Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
K. Somashekar, J.
State Represented by Central Bureau of Investigation - Petitioner
Versus
Ritesh Milapchand Jain S/o Milapchand Jain - Respondent
Criminal Revision Petition No. 1475, 1476, 1477, 1478, 1479, 1486 of 2016
Decided On : 23-09-2022
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 239, 227, 239, 197(1), 161, 173(2) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 120B, 379, 420, 427 & 447 – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 13(2), (1)(d) - Indian Forest Act, 1927 – Section 26 - Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 - Section 8(2) - Applications - Seeking to Set Aside Order - All these Criminal Revision Petitions have been filed by State, represented by Central Bureau of Investigation seeking to set aside order passed by learned XLVI-Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI cases. [Para 125]
Finding of the Court: In instant case, Accused Nos.1 to 7 have filed applications under Section 227/239 of Cr.P.C. seeking discharge - Subsequent to filing of applications, Special Public Prosecutor has filed objections to said applications in detail by referring statement of witnesses and so also referring material documents secured by IO and ultimately accepting arguments of learned counsel for Accused Nos.1 to 7 allowed applications seeking discharge - Therefore, XLVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI Case, Bangalore has rightly come to conclusion that there are no sufficient materials/evidence against accused persons to proceed in further for framing of charge and consequently, they were discharged from case - Therefore, in these petitions, there are no merits or otherwise to say there is no substance to call for interference of this Court and no warranting circumstances has arised for intervention of impugned order passed by trial court.
Result: Petitions rejected.
ORDER :
All these Criminal Revision Petitions have been filed by the State, represented by the Central Bureau of Investigation seeking to set aside the order dated 30.01.2016 passed by the learned XLVI-Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI cases at Bengaluru city in Special C.C.No.165/2013. Since all these petitions arise out of the same C.C.No.165/2013, they are heard together and are disposed of by this common order.
2. The petition in Crl.R.P.No.1475/2016 pertains to respondent/Accused No.3/Rithesh Milapchand Jain, Chief Executive Officer, Deccan Mining Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. (DMSPL). This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the State praying to set aside the order dated 30.01.2016 passed by the learned XLVI-Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI cases at Bengaluru city in Special C.C.No.165/2013 allowing IA No.14 filed by the accused No.3/respondent under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., and discharging the accused No.3/respondent of the offences under Sections 120B, 379, 420, 427 & 447 of IPC and under Section 13(2) r/w Sec. 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act, 1988 and consequently praying to reject the said I.A.No.14.
3. The petition in Crl.R.P.No.1476/2016 pertains to respondent/Accused No.5/N. Vishwanatha, Retd. Addl. Chief Secretary & Development Commissioner of Karnataka, Government of Karnataka. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the State praying to set aside the order dated 30.01.2016 passed by the learned XLVI-Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI cases at Bengaluru city in Special C.C.No.165/2013 allowing the application filed by the accused No.5/respondent under Section 227 of Cr.P.C., and discharging the accused No.5/respondent of the offences under Sections 120B, 379, 420, 427 & 447 of IPC and under Section 13(2) r/w Sec. 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act, 1988 and consequently praying to reject the said application.
4. The petition in Crl.R.P.No.1477/2016 pertains to Accused No.6/S.P. Raju, Retired Deputy Director, Mines & Geology, Hospet. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the State praying to set aside the order dated 30.01.2016 passed by the learned XLVI-Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI cases at Bengaluru city in Special C.C.No.165/2013 allowing I.A.24 filed by the accused No.6/respondent under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., and discharging the accused No.6/respondent of the offences under Sections 120B, 379, 420, 427 & 447 of IPC and under Section 13(2) r/w Sec. 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act, 1988 and consequently praying to reject the said I.A.24.
5. The petition in Crl.R.P.No.1478/2016 pertains to Accused No.1/Rajendra Kumar Jain, Managing Director of M/s. Deccan Mining Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. (DMSPL). This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the State praying to set aside the order dated 30.01.2016 passed by the learned XLVI-Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI cases at Bengaluru city in Special C.C.No.165/2013 allowing I.A.No.13 filed by the accused No.1/respondent under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., and discharging the accused/respondent of the offences under Sections 120B, 379, 420, 427 & 447 of IPC and under Section 13(2) r/w Sec. 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act, 1988 and consequently praying to reject the said I.A.No.13.
6. The petition in Crl.R.P.No.1479/2016 pertains to Accused No.4/Shameem Bhanu, Retired Addl. Chief Secretary, Department of Commerce & Industry, Government of Karnataka. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the State praying to set aside the order dated 30.01.2016 passed by the learned XLVI-Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI cases at Bengaluru city in Special C.C.No.165/2013 allowing I.A.No.7 filed by the accused No.4/respondent under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., and discharging the accused/respondent of the offences under Sections 120B, 379, 420, 427 & 447 of IPC and under Section 13(2) r/w Sec. 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act, 1988 and consequently praying to reject the said I.A.No.7.
7. The pe
Section 239 of Cr.P.C. which postulates “when accused shall be discharged -If, upon considering the police report and the documents sent with it under Section 173 and making such examination, if any,....
The offence under Sec. 3 of the PML Act is a stand-alone offence, and the finality of the adjudication proceedings and the discharge of the accused by the trial Court can impact the continuation of c....
Discharge of accused – Challenged - no active role is incriminated against her, she cannot be made liable for the acts done by Accused No.1. She was only subscribing her signature on the documents on....
The principle of vicarious liability cannot be automatically imputed to directors or partners of a company without specific averments and proof of their involvement in the alleged offences.
Charges against the petitioner cannot be sustained without specific allegations linking her to criminal conspiracy or misconduct under the Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC, leading to her dischar....
The provisions of Section 22 of the MMDR Act do not operate as a complete and absolute bar for taking action by the police for illegal and dishonestly committing theft of minerals, and the police hav....
The court ruled that the CBI lacked jurisdiction to proceed against the petitioners due to insufficient evidence linking them to the alleged crimes as transporters, not exporters.
At the stage of discharge or framing of a charge, the court cannot evaluate the pros and cons of the evidence and facts, and holding a mini trial is impermissible.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
