Karnataka High Court
Dattatreya A Suryavanshi vs The State By on 17 September, 2013
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 17th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.2168/2013
BETWEEN:
Dattatreya A. Suryavanshi
Son of Appasaheb J. Suryavanshi
Age: 59 years
Deputy Superintendent of Police
Lingasgur, resident of Kamadhenu Apartment
Narayanpur, Dharwad
...PETITIONER
(By Sri. Shankar P. Hegde, Advocate)
AND:
The State by
Deputy Superintendent of Police
Karnataka Lokayukta Police Station
Bagalkot
...RESPONDENT
(By Sri. Jagadish Patil, Advocate)
---
This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397
read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,
seeking to set aside the impugned order dated 17.01.2013
(Annexure-C) passed by the Special Judge, Principal District
Judge, Bagalkot in Special Case No.26/2012.
2
This Revision Petition coming on for admission this
day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Public Prosecutor.
2. The petitioner is before this Court on a limited aspect, namely that, while the Court below in exercising its jurisdiction under Section 227 read with Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to 'Cr.P.C.', for brevity), has proceeded to dismiss the application filed by the petitioner, seeking discharge.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that, there are long list of documents produced by the petitioner to establish that, the properties, which are said to have been acquired by the petitioner and that the same belongs to the petitioner, though acquired in the name of others, was acquired with worth that was beyond known sources of income of the petitioner. Though there was a serious endeavour on the part of the petitioner to draw attention of the Court to the 3 material, that was produced by the prosecution itself, to demonstrate that the properties could not be attributed to the petitioner, the Court below has not taken note of the same. The order rejecting the application for discharge does not even refer to such documents.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has produced the particulars of the properties, the amount as valued, an explanation offered in respect of the same and the report of the Investigating Officer in tabular form, which is as follows:
Name of Amount as Schedule Explanation As Investigated by I.O.
Property valued by
I.O.
1) Hotel 16925191 1) Purchased deed of the 1) P.W.No.116 AEE
Sagar, Lodge open sites in the year HESCOM Mudhol, Div-
Bar & 1991 in the name of 7, Vol-1, page 41-60
Restaurant, Shri. Appasaheb J.
Mudhol Suryavanshi 2) PW No.137 Excise
Inspector Mudhol Div-7,
2) RTC Records in the name Vol-1, page 206-212
of Shri. Appasaheb J.
Suryavanshi 3) PW No.154 Labour
Inspector, Mudhol, Div-
3) Project approved by 7, Vol-1 page 213-221
KSTDC in the name of
Shri. Appasaheb J. 4) PW No.113 FDA,
Suryavanshi Sch.Vol-3 Director KSTDC,
P-605 Bangalore, Div-6, Vol-2,
page 890-919
4) After the demise of the
Shri. Appasaheb J. 5) PW No.108
Suryavanshi on Commissioner of Excise,
04.04.2000. All the Bagalkot, Div-6, Vol-2,
4
records were transferred page 855-867
in the name of his wife
Smt. Sonubai A. 6) PW No.46 Sub-
Suryavanshi Registrar, Mudhol, Div-
5, Vol-1, page 42, 43-45
5) Loan sanction letter of
Rs.6000000/- dtd. 7) PW No.51, 52, Chief
29.06.2000 by Bijapur Officer TMC Mudhol,
Grameen Bank Div-5, Vol-1, page 86-
HESCOMO. Bijapur, in 89, 94-97
the name of Smt.
Sonubai A. Suryavanshi. 8) PW No.191 AEE PWD, Sch. Vol.03 page 606- Mudhol valuation of
607. Sagar Lodge, Div-5, Vol-
1, page 46-71
6) Family Partition Deed dtd. 21-07-2001. Prl. 9) PW No.42 Income Tax Civil Judge Senior Officer Bagalkot, Div-3, Division Lokadalat, page 111-233 Jamakhandi, Sch.Vol-3, page 301-302. 10) PW No.43 ACITO Circle-1, Bijapur, Div-3,
7) CL-7 Liquor License in Page 234-292 the name of Smt. Sonubai A. Suryavanshi. 11) PW No.13, Ashok Suryavanshi Div-8, Vol-
8) Subsidy of Rs.2600000/- 1, Page 65-71 issued by KSTDC Bangalore. Sch.Vol-3 12) PW No.17 Tanaji A. page 556-557 Survyavanshi Div-8, Vol-1 page 84-93
9) Income Tax Returns Sch.
Vol.3 page 693-711 13) PW No.82 Shri. R. V.
Muglihal Karnataka
10) KEB Department Vikas Grameen Bank
Manager, Mudhol,
11) Telephone Department Regarding loan taken.
