The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:5302 CRL.RP No. 1168 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1168 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. GHANASHYAM PRADHAN, S/O SRI. INDRAMANI PRADHAN, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (GENERAL), O/O THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, BANGALORE CANTONMENT, SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY, BENGALURU - 560001. R/AT NO.375, 7TH MAIN, VISWESWARANAGAR, MYSORE – 570 008. PERMANENT RESIDENT: PATTASUNDARPUR VILLAGE AND POST, KAKATPUR PS, PURI DISTRICT, ORISSA – 752 108. 2. SUDHA PRAVA PRADHAN, W/O SRI. GHANASHYAM PRADHAN, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT NO.373, 7TH MAIN, VISWESWARANAGAR, MYSURU – 570 008. 3. SMT. SERMISTA PRADHAN, W/O GHANASHYAM PARADHAN, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT NO.140/2, 3RD CROSS, GARAGE ROAD, KAVERI EXTENSION, Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:5302 CRL.RP No. 1168 of 2024 KUMBARKOPPAL, METAGALLY POST, MYSURU - 570016. (BY SRI. MANE SHIVAJI HANAMANTAPPA, ADVOCATE) …PETITIONERS AND: 1. STATE BY CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, ANTI-CORRUPTION BRANCH, NO.36, BELLARY ROAD, GANGANAGAR, BENGALRUU – 560 032. REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU – 560 001. …RESPONDENT
Legal Reasoning
during the course of investigation and also prima facie to look into the material on record. The learned counsel for the - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:5302 CRL.RP No. 1168 of 2024 petitioner relied upon the recent judgment of the Apex Court, wherein taken note of the income of the wife and the accused, wherein total income of the husband and wife, which were declared income, is more than the disproportionate amount shown and hence allowed the appeal. In the case on hand, the allegation against petitioner No.1 is that he is working as an Executive Engineer and disproportionate asset alleged against him is 142% i.e., to the extent of Rs.3,77,96,644/-. The learned counsel for the petitioner contend that at the beginning the income is shown as Rs.24 lakhs instead of Rs.54 lakhs. Even taking Rs.54 lakhs as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, when the disproportionate income is Rs.3,77,96,644/-, the same will not make any difference. The salary income of petitioner No.1 is only around Rs.58 lakhs. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner contend that the wife is also having income, who is running PG and also doing transport business. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the said income is also taken note of and apart from that, even the expenditure is also taken note of Rs.2.88 Crores and more than the assets accumulated - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:5302 CRL.RP No. 1168 of 2024 Rs.4.5 Crores and even after deducting the same also, the amount arrived is Rs.3,77,96,644/-. When the report is given and along with the report the documents of the properties which were acquired are also listed and whether the same is 10% or more than 10%, the same could be calculated only during the course of trial. Here is a case of 142% disproportionate asset and when such material is collected by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation, the matter requires a full-fledged trial. 12. The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the officer who conducted the investigation and filed the charge sheet is not the competent person. The learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the document No.3, wherein authorization is given to the officer who filed the charge sheet. The same is in terms of the authorization power given to the Superintendent of Police to authorize a person in view of the notification. When such being the case, at this stage, the same cannot be looked into. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioner contend that the sanction given by the authority also not considered any - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:5302 CRL.RP No. 1168 of 2024 material. Whether the same is a valid sanction or not and whether the sanctioning authority applied its mind or not, the same is a matter of trial. At this stage, the Court has to only take note of the fact that whether the sanction is given or not. If the sanction is valid or not, the same can be considered at the time of trial and not at this stage. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that not made any cursory look and examined the document placed before the Trial Court by the Investigating Officer has not been considered, cannot be accepted at this stage. The matter requires full fledged trial and no grounds are made out to discharge the petitioners by exercising the revisional jurisdiction considering the material on record. 14. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: The criminal revision petition is dismissed.
Arguments
(BY SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR P., ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE TRIAL COURT DATED 02.09.2024 IN SPL.C.C.NO.132/2022 PENDING BEFORE THE LEARNED THE XXXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPL. JUDGE FOR CBI AND ED CASES AT BENGALURU (CCH-34), BY ALLOWING THIS REVISION PETITION AND DISCHARGE PETITIONERS FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 13(2) R/W 13(1)(e) OF PC ACT, 1988 AND UNDER SECTION 13(2) R/W 13(1)(b) OF PC ACT, 1988 (AS AMENDED IN 2018) IN THE ABOVE MATTER. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5302 CRL.RP No. 1168 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This revision petition is filed against the dismissal of discharge application dated 02.09.2024 passed in Spl.C.C.No.132/2022 by the Trial Court. 3. The factual matrix of the case of the respondent CBI while invoking Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 104 of IPC against the petitioners is that accused No.1 has acquired assets to an extent of Rs.3,77,96,644/-, which is 142% beyond his known source of income during the check period from 01.04.2010 to 09.01.2020 and accused Nos.2 and 3 have abated accused No.1 to acquire the said disproportionate assets. But according to the accused persons, proper calculation have not been made by the Investigating Officer while preparing the final charge sheet. According to them, several assets which were available at the beginning of the check period have not been taken into - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:5302 CRL.RP No. 1168 of 2024 consideration and therefore less assets have been shown in statement A for the purpose of wrong calculation and more assets have been shown in statement B so as to show that accused No.1 had disproportionate assets. In fact, several assets were not at all in existence. It is also contended that the income of accused No.1 during the check period, several income have been left out and thereby the Investigating Officer has shown lesser income. The expenditure with regard to unverifiable domestic expenditure, the Investigating officer has shown 1/3rd on the gross salary instead of taking 1/3rd on the net salary. Taking 1/3rd on the gross salary is not permissible under law. It is contended that some other unnecessary expenses have been shown by the Investigating officer only to make wrong calculation with regard to the alleged disproportionate assets. It is contended that legal and fair investigation has not been conducted by the Investigating Officer. Therefore, there is serious lapse on the part of the Investigating Officer while filing the charge sheet. It is contended that the charge sheet is filed by the Sub- Inspector of Police and he is not a competent person to file the charge sheet. The learned counsel contend that wrongly - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:5302 CRL.RP No. 1168 of 2024 shown the beginning of the check period income as Rs.24 lakhs as against Rs.54 lakhs and the Trial Court fails to look into the cursory examination of material collected by the Investigating Officer and committed an error in dismissing the discharge application. