In Revision Jurisdiction While Considering Discharge Plea Court Has To Only See If IO Collected Sufficient Material Or Not: Karnataka HC

The Karnataka High Court has said that scope of revision is very limited against the discharge application and the Court has to consider only the material on record collected by the Investigating Officer whether sufficient or not.Justice H P Sandesh held thus while dismissing the petition filed by Dr Mohankumar M. Referring to judgments of the Supreme Court It said, “The Court cannot conduct a mini trial and defence cannot be considered in a discharge application and the Court has to only look into the material collected by the Investigating Officer whether sufficient material is there or not.” The petitioner was arraigned as accused No.4 in the case. It was alleged that the petitioner is the friend of accused No.1 and he committed the offence of abetment in helping accused No.1 to legalize the illegal amount by making payment of Rs.25 lakhs to pursue M.D. (Pediatric) of the daughter of accused No.1 Dr. C.Anisha Roy. He was charged under Section 109 of IPC and provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Earlier, he had filed a petition seeking quashing of the proceedings which came to be rejected by the High Court. Following which he sought discharge before the trial court which also was rejected. The main contention of the petitioner was that he is a doctor and accused No.1 approached him for financial assistance for his daughter to pursue M.D. (Pediatric) at M.S. Ramaiah Medical College, Bengaluru and he deposited the amount on 22.03.2012 by way of RTGS. Merely because he extended financial help to the daughter of accused No.1 for higher education, it cannot be said with any stretch of imagination that the petitioner has abetted the offences. Further, the payment is made directly to the institution through their bank account. The said amount is the self earned money of the petitioner and the same is reflected in the bank accounts and income tax returns. The petitioner never received any money from accused No.1 and it will not attract Section 109 of IPC.The prosecution opposed the plea contending that the material clearly discloses that the petitioner made the payment of Rs.25 lakhs and also brought to the notice of this Court the documents i.e., statement of account, Income Tax Returns Form and statement of the petitioner, wherein it is clear that amount was deposited suddenly in the account of the petitioner and not disclosed in the income tax returns for having made the payment.Findings: On going through the records the bench noted that in the case on hand, investigation has already been completed and a charge sheet is also filed. The petitioner also approached earlier for quashing of the proceedings and the same was rejected and thereafter he filed an application for discharge and the same was also rejected.The court said that “In the case on hand, no doubt, the revision petitioner also does not dispute that he made payment of Rs.25 lakhs in favour of daughter of accused No.1 for getting admission to the M.D. (Pediatric) and also material is collected by the Investigating Officer that a cash amount of Rs.17,50,000/- was deposited to his individual account.” The court said, “The Trial Court took note of the fact that she is a house wife. The income tax returns do not disclose the same (amount deposited) and all these contentions which have been raised are nothing but a defence and the same cannot be considered while considering the discharge application.” It added “Admittedly, the amount was transferred and before transferring the amount of Rs.25 lakhs, an amount of Rs.17,50,000/- and Rs.9,95,000/- cash was deposited to his account and the same is also collected by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation and the same also cannot be considered as a defence, which is not permissible.” The petitioner also highlighted that accused no 3 and 5 were discharged by the trial court and sought discharge on grounds of parity. Rejecting the same the court said “No explanation was given for having deposited the cash and hence the very contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that accused Nos.3 and 5 have been discharged, but not discharged this petitioner cannot be accepted.” It added “The yardstick applied to accused Nos.3 and 5 will not come to the aid of the petitioner and hence I do not find any ground to allow the revision petition and set aside the order.” Accordingly it dismissed the petition. Appearance: Senior Counsel M.T Nanaiah for Advocate T M Venkata Reddy for Petitioner.Advocate Lethif B for Respondent. Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 532Case Title: Dr Mohankumar M AND State of Karnataka Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.118/2024Click Here To Read/Download Order

In Revision Jurisdiction While Considering Discharge Plea Court Has To Only See If IO Collected Sufficient Material Or Not: Karnataka HC

Mustafa Plumber

Tags