Div-8, Vol-2, page 255-
12) Labour Department 256.
13) Sales Tax Department 14) PW No.148 V. R. Telgur Sub-Division Engineer
14) Affidavits regarding BSNL, Mudhol, rents paid to Smt. Regarding erection of Sonubai A. Suryavanshi BSNL tower on Sagar by Lodge, Div-8, Vol-2 page 323 a. Suresh Ambudkar, page 458-459 15) PW No.169 Prakash M. 5 Shetty regarding rent b. Mallikarjun Karnwadi paid to Hotel Smt. page 462-463 Sonubai A Suryavanshi from Dec.2006 Div-8, c. Paramanand Vol-2, page 344 Jakkannavar page 460-
461 16) PW No.175, Smt. Sangeeta R. Porwal d. Prakash Shetty page Bijapur regarding hand 464-465 loan given to Smt. Sonubai A. 15) Copy of the United Suryavanshi, Div-8, India Insurance Co. of Vol-2, page-350 Hotel Sagar 17) PW No.l79 Ladappa HESCOM Katarki regarding hand loan of Rs.300000/- given to Smt. Sonubai A. Suryavanshi Div-8, Vol-2, Page 354 18) PW No.l80 Ishwar R. Angadi Rs.150000/- regarding hand loan given to Smt. Sonubai A. Suryavanshi Div-8, Vol-2, Page 355 19) PW No.214 (124) Suresh Govindappa Ambudkar regarding rent paid to to Smt. Sonubai A. Suryavanshi from Dec.2002 to Dec.2003 Div-8, Vol-2, Page 389 20) PW No.215 Paramanand Mallappa Jakkannavar regarding rent paid to to Smt. Sonubai A. Suryavanshi from Dec.2002 to Dec.2005 Div-8, Vol-2, Page 390 21) PW No.216 Mallikarjun 6 Gopal Karnwadi regarding rent paid to to Smt. Sonubai A. Suryavanshi from Dec.2005 to Nov.2008 Div-8, Vol-2, Page 391 22) PW No.226 Shivaji Appasaheb Suryavanshi Div-8, Vol-2, Page 401-402 23) PW No.227 Smt. Sonubai A. Survayanshi Div-8, Vol-2, Page 403-404 24) PW No.22 Shiddu A. Survyavanshi Div-8, Vol-1 page 114-118 25) PW No.27 Vilaskumar A. Suryavanshi Div-8, Vol-1 page 144-149 2) 6345590 1) Purchase deed of the 1) PW No.53 open sites, plot No.15 Rajendrakumar C. i) House on 19-08-2002, Plot Jamkhandimath R/o. situated at No.10 on 05.12.2002 Dharwad regarding sale Doddanayak of Plot No.15 and 10 to anakoppa, 2) RTC Records Dr. Ashok A. Dharwad, Suryavanshi Div-8, Vol- Sy.No.47/1+ 3) Income Tax Returns 2 page 227 2A/2 Plot No.15 4) Permission issued by 2) PW No.42 M. D. 227000 Hubli-Dharwad Gamanagatti Income ii) Open site Corporation for Tax Officer Ward -1 situated at construction of house Bagalkot Div-3, Page Doddanayan on Plot No.15 222-233 kanakoppa, Dharwad 5) Housing Loan availed 3) PW No.80 Smt. Pratibha Sy.No.47/1+ from State Bank of R. Budkar Sub- 2A/2 Plot India, Dharwad for Registrar Dharwad Div- No.10 construction of house 5, Vol-1 page 136-176 on the Plot No.15 page 233-239 6) Valuation Report of the 4) Asst. Executive 7 house constructed in Engineer PWP and IWT Plot No.15 Dept. DWD Division (valuation) Div-5 Vol-1 7) Salary Details page 177-232 8) Agriculture Income 5) PW No.141 Ashok G. Gadag Town Planning 9) KEB Records Hubli-Dharwad Div-5 Vol-1 page 143-176, Div-8, Vol-2, page 317 6) PW No.187 Adiveppa Irappa Menasinakai Asst. Accounts Officer HESCOM Near Vijay Talkies City Sub- Division, Dharwad Div- 7, Vol-1, page 230-231, Div-8, Vol-2 page 362 7) PW No.188 Abdulrahim G. Amargol SDC Hubli Corporation Division Office No.1, Saptapur Dharwad, Div-7 Vol-1 page 196, Div-8, Vol-2 page 363 8) PW No.189 Srikant P. Hawaldar SDC Karnataka Water supply Hubli-Dharwad, Sir. M. Vishwanath Rd. Dharwad Div-5, Vol-3 page 1012-1015 Div-8, Vol-2 page 364 8 Mudhol 1664464 1) It is not concerned to me Div-7, Vol-1 refer page 41-43 & 60 consumer's 1) R.R. name not mentioned as No.MDLMP1 Smt. Sonubai A. 1911 Suryavanshi 2) R.R. 46204 2) It is not concerned to me Div-7, Vol-1 page 57 & 60 No.MDL consumers name 11559 mentioned as Tanaji A. Suryavanshi 3) R.R.No. 50837 3) It is not concerned to me Div-7, Vol-1 page 56 & 60 MDL 11558 consumers name not mentioned as Tanaji A. Suryavanshi 4) R.R.No. 84769 4) It is not concerned to me Div-7, Vol-1 page 59 & 60 MDL 11560 consumers name not mentioned as Tanaji A. Suryavanshi Dharwad 1) It is not concerned to me 1) R. R. 33662 No.101755e
Expenses made for registration of properties as investigated by I.O.