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his arguments relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of KANCHAN KUMAR v. THE STATE OF BIHAR reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 763, KRISHNANAND AGNIHOTRI v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH reported in (1977) 1 SCC 816 and B.C. CHATURVEDI v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS reported in (1995) 6 SCC 749. The learned counsel referring these judgments would contend that the Trial Court failed to consider the material placed on record and though the law is settled that only the material evidence has to be looked into, the learned counsel brought to the notice of this Court the discussion made in the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kanchan Kumar (supra) and relied upon paragraph Nos.14, 16, 16.2, 16.3 and 18, wherein it is held that the conclusions that we have drawn are based on materials placed before us, which are part of the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:5302 CRL.RP No. 1168 of 2024 case record. This is the same record that was available with the Special Judge (Vigilance) when the application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C was taken up. Despite that, the Special Judge (Vigilance) dismissed the discharge application on the simple ground that a roving inquiry is not permitted at the stage of discharge. What we have undertaken is not a roving inquiry, but a simple and necessary inquiry for a proper adjudication of an application for discharge. Unfortunately, the High Court committed the same mistake as that of the Special Judge (Vigilance). 5. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court passed in Criminal Appeal No.5009/2024 dated 04.12.2024, wherein the Apex Court taken note of the income of the public servant as well as income of the wife i.e., more than the amount disappropriately shown and hence exercised the power in quashing the proceedings initiated against the accused in the said judgment. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would contend that there are two cases against this - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:5302 CRL.RP No. 1168 of 2024 petitioner. In the other case, he has taken the benefit from the contractors when he allotted the work to the contractors and also contend that he himself stood as a guarantor for the loan availed by the contractors and the same was taken note of in the said case. The learned counsel relied upon the order passed by the Trial Court in respect of other charge sheet filed against him in Special C.C.No.107/2023. The learned counsel contend that in the present case on hand, disproportionate asset is Rs.4.5 Crores and Rs.2.88 Crores is the expenditure. The learned counsel contend that disproportionate asset is 142% i.e., Rs.3,77,96,644/-. The learned counsel contend that it is not in dispute that the Police Sub-Inspector conducted the investigation and filed the charge sheet and document No.3 is produced before this Court along with the list of doucments, which clearly shows that authorization was given to him by the Superintendent of Police to conduct the case. When there is an authorization given to the Police Sub-Inspector, the petitioner cannot question the competence of the Police Inspector, who conducted the investigation. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:5302 CRL.RP No. 1168 of 2024 7. The learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of STATE OF ORISSA v. DEBENDRA NATH PADHI reported in (2005) 1 SCC 568 and brought to the notice of this Court paragraph No.23, wherein discussion was made with regard to the law is that at the time of framing charge or taking cognizance the accused has no right to produce any material and the same is reiterated in the case of Satish Mehra v. Delhi Admn. reported in (1996) 9 SCC 766, holding that the Trial Court has powers to consider even materials which the accused may produce at the stage of Section 227 of the Code has not been correctly decided. 8. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of STATE OF TAMIL NADU v. R. SOUNDIRARASU AND OTHERS reported in (2023) 6 SCC 768 and brought to the notice of this Court paragraph No.81, wherein discussion was made with regard to the High Court has acted completely beyond the settled parameters. The High Court has completely ignored that it was not at the stage of trial or considering an appeal against a verdict in a trial and at the time of discharge ought not to have relied - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:5302 CRL.RP No. 1168 of 2024 upon the documents and the doctrine of preponderance of probabilities cannot be decided while consdiering the application at the time of discharge. The learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court paragraph No.83 wherein it is held that the burden will always lie on the prosecution to prove the ingredients of the offences charged and never shifts on the accused to disprove the charge framed against him and the prosecution has to establish that the accused was in possession of properties disproportionate to his known source of income. The onus in this regard is on the accused to give satisfactory explanation. The accused cannot make an attempt to discharge this onus upon him at the stage of Section 239 of Cr.P.C. At the stage of Section 239 of Cr.P.C., the Court has to only look into the prima facie case and decide whether the case put up by the prosecution is groundless. 9. The learned counsel also relied upon the recent judgment of the Apex Court passed in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.5290/2024 dated 21.11.2024 and brought to the notice of this Court paragraph No.6, wherein discussion was made with regard to the Apex Court’s - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:5302 CRL.RP No. 1168 of 2024 judgment in the case of Debendra Nath Padhi (supra), wherein the Court has reiterated the well-settled law that while considering the prayer for discharge, the Trial Court cannot consider any document which is not the part of the charge-sheet. The learned counsel referring this judgment would conted that the Trial Court while rejecting the application filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. comes to the conclusion that the petitioner being the accused cannot place any document before the Court at the time of discharge and not committed any error. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent and also taking note of the impugned order, this Court has to analyze whether the Trial Court committed an error in rejecting the discharge application. The principles laid down in the judgments referred supra is not in dispute. At the time of considering the discharge application, the Court cannot look into the documents of the accused and only can look into the documents which the Investigating Officer has collected
Decision
ORDER MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43 Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE