IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.496/2012 BETWEEN:
T.S.Shankara Narayana Rao S/o Late T.S.Subbarao, Aged about 87 years, Residing at No.1675, 27th Cross, 29th Main, HSR Layout, Sector-2, Bengaluru.
...Petitioner (By Sri.P.S.Rajagopal, Senior Counsel for Sri.R.Nagendra Naik, Advocate) AND:
Central Bureau of Investigation Anti Corruption Branch, Ganganagar, Bellary Road, Bengaluru. ... Respondent (By Sri.Madhav Kashyap, Advocate for Sri.P.Prasanna Kumar, Advocate) This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 of Cr.P.C praying to set aside the order dated 17.04.2012 passed by the XLVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI cases, Bengaluru City in Spl.C.C.No.263/2010 and discharge the petitioner/accused.
This Criminal Revision Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-CBI has filed a memo dated 30.08.2018 reporting the death of the petitioner/accused No.2 stating that he expired on 21.05.2015 and the learned counsel submits that the case as against the petitioner/accused No.2 stood abated. The trial Court has also passed an order to that effect.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has filed I.A.No.1/2019 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying this Court to permit the applicant-wife of the deceased, to come on record, to putforth her plea. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the property item Nos.14 to 17 in the charge sheet material at Para 5 belonged to petitioner/accused No.2 and the properties have been acquired by his self earning. Without deciding the said fact, the Court below has disposed the application filed by accused No.2 under Section 227 of Cr.P.C and now he wants to agitate before the Court below during the trial. The said properties are no way concerned to accused No.1. They are not benamy assets of accused No.1 and are self acquired properties of deceased petitioner/accused No.2. The scope of this revision is limited since the present revision petition has been filed only against the order of dismissal of the application filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C seeking discharge of the petitioner/accused No.2.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.2 that the trial has to yet to commence in respect of accused No.1. He may be given an opportunity to file an appropriate application before the Court below and to contest his case for a limited purpose, to show that the said properties are not benami asset of accused No.1 and they are entitled to the same. By giving the said liberty, the present revision petition is dismissed as abated. The legal representative of petitioner/accused No.2, if she is advised to file any application, in that event, the trial Court can look into the same before final adjudication.
The trial Court is hereby directed to record the evidence, while finally adjudicating the case decide the rights and liabilities of petitioner/accused No.2’s legal representative. The trial Court is directed to give an opportunity to the present applicant before an order is passed under Section 3 of The Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944.
Sd/- JUDGE UN