R.SRIKANTHA & ORS vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned SPP. Perused the records.

The petitioners who are arrayed as accused Nos. 1 to 3 in CC No.655/2015 for the offences punishable under Section 120-B, 197, 198, 406,

417, 419, 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 472, 473, 474, 484 of IPC and Section 65, 72, 73 and 74 of Information Technology Act, have made

an application for their discharge under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. The trial Court after considering the materials on record, vide order dated

14.10.2016 dismissed the said application holding that the allegations made against the accused needs to be proved by the prosecution during the

trial and there are sufficient materials available in the proceedings to proceed to frame charges. The learned Magistrate has also considered the

statement of the witnesses and also the materials on record to come to such conclusion.

Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have approached the Sessions Court i.e. II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga in

Crl.R.P. No.121/2016. The learned Sessions Judge also, in detail considering the grounds urged therein, ultimately dismissed the Revision Petition

holding that there are sufficient materials to proceed against the accused persons to frame charges. Against the said two orders, the present petition

is filed.

The learned counsel strenuously argued before the Court that in the charge sheet, by name Pradeep and Srinivas, who are the witnesses are

also, in fact, involved in commission of such offences, but they are cited as witnesses by the police. Further, he contends that there is no specific

allegation against petitioner No.3 herein and even entire charge sheet is translated into evidence, the same is not sufficient to proceed against

accused No.3. Therefore, he pleads for discharge of accused persons.

On careful perusal of the charge sheet, it is the case of the prosecution that during the year 2013-14, some amount has been released for the

purpose of disbursing the same to the farmers who suffered drought in various areas, particularly in Hosadurga taluk, drought area. Likewise about

19,107/- cheques have been issued to the farmers in that regard. It is contended that accused Nos.1 to 3 have concocted fake 51 cheques by

using various methods of scanning, editing and colour printing with the help of computers. It is also urged that petitioner Nos.1 and 2 have colluded

with each other and handed over those 51 cheques to one Pradeep, who is cited as CW-8 and in turn, CW-8 has presented those cheques to

CW-10 Srinivas, who made the payment. It is also alleged that petitioner Nos.1 and 2 have colluded with each other, gave those cheques to CW-

8 and received the money and in turn, CW-8 also received money from CW-10. It is contended that petitioner No.3 is also given her role in

cooking up these 51 cheques. Though there is some document produced before the Court i.e. FSL report with reference to examination of the

computers of the petitioners, wherein a negative opinion has been given by the FSL, but the fact remains that allegations are made that all the

accused persons have colluded with each other for the purpose of manufacturing of above said cheques.

Be that as it may, while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., particularly, when two courts have analysed the factual aspects and

came to the conclusion that there are sufficient materials to proceed against the accused by framing charges and as could be seen from the above

said materials that there are statement of witnesses available implicating the petitioners herein, in the above such circumstances, I do not find any

strong reasons to interfere with the orders passed by the trial Court or the Sessions Court, even including petitioner No.3 when Section 120-B has

been invoked by the police. What is her role has to be established after full dressed trial. Therefore, petition deserves to be dismissed.

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

Trial Court is hereby directed to expedite the trial and dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible.

The observations made by this Court should not be taken into consideration in any manner by the trial Court while dealing with the matter on

merits. It should be on the basis of appreciation of evidence that may be produced by the parties before the trial Court.