Point of Law: Courts exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. should adopt a judicial hands off if case revolves around disputed questions of fact as Court would not become a fact finding authority at stage of crime or analysis of charge sheet.

ORDER :

The petitioner/accused No.3 has knocked at the doors of this Court calling in question order dated 27-04-2021 passed by the XXIII Additional City Civil Sessions Judge and Special Judge for Prevention of Corruption Act, Bengaluru City in Special C.C.No.656 of 2021 taking cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(1)(e) r/w. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘the Act’ for short) and Section 109 of the IPC.

2. Facts adumbrated, are as follows:-

The petitioner claims to be a prominent member of the Ramaiah Education Society, Vice-President of the Gokula Education Foundation, Director of M.S.Ramaiah Institute of Technology and several M.S. Ramaiah Institutions. He further claims to be a philanthropist engaged in several charitable activities. The petitioner was also an elected representative from the Malleshwaram Constituency, Bengaluru. Proceedings come to be initiated against one T.N. Chikkarayappa, accused No.1 in the year 2021 for offences punishable under the provisions of the Act. Accused No.1 is said to have amassed wealth and acquired property in his name and the name of the family to the tune of Rs.3,58,30,212.13/-. The investigation against accused No.1 leads the petitioner -accused No.3, in the subject petition.

3. It is the case of the prosecution qua the present petitioner, that on 02-04-2012, M.S.Ramaiah Education Society issued a cheque drawn on Karnataka Bank for a sum of Rs.50,00,000/-in favour of M.S. Ramaiah Medical College. On 05.12.2016, a crime comes to be registered in Crime No.26 of 2016 alleging offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(d), 13(1)(e) r/w. 13(2) of the Act and investigation was taken up against accused No.1. The payment was made by M.S. Ramaiah Education Society to M.S. Ramaiah Medical College in favour of the daughter of accused No.1 in a sum of Rs.50,00,000/-as afore-quoted. It is then, the Lokayukta issued notice to M.S.Ramaiah Education Society to provide details regarding the payment of Rs.50/-lakhs, on 13.04.2018. The Society submits a reply on 26.04.2018, to the said notice contending that it was an interest free loan that was granted to the daughter of accused No.1 for her studies as she was not eligible for any scholarship. Another notice comes to be issued by the Lokayukta on 27.04.2018 to furnish complete details as to how the amount was paid as interest free loan to the daughter of accused No.1. The reply of the petitioner then was that the Society had become defunct and therefore, no records could be traced. The Lokayukta then completes the investigation and files a charge sheet in the concerned Court in Special C.C.No.656 of 2021. The learned Special Judge takes cognizance of the offences against accused Nos.1 to 5, which included the petitioner as accused No.3.

4. This Court only exempted the petitioner from personal appearance before the Special Court and had not granted any interim order of stay of further proceedings before the concerned Court. It is the taking of cognizance and the entire proceedings that drives the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

5. Heard Sri P. Prasanna Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri B.B. Patil, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondents.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the petitioner has no doubt signed the cheque as President of the Society. It is the Society that was responsible for issuance of cheque in favour of the daughter of accused No.1 to the Medical College. Therefore, no fault can be found with the petitioner as it is by way of cheque that the amount is transferred and it is not a case where cash was disbursed. It is his contention that the Society had by the time the 2nd notice came about became defunct and therefore, no records with regard to the transaction could be traced pursuant to the second notice issued