Scope Of Revision Is Limited; Court Only Has To Consider Whether Material Collected By Investigation Officer Is Sufficient: Karnataka HC
The Karnataka High Court clarified that the scope of Revision is limited and the Court only has to consider whether the material collected by the Investigation Officer (IO) is sufficient.
The Court clarified thus in a Criminal Revision Petition challenging the Order by which the discharge application filed by the accused was rejected.
A Single Bench of Justice H.P. Sandesh elucidated, “Having considered the principles laid down in the judgments referred supra, it is very clear that the scope of revision is very limited and only the Court has to consider the material collected by the Investigation Officer, whether the same is sufficient or not.”
The Bench reiterated that only because a Revision Petition is maintainable, the same by itself would not constitute a bar for entertaining an Application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
Senior Advocate M.T. Nanaiah represented the Petitioner/accused while Advocate Lethif B. represented the Respondent/State.
Factual Background -
As per the prosecution case, the Petitioner who was arraigned as accused No.4 was the friend of accused No.1 and he allegedly committed the offence of abetment in helping accused No.1 to legalize the illegal amount by making payment of Rs. 25 lakhs to pursue M.D. (Pediatric) of the daughter of accused No.1. It was contended that his father was also a doctor. The Petitioner had filed an Application contending that he had made the payment of Rs. 25 lakhs in favour of daughter of accused No.1. The specific allegation against the Petitioner was that he deposited cash amount of Rs. 17,50,000/- to his individual account and the account was standing in the name of himself and his wife. It was further alleged that he made the pre-closure of his fixed deposit for Rs. 10,07,192/- and credited the same into his personal account and made cash deposit of Rs. 9,95,000/- to his personal account.
Then, the Petitioner allegedly got transferred an amount of Rs. 8,50,000/- from the SB account of his wife out of her accumulated savings to the personal account of himself and closing balance in his account was Rs. 30,56,185/-. The Petitioner did not dispute the payment of Rs. 25 lakhs in favour of daughter of accused No.1, but his contention was that the amount paid by him was his personal amount and he can spend, lend it to any person, and dispose of it as he desires and it would not attract the offence under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) nor it amounts to an abetment under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act). The Trial Court rejected this contention and hence, the Petitioner was before the High Court.
The High Court in the above regard, observed, “Even where a revision application is barred, as for example the remedy by way of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 this Court has held that the remedies under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India would be available.”
The Court noted that the Court cannot conduct a mini trial and defence cannot be considered in a discharge application and the Court has to only look into the material collected by the Investigating Officer whether sufficient material are there or not.
“… it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the same is his self-earned money and the same is disclosed in the income tax returns. The income tax returns does not disclose the same and all these contentions which have been raised is nothing but a defence and the same cannot be considered while considering the discharge application”, it also said.
Furthermore, the Court remarked that, no explanation was given for having deposited the cash and hence, the very contention of the counsel for the Petitioner that accused Nos. 3 and 5 have been discharged, but not discharged the Petitioner cannot be accepted and the very source of amount is just before payment of Rs. 25 lakhs in favour of daughter of accused No.1 i.e., cash amount of Rs. 17,50,000/- as well as Rs.9,95,000/- was deposited.
“When such reasoning is given by the Trial Court and the same is considered on merits, hence I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court in rejecting the application having taken note of the material on record. The yardstick applied to accused Nos.3 and 5 will not come to the aid of the petitioner and hence I do not find any ground to allow the revision petition and set aside the order”, it added.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Criminal Revision Petition.
Cause Title- Dr. Mohankumar M. v. State of Karnataka
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate M.T. Nanaiah and Advocate T.M. Venkata Reddy.
Respondent: Advocate Lethif B.
