ORDER :

1. Even though the matter is listed for Admission, same is taken for final hearing with the consent of both parties.

This revision petition is filed by accused No.16, who is arraigned as accused while filing additional charge-sheet by the Investigating Officer.

2. The revision petitioner/accused No.16 is assailing the impugned order dated 17.07.2018 passed in S.C.No.129/2014 on the file of learned Principal District and Sessions Judge and (KCOCA) of Special Court, Belagavi (for short ‘the Trial Court’) dismissing the application filed by the revision petitioner under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. seeking his discharge.

3. Brief facts of the case are that, Ankola Police registered Crime No.245/2013 on the basis of first information lodged by the informant-Shri Ramesh, initially against 12 accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 353, 120(B), 212,384, 419, 468, 471, 18, 201 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’ for the sake of brevity) and under Sections 3, 25(c), 27(c)(b)(a), (1-B) of Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Arms Act’ for the sake of brevity) and under Sections 3(1)(i), 3(1)(ii), 3(2)(3)(4) of the Karnataka Control of Organized Crime Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the KCOC Act’ for the sake of brevity).

4. After filing of the charge sheet against 12 accused, it is stated that further statement of other witnesses were recorded. On the basis of such statement, the present petitioner was subjected to investigation and his voluntary statement is said to have been recorded. On the basis of the materials collected by the Investigating Officer during further investigation, petitioner was arraigned as accused No.16 and additional charge sheet came to be filed.

5. The petitioner/accused No.16 filed the application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. before the Trial Court seeking his discharge. The same came to be rejected vide order dated 17/7/2018. Being aggrieved by the impugned Judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court, the accused is before this Court.

6. Heard Sri. S.B.Doddagoudar, learned Amicus Curie, for the revision petitioner and Sri. Ramesh B.Chigari, learned HCGP for respondent-State and perused the materials including the Trial Court records.

7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the Investigating Officer has not followed the procedure as contemplated under Section 19(3) of the KCOC Act. He submitted that as per Section 19(3) of the KCOC Act, the Investigating Officer is required to explain to the accused that the voluntary statement given by him will be used against him during trial. The Investigating Officer has to certify at the end of the statement regarding his satisfaction that the accused has given statement voluntarily. In the present case, no such procedures were followed by the Investigating Officer and therefore, the voluntary statement cannot be relied on. The learned counsel also submitted that Charge Sheet Witness-Mayur had given statement before the Investigating Officer and his further statement were also recorded from time to time. But, he had not referred the name of the present petitioner in those statements and further statement. It was only on 20/11/2015, the further statement of one Mayur was recorded, wherein he has referred the name of the present petitioner, after lapse of so many years, which cannot be believed. Similarly, the statement of Charge Sheet Witness-Prasanna Nayak was recorded on 20/11/2015, wherein he again refers to the role played by the present petitioner. The further statement of Mayur and statement of Prasanna Nayak recorded on 20/11/2015 could not be believed even for a moment. Therefore, there is absolutely no material against the present petitioner to proceed for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 120B of IPC and also under the provision of KCOC Act. Hence, he prays for allowing the revision petition by setting aside the impugned order pa