CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION v. THOMAS PANJIKARAN PAPPU

(BY SRI PRASANNA KUMAR P., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI P.P.THOMAS @ THOMAS PANJIKARAN PAPPU AGED MAJOR, S/O PAPPU L., R/O NO.27, SY.NO. 52, PEAL GARDEN ISRO LAYOUT, MUNNEKOLALA BENGALURU- 560 037. (BY SRI GANESH KUMAR R., ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER …RESPONDENT THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 03.03.2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED XXXII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE FOR CBI CASES, BENGALURU (CCH82) IN SPL.CC. NO. 615/2018 THEREBY PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 1 ACCUSED U/S 239 R/W SECTION 227 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 AND DISCHARGING THE RESPONDENT / ACCUSED AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE REVISION PETITION. S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:45521 CRL.RP No. 771 of 2022 THIS CRL.RP, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri P. Prasanna Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Ganesh Kumar R., learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

CBI is the revision petitioner challenging the order passed by the learned Special Judge in Special C.C. No.615/2018 whereby allowed the application filed by the accused - respondent under Section 239 r/w Section 227 of Cr.P.C.

Facts in brief which is utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under:

3.1. A charge sheet came to be filed under Section 120(B) r/w Section 420, 468 and 471 of IPC Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and also under Section 12(1A) and 12(2) of the Passport Act, 1967. - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:45521 CRL.RP No. 771 of 2022

3.2. The accused appeared before the Court and engaged the services of the Advocate and filed an application for discharge. CBI opposed the application for discharge. Learned Special Judge consideration the merits of the application and noted that there was no sanction obtained by the prosecuting Agency to proceed against the accused especially for the offences punishable under Section 12(1A) and 12(2) of the Passport Act, 1967 and allowed the application.

3.3. Being aggrieved by the same, the CBI is before this Court in this revision.

Sri P.Prasanna Kumar, learned counsel representing for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition, contended that the order of the Special Judge is incorrect and sought for admitting the matter for further consideration.

Per contra, Sri Ganesh Kumar R., learned counsel appearing for the respondent opposes the - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:45521 CRL.RP No. 771 of 2022 grounds urged in the revision petition and supports the impugned order.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court perused the material on record meticulously including the impugned order.

Admittedly, the impugned order is one of discharge of accused. It is settled principles of law that the order of discharge would not tantamount to order of acquittal. An order of discharge suspends the prosecution temporarily. Investigating Agency has got ample power to file supplemental charge sheet or additional charge sheet by obtaining necessary sanction order from the competent authority to prosecute the accused.

Such a power is carved out under the provisions of Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. Reserving such liberty for the prosecuting Agency, this Court is of the considered opinion that the revision petition need not be admitted for further consideration. - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:45521 CRL.RP No. 771 of 2022 Hence, the following ORDER i) Admission declined. Revision Petition is dismissed. ii) Dismissal of this revision petition shall not preclude the prosecuting agency to cure the defect, if any, in the charge sheet and file appropriate charge sheet in accordance with law. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE BS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 36