Karnataka High Court
Jagadish S/O Yallappa Mannur vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 January, 2021
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. KRISHNA BHAT
CRL.P.NO. 102624 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
JAGADISH S/O YALLAPPA MANNUR
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/AT: HONNAKATTI, TAL: BAGALKOT,
DIST: BAGALKOT, PIN CODE: 587101.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. S B HEBBALLI, ADV.,)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH NAVANAGAR POLICE STATION,
BAGALKOTE, DIST: BAGALKOTE,
PIN CODE: 587101,
REPRESENTED BY THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
AT DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN K UPPER, HCGP)
-2-
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
07.09.2017 PASSED BY THE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
BAGALKOT DISMISSING THE REVISION PETITION AND
CONFIRMING THE ORDER DATED 06.03.2017 PASSED BY THE CJM
BAGALKOT IN C. C. NO. 1 OF 2015 AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION
FILED BY THE PETIITONER UNDER SECTION 239 OF CR.P.C., AND
DISCHARGE THE PETITIONER FROM THE OFFENCES UNDER
SECTIONS 408 AND 420 OF IPC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by accused No.2, who was shown as accused No.5 in the FIR seeking discharge in C.C.No.1/2015 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bagalkot for commission of offences punishable under Sections 408, 420 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The brief facts are that one Santoshkumar Siddappa Gudimani was the manager of one CMS Infotech System Private Limited Company, which was having a contract with several public sector banks like State Bank of India, Money Spot, KBL, SBM, ICICI, IDBI, Vijaya Bank and several other banks and under the same, they were -3- required to fill cash into ATMs based on the indents placed by the respective banks. The further allegation is that accused No.1 Shivaprakash Girimallappa Kumbar was custodian No.1 and C.W.6-Amaresh Shivaputrappa Begateri was custodian No.2 and they being employees of CMS Infotech System Private Limited Company were having code numbers and keys of ATMs of several banks. The allegation in the charge-sheet is that accused No.1- Shivaprakash Girimallappa Kumbar, taking advantage of he having the code numbers and keys of ATMs, between 22.07.2014 and 27.09.2014 misappropriated sum of Rs.23,19,800/- and he had done the same at the instance of accused No.2-Jaggu @ Jagadish Yallappa Mannur (petitioner herein, who was accused No.5 in the FIR). It is alleged that the petitioner herein had instigated the accused No.1 to misappropriate the amount so that they could play cards on stakes, gambling and also indulge in money doubling activities.
-4-
3. The present petitioner, who is accused No.2 in the charge-sheet had filed an application under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908 seeking discharge from the proceedings before the learned CJM, Bagalkot and the application after consideration was rejected. His revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge, Bagalkot was dismissed by the impugned order dated 07.09.2017.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended before me that there is absolutely no case for trial inasmuch as there is no material collected during the investigation as reflected from the charge-sheet papers which links the present petitioner to the commission of offences. He submits that no ingredients of the offences alleged in the charge-sheet are made out against the present petitioner and therefore, the petitioner will be subjected to harassment if he is asked to face trial.
5. Learned HCGP, on the other hand, submitted that the learned Sessions Judge in the impugned order has -5- referred to the statements given by C.W.6 and C.W.7, which shows the involvement of the present petitioner in the commission of the offences. He further submitted that the fact of accused No.2 and 4 in the FIR being not sent up for trial does not in any way detract from the fact that the present petitioner was involved in the commission of the offence and therefore, the submission made in this behalf by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not liable to be accepted. He submitted that the present petitioner along with accused No.1 has committed a very serious offence of committing cheating and misappropriation of public funds to the tune of Rs.23,19,800/- and in that view of the matter, if he is discharged from the case, grave miscarriage of justice will be caused.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made on either side and I have perused the orders of learned Sessions Judge and the learned CJM impugned herein and also the charge-sheet papers. -6-
7. The charge-sheet papers show that the complainant was in-charge of the company which was having contract with various banks for filling the ATMs maintained by various banks with cash and the company was required to fill the cash as per the indents placed by the respective banks. Accused No.1 was the custodian No.1 of the said ATMs and he was having the code and keys of the respective ATMs. During the audit, it was disclosed that between 22.07.2014 and 27.09.2014 an amount of Rs.23,19,800/- was misappropriated and the investigation disclosed that accused No.1 was involved in commission of the said offence being the custodian of code and keys of said ATMs. The investigation as reflected from the charge-sheet also discloses that C.W.6 and C.W.7 have clearly stated about the present petitioner being associate of accused No.1 instigating him to misappropriate the amount for the purpose of gambling at stakes, playing cards and indulging in money doubling activities. It is no doubt contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that C.W.6 and C.W.7 were originally -7- named as accused No.2 and 4 in the FIR and therefore, their statements collected during the investigation is not entitled to any credence. These are all matters for trial. The materials, as correctly concluded by the learned Sessions Judge, make out a case for going to trial and therefore, it is not appropriate to discharge the accused No.2 (petitioner herein) at this stage. In that view of the matter, being of the opinion that the learned Sessions Judge has adverted to all relevant aspects of the matters and therefore has come to a correct conclusion, the petition lacks in merits and accordingly, it is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the following:
ORDER The petition is dismissed. In view of the above order, I.A.No.1/ 2017 does not survive for consideration and it is dismissed accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE yan