Karnataka High Court
Rajashekar H. Haramagatti S/O. ... vs The State By Police Inspector on 10 December, 2012
Author: N.Ananda
Bench: N.Ananda
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 10 t h DAY OF DECEMBER, 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.2252 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
RAJASHEKAR H. HARAMAGATTI
S/O. HONNAPPA
AGE: 48 YEARS,
JUNIOR ENGINEER, TALUKA PANCHAYAT
RANEBENNUR, DIST HAVERI
... PETITIONER
(By M/S. SHANKAR HEGDE & ASSOCIATES)
AND:
THE STATE BY POLICE INSPECTOR
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA POLICE STATION
HAVERI
... RESPONDENT
(By Sri. M.B.GUNDAWADE ADV.)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 397 R/W
401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED 06.10.2012 (ANNEXURE-C) PASSED BY THE
SPECIAL JUDGE, HAVERI, SPL(LOK) C. NO.04/2008.
This revision petition coming on for
Admission this day, the Court made the following:
:2:
O R D E R
The petitioner is arrayed as accused in S.C. No.4/2008 pending trial for offences punishable under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [for short 'the Act'].
2. The petitioner had sought for discharge. The petitioner had contended that before investigating officer, he had given a statement that his father had earned a sum of Rs.45,00,000/- from agriculture and also from horticulture. The father of accused had given a sum of Rs.45,00,000/- to accused. The same should have been taken as known source of income of accused.
3. It is seen from investigation records and statements of CWs-24, 42 and 43, accused had put-forth a contention that he had borrowed a sum :3: of Rs.98,100/- by executing a promissory note. It is also contended by accused that while evaluating depreciation value, 12% of entire building value should have been taken.
4. The trial of an offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) of the Act is governed by Chapter-XIX of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure states when the accused shall be discharged. Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads thus:
239. When accused shall be discharged.--If, upon considering the police report and the documents sent with it under Section 173 and making such examination, if any, of the accused as the Magistrate thinks necessary and after giving the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard, the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless, he shall discharge the accused, and record his reasons for so doing.":4:
5. Section 240 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which provides for framing of charges, reads thus:
240. Framing of charge.--
(1) If, upon such consideration, examination, if any, and hearing, the Magistrate is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence triable under this Chapter, which such Magistrate is competent to try and which, in his opinion, could be adequately punished by him, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused.
(2) The charge shall then be read and explained to the accused, and he shall be asked whether he pleads guilty of the offence charged or claims to be tried."
6. It is needless to state that learned trial judge has to consider the investigation records. If the trial judge after consideration of investigation records comes to the conclusion that charges against the accused are groundless, then he shall discharge the accused.
:5:
7. In the case on hand, the accused has contended that he had received a sum of Rs.45,00,000/- from his father, who had earned more than Rs.45,00,000/- from agricultural and dairying. It is also seen from investigation records that accused had relied upon promissory note, statements of CWs-23, 42 and 43 to establish that accused had received Rs.98,100/- by executing a promissory note. At one breath the accused contends that he had received a sum of Rs.45,00,000/- from his father out of his agricultural and dairying income. In the next breath, the accused contends that he had borrowed a sum of Rs.98,100/- by executing a promissory note.
The learned trial judge on consideration of investigation records has come to the conclusion :6: that there are grounds to presume that accused had committed offences alleged against him.
Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE RK/-