IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.689/2018 BETWEEN:
1. Smt. Jyotsna Kulkarni, W/o. Sri. N. Sudhakar Rao, Aged about 51 years, Partner of M/s. Vaishnavi Sales Corporation, R/at Plot No.500, Road No.5, S.S. Puram, Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad -500073.
2. Sri. N. Sudhakar Rao, S/o. Nuna Rama Rao, Aged about 53 years, Partner of M/s. Vaishnavi Sales Corporation, R/at Plot No. 500, Road No.5, S.S. Puram, Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad -500073.
3. M/s. Vaishnavi Sales Corporation, Partnership Firm Rep.by its Partners, Smt. Jyotsna Kulkarni and Sri. N. Sudhakar Rao, Office at Flat No. S-4, 2nd Floor, Sri Sai Sannadhi, Bilekahalli, Begur Hobli, South Taluk, Bengaluru -560 068.
Also at No.46 & 47, Ground Floor, 5-9-60, Moghal Court, Basherbagh, Hyderabad -500073. …Petitioners (By Sri. Murthy Dayanand Naik, Advocate) AND State by Inspector of Police Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti Corruption Branch, Ganganagar, Bellary Road, Bengaluru -560 024. …Respondent (By Sri. Shesha Karthi M. Reddy, Advocate for Sri. P. Prasanna Kumar, Advocate) This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the order dated 23.04.2018 passed in Spl. C.C. No.578/2015 on the file of the XXXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI Cases at Bengaluru (CCH- No.34) for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 120B, 420, 409, 471 of IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(i)(c) and (d) of PC Act registered by the CBI, Anti Corruption Branch at Bengaluru in RC 03(A) 2014.
This Criminal Revision Petition coming on for admission this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER This petition has been filed by the petitioners/accused Nos. 2 to 4, challenging the order passed by XXXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI Cases at Bengaluru in Spl. C.C. No.578/2015 dated 23.04.2018.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners/accused and learned counsel Sri. Shesha Karthik M. Reddy, Advocate for P.Prasanna Kumar, Special Public Prosecutor for CBI.
4. The factual matrix of the case as per the prosecution is that accused Nos. 1 to 3 being the partners of M/s. Vaishali Sales Corporation, Hyderabad and accused No.4 having its office at Bilekahalli, Bengaluru conspired with each other processed a proposal in favour of the said partnership firm represented by them for transaction hypothecation limit of Rs.200.00 lakhs under Dena Trade Finance Scheme without formal loan application from the said corporation and without there being any sufficient documents and thereby causing a wrongful loss of Rs.721.73 lakhs to Dena Bank to make a wrongful gain. On the basis of the investigation a charge sheet has been filed. Accused Nos. 2 to 5 filed an application under Sections 239 and 227 of Cr.P.C. seeking discharge. After hearing the learned trial judge by order dated 23.04.2018 rejected the application holding that there exists sufficient material against accused Nos. 2 to 4 for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 420 and 471 of IPC.
5. The learned counsel Sri. Murthy D. Nayak urged that there is absolutely no material as against the petitioners/accused. The trial Court ought to have discharged the petitioners/accused. It is his further submission that the petitioners/accused are in no way connected with the firm and petitioners should not have been arrayed as accused and prosecuted. It is his alternative argument that though the learned Judge while dismissing the application held that there is sufficient material to frame the charge against the accused under Sections 120B, 420 and 471 of IPC. But however, while framing the charge the learned Judge has erred and filed a charge under Section 468 of IPC. He further submitted that the trial Court has clearly erred the manner in which the proceedings have been taken place. On these grounds he prayed to allow the petition and set aside the impugned order.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/CBI submitted that the trial Court after considering the material placed on, has rightly come to the conclusion and there are no good grounds to interfere with the order of the trial Court. The trial Court order deserves to be confirmed. It is his further submission that accused No.5 has filed a Criminal Petition in Crl.P.No.7833/2018. This Court has already confirmed the impugned order by dismissing the petition. Under such circumstances, the present petition is not maintainable. On these grounds he prayed to dismiss the petition.
7. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records.
8. As could be seen from the order dated 16.07.2019 passed by this Court in Crl.P.No. 7833/2018, similar grounds have been urged by accused No.5. The Coordinate Bench after considering the material placed on record has come to the conclusion that there is no error in the order passed by the trial Court and it has come to the conclusion that there is material available to frame the charge against the petitioner under Sections 120B, 420. But however it is brought to the notice of this Court while framing the charge, the learned trial Judge has added Section 471 of IPC.
9. Sofar as the addition of Section 468 of IPC in the charge is concerned against petitioners/accused Nos.
2 to 4, it appears to be erroneous. Therefore, the petitioners are at liberty to approach the trial Court and sought correction of charge by filing an appropriate application under Sections 216 of Cr.P.C.
With the above observation the petition is disposed.
As the main matter is disposed off, I.A. No.1/2019 does not survive for consideration. Hence, I.A. No. 1/2019 is disposed off.
Sd/- JUDGE BVK