Sri. Prashantha K. V. @ Prashanth vs State Of Karnataka on 24 August, 2022
13. The learned Senior Counsel for the complainant no
doubt referred to Criminal Petition No. 101162 of 2016 and
Criminal Petition No. 101258 of 2016 filed by Accused 1 and
12 being dismissed [M. Premkumar v. State of Karnataka,
2016 SCC OnLine Kar 8781] , [Canara Bank v. State of
Karnataka, 2016 SCC OnLine Kar 8780] by the High Court and
the same not being carried further and attaining finality.
Though that be the position, in the instant case, the appellants
are before this Court to exercise the remedy available and as
such the dismissal of the said petitions cannot prejudice their
case when this Court is required to take a view on the matter
though it has not been availed in the earlier cases. Further,
the learned Senior Counsel has also referred to the statements
of two former officers of Canara Bank, namely, Gurupadayya
and Bapu which was recorded during the course of the
investigation and a reference was made by the learned Senior
Counsel to the detailed report regarding investigation wherein
the investigating officer, namely, the Assistant Police Sub-
Inspector, Sub-Urban Police Station, Hubballi had concluded
that as per the investigation it is found that all the accused
persons with conspiracy and in collusion with each other have
cheated the complainant by releasing only Rs 90 lakhs out of
the sanctioned amount of Rs 2.68 crores and by later not
releasing the remaining amount had caused economic
stumbling block and sold the property mortgaged to one of the
accused.