1) CTS 24870 None of these properties Div-5, Vol-1 page 1 -7 No.2663 Plot belong to me. All the No.1, 2, 6, 7, 8 properties mentioned here of Mudhol are ancestral. After the partition in July 2001 Smt. Sonubai A. Suryavanshi has received these properties as her share.
The Registration fee of these properties was paid by Shri. Appasaheb J. Suryavanshi 9
2) CTS This property doesn't No.2663 Plot belong to me. This property No.3 of Mudhol mentioned here is ancestral. After the partition in July 2001 Smt. Sonubai A. Suryavanshi has received this property as her share. The Registration fee of this property was paid by Shri. Appasaheb J. Survayanshi
3) D.N. Koppa, 50790 Permission taken from the Div-5, Vol-1 page 128- Dharwad Plot employer. Already included 135 No.HIG-39 in the schedules in (Open site) statement No.13A at Annexure-12 and 12A, Vol-
1 page No.33, Vol-2 pageNo.337-344
4. Belgaum 28970 Permission taken from the Kanbargi employer. Already included R.S.No.543, in the schedules in Plot No.886 statement No.13A (Open site) Annexure-11 and 11A, Vol-
1, page No.32, Vol-2 page
No.325-336
5) D.N. Koppa, 51185 These properties does not Div-5, Vol1 page 136-232
Dharwad belong to me
R.S.No.47/1+2
A/ 2 Plot These are not my benami Div-5, Vol-1 page 233-
No.15 (House properties. Kindly refer my 239
constructed) schedules and affidavit
given by Dr. Ashok A.
6) D. N. Koppa, Suryavanshi in Vol-7 page
Dharwad 26035 1535 and 1356. Also refer R.S.No.47/1+2A/2 Vol-7 page 1620-1646, page Plot No.10 (Open 1647-1654 site)
7) D. N. Koppa, 28740 This property does not Div-5, Vol-2 page 515- Dharwad belong to me. Kindly refer 539 R.S.No.47/1+2 schedule and affidavit of A/2 Plot No.8 Vilaskumar A. Suryavanshi & Plot No.9 in Vol-7, at page No.1460 (Open site) and page No.1491-1509 10
5. The learned Counsel would further contend that, the trial Court has failed to address the case, as sought to be made out under the applications seeking discharge. The petitioner while not seeking to produce any additional documents, but was only drawing attention to the documents, which were already part of the record and therefore, there was a bounden duty cast on the Court below to address the same, in holding whether the case could be made out against the petitioner at all. In this endeavour, the Court below having been proceeded to hold that, a closer examination of the record would amount to holding of a mini trial and proceeding to reject the application, results in a miscarriage of justice and hence, seeks intervention of this Court.
6. The learned Special Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, would seek to justify the order of the Court below.
7. As held by the Apex Court, in the case of P.Vijayan Vs. State of Kerala and another (AIR 2010 SC 663), if two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion 11 only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the Trial Judge would be empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage, he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal. The sufficiency of ground would take within its fold the nature of the evidence recorded by the police or the documents produced before the Court, which ex facie disclose that, there are suspicious circumstances against the accused.
8. Hence, having regard to the material evidence which is relied on by the petitioner, no harm or prejudice would be caused to the trial, if the Court below were to re-examine the case of the petitioner, with reference to the specific documents, to establish that, the charge could never be framed against the petitioner, given the overwhelming material, which are already available on record and which is not in dispute.
9. Therefore, on this limited aspect, namely that the Court below shall re-examine the case of the petitioner for 12 discharge with reference to the specific documents, that have been referred to hereinabove and to pass appropriate orders.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The Court shall re-
consider the application for discharge in terms as above.
Sd/-
JUDGE gab/-