giving the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of hearing and still considers the charge sheet is groundless.

23. On the aspect of the cheating and criminal breach of trust' having regard to the rir,,al contentions, the material on the record shows that availing of loan is admitted by the parties and part paymerlt of loan is also acknorvledged. l-he issue of cheating is not attributed to the act of availing of loan with an intention of complete non-payment' The act of cheating and crirninal breach of trust are attributed to the acts of the petitioners in handin-u over the entire gold in favour of one Tipptl Soni 'ut'ithout knor.vledge and consent of the de facto complainant' In the stock audit conclucted by thc de fqcto complainant, it is shown that the: gold which was purchased by avaiting Gold Metal Loan facility as debt was not available in the prernises of petitioner No.2, as it was handed over to one Tippu Soni' Whether the petitioners intended to avail loan facility Ibr the purpose of handipg over the gotd to third parties at the very inceprtion of the loan transacrion is a1 issue which can be decided only after Full-fledged trial. \ \ 15 RY..I CIRLRC l2(r8- 2024 Further, whether the consent of the de facto complainant is required for giving the gold stocks to Tippu Soni by the petitioners is a matter which has to be decided only after recording of evidence' When there is prima .facie case of cheating and criminal breach of trust, the question oi discharging the petitioners does not arise'

24.withrespecttotheallegationofforgery,thechargesheetshow,s providing letter dated 21.10.2010 purported to be issued by State llank of India providing loan facility with interest at3.75oh to petitioner No'2' on the basis of the said letter, the petitioners made a proposal to the cle -fcrcttt complainant for providing competitive interest rate for transferring entire debt from the State Bank of India to de facto cornplainant's bank' -fhc primary defence raised by the petitioners with respect to forgery is that the said letter was not issued by them or on their behalf-' The Ctlt never made allegation an allegation that the petitioners is that the petitioners produced forged and false document trnder the guise of letter purported to be issued by the State Bank of India showing interest at 3.75o/o for the purpose of seeking concession of'27o from the de 'factrt complainant and obtained concession of 2o/o interest rate' 'fo sum up' Ctll alleges that concession of 2o/o interest rate is secured by the petitioners on the basis of forged and false document purported to be issued by the Statc have issued the said letter' -the p // '/ 16 RY,J (TRLRC 1268 2024 Bank of India, though, such is not the case. The petitioners claim that the said original lettcr is not produced before the CBI Court and the said letter is not issued by the petitioners. Acknowledging the c,rntention of the petitioners fbr a moment, such a letter seeking benefit to the petitioners cannot be produ<;ed by the third parties. In the documents filed along with charge sheet intcrnal corespondences among bank officials has refbrence ol'the letter purpofted to be issued by the State Bank of Inclia. Such a letter can be produced onlv b,v the petitioners, who are benefited by producing it before Lhe de./bclo complainant. Said letter can neither be produced by the State Uank of Inriia as said bank cannot get any gain tionr rhe same ancl nor b1'the third parties, who do not gain anything by fabricating such letter. -the only persons, who stand to gain from such letter are the petitioners. Even st), to prove the prima facie case, the burden still [i,e;; on the CBI to prove that the letter was produced by the petitioners belbre the de facto colnplainant lirr seeking concession in interest rate and said letter was never issued by State Bank of lndia. Since there is primq facie case as per circutnstances prcvailing, at this stage prematurely, the petitioners cannot be discharged lbr the oflbnces under Sections 468 and 471 of the IpC.

25. Lastly, there is argument about the power of the Magistrate to \ \scharge the accttsed. [n that respect, learned counsel ftrr the petitioners

1.7 RY,.I cRt.RC 1268 2024 relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CBI v. K. Narayan Rao8, wherein it is held that if there is no primo ./Ltcie evidence or the evidence is totally unworthy of credit, it is the duty of'the Magistrate to discharge the accused.

26. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for CBI relied upon the judgrnent of Hon'ble Supreme Court in R. Soundirarasu (cited supra) and contended that when the facts and circumstances of the instanL case alc considered in the backdrop of the scope and ambit of Sectitln J-19 ot' Cr.P.C., the petitioners can be discharged when a complete reading ol' material placed before the Magistrate gives rise to conclusion that tire ot'fences alleged are baseless.

27. In the instant case, the primary allegations are cheating. criiiiinzrl breach of, trust and forgery. The factu.m of whether tlte propert.i hypothecated to the defaclo complainant while purchasing 300 kgs of'gold irrespective of part payment when transferred to one Soni without tlre knowledge and consent of the defacto complainant amounts to cheatinq and criminal breach of trust are triable issues and there is prima .facic case until proven otherwise. * izorzl 9 scc 512 f 18 RY.J cr.tL.RC t268 2024

28. The next issue of forged letter purported to be issued by the State Bapk of India for seeking a reduced interest rate is also a triable issue subject to CBI producing relevant evidence before the CBI Court' When there is prima facie case there is no ground to arrive at conclusion that the rnaterial placed on record does not give any scope whatsoever for trial of of'fences alleged. The learned CBI Court has made an extensive study of the f'acts and circumstances of the case, coupled with the documents produced along with the charge sheet and arrived at right conclusion that discharge at this stage is not warranted. This Court finds no reason to interfere rvith the said findings and therefore, the present revision is liable to lre dismissed Zg. tn the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the irnpugned order clated 30.08.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.403 of 2018 in C.C.No'23 of 2018 on the i'ite of the CBI Court. There shall be no ofd.tas to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed. SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL PUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To,

1. The XXI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad. 2. The Station House Officer, CBl, BS & FC' Bangalore. 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] /b.

4. One CC to SRI G.ASHOK REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to SRI T.SRUJAN KUMAR REDDY, SC FOR CBI Advocate IOPUC] 6. Two CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED;24t1012025 ORDER CRLRC.No.1268 ot 2024 I I 1r'lE S14 >ti 4,+ o t) ?l(.;, B 2 niu z{lm * t) i.,in.1:-1;uif I ,, ,i DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE q I