AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.V. Chandrashekara, J.—1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents.
Crl.R.P. 1009/12 is directed against the order passed by the special Judge dealing with CBI cases, Bangalore, in special CC No. 65/11 insofar as accused Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned. Crl.R.P. 646/15 is filed by the third accused-Smt. Padmaa K.Bhat being aggrieved by the order dated 4.6.2015 in special CC No. 65/11. The parties will be referred to as accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 as per the ranking before the trial court.
An oral request had been made on behalf of these petitioners to discharge them from the case. Charge sheet is filed for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B, I.P.C. and under Sections 13 (1) (d) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The main allegation against the 3rd accused is that being proprietor of M/s. Neo Sharp Engineering Technologies, she had given fake and concocted documents to Union Bank of India, SSI (Finance) Branch, Yeshwanthpur, Bangalore, of which lst and 2nd accused were the manager and assistant general manager of the bank respectively during the relevant period. It is alleged that without verifying the genuineness of those documents, they forwarded newspapers with a recommendation to the higher-ups for sanction of loan, and believing the said recommendation as true, loan was sanctioned.
What is argued before this court by the learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Kiran Javali representing accused Nos. 1 and 2 is that the learned judge should have taken into consideration the provisions of Section 239, Cr.P.C. since the same is applicable to the court dealing with cases arising out of P.C. Act. He has relied on Section 5 of the said act to contend that though the court in question is a presided over by an officer of the rank of Sessions Judge, the procedure that would be adopted in the said court will be the procedure that would normally be adopted in the magistrate court. He has relied on the decision rendered by a single bench of this court in the case of J. UMA DEVI & ANOTHER v. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in ILR 2013(3) KAR 4471.
Mr. Nagendra Naik, learned counsel representing the 3rd accused has vehemently argued that the properties which were mortgaged by the 3rd accused in favour of the bank were her absolute properties and she had obtained the same through a registered gift deed and thus had become the owner. It is argued that the main documents that were given to the bank were genuine documents.
After going through the records, it is seen that the learned judge has passed a detailed order running into 38 pages. The operative portion of the order is found in paragraph 30 is as follows:
ORDER
"The oral plea of discharge made by A-1 to A-6 u/s. 227 of Cr.P.C. is hereby rejected. It is ordered to frame charge against accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the offences punishable u/Ss.120B and 420 of IPC and Sec.13(1)(d) punishable u/s. 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act.
Further it is ordered to frame charge against accused Nos. 3 to 6 for the offence punishable u/S 120B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC."
What is argued by Mr. Kiran Javali is that the procedure that would be adopted to try a warrant case should have been adopted in this case and therefore, the learned judge should have applied the provisions of Section 239, Cr.P.C. instead of Section 227. What is argued is that if Section 239, Cr.P.C. had been invoked by the learned special Judge, the accused would have had an opportunity of furnishing certain documents and they could have been considered by the learned judge. It is further argued that Section 239 provides even for examination of the accused, if necessary.
The wordings of Sections 227 and 239, Cr.P.C. are quite different. In fact Section 239, Cr.P.C. stands on a higher footing than Section 227. But in the present case, voluminous documents are made available which include few fake documents. The allegation against accused Nos. 1 and 2 is that they did not verify the documents at all. Section 120B, I.P.C. has been invoked in the present case to allege that a conspiracy was hatched between the accused inter se. A serious allegation is sufficient to invoke the provisions of Section 120B, I.P.C. The learned judge of the special Court has considered all the material documents placed on record in detail and has also considered certain decisions relied upon by the parties.
What is argued before this court by Mr. Kiran Javali is that if Sections 467, 468 and 471, I.P.C. are not applicable to accused Nos. 1 and 2, the same cannot be made applicable to accused No. 3 as well. This court is unable to accept the said contention at this stage. In the light of serious allegations made against all the accused relating to conspiracy being hatched to obtain huge amount on the basis of fake documents, the question of exercising the revisional power vested in this court under Section 397, Cr.P.C. does not arise.
Accordingly all the petitions are dismissed.
It is made clear that whatever observations are made during the course of this order is only for the limited purpose of disposing of these petitions and the learned judge will not be influenced by any such observation made, and would dispose of the case purely on the basis of evidence that would be adduced.