R. Pooval Poovannan, Formerly Technical Officer (Proceeding/Testing), Testing Department, Central Institute of Plastics Engineering and Technology (CIPET) vs State

B.V. Pinto, J.—This petition is filed u/s 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash the charge sheet against the Petitioner and set aside, the common order dated 29.04,2011 passed in Spl. CC No. 337/2010 pending before the XXXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (Special Judge) for CBI Cases, Bangalore.

Heard Sri. V.S. Venkatesh learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Sri C.H. Jadhav. learned Counsel for CBI.

It is the contention of the Petitioner that, despite the fact that no case in made out against the Petitioner, who m arraigned as Accused No. 4 in Spl. CC No. 337/2010 for the offences punishable Under Sections 120B, 420, 409, 466, 471 and 477-A of IPC and Section 13(2) r/w Sec 13(1)(c)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, the trial Court has proceeded to order to frame the charges against the Petitioner along with other accused persons and the said order is not based an the material records and also that no sanction has been obtained as provided under Prevention of Corruption Act. Hence, he submits that, the proceedings are liable to be quashed in so far as this Petitioner is concerned.

So far as sanction is concerned, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that, there was no sanction as on the date of filing charge sheet.

The learned Counsel Sri. C.H. Jadhava for CBI submits that, there are specific allegations against this Petitioner and that he has conspired with other accused in opening and operating the account No. 19 and thereafter credited three cheques bearing Nos. 11530 3, 555779 and 826379 to the said account of Accused No. 1 which according to investigation is a parallel account. Therefore, funds have been misappropriated and hence other sections of law is also attracted in respect of the said allegations.

The learned Counsel for CBI further submits that, the sanction order was granted on 03.11,2010 and cognizance was taken on 29.12.2010, where as the charge sheet has been fifed on 23.09.2010,

It is therefore seen that, as on the date of taking cognizance i.e. on 29.12.2010, sanction, was already existing. It is further seen that, trial Court has already decided to frame the charge and once the trial Court has decided to frame the charges against the Petitioner; the High Court will not conduct a mini trial to find out whether the materials relied on by the Court below would lead to framing of the charges. It is for the trial Court to satisfy itself as to whether the material produced by the prosecution would substantiate the charge, which would happen only at the time of trial Under these circumstances, I am of the opinion that, Petitioner has not made out any grounds to quash the proceedings,

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.