A judge must provide adequate reasoning when discharging an accused under Sections 227 and 239 of the Cr.P.C., ensuring that the decision is based on a thorough examination of the charge sheet and relevant evidence.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard learned HCGP for the petitioner-State and learned Senior counsel Sri. B.L. Acharya, for the respondent/accused No.3.

2. The petitioner has filed this revision petition under Sec. 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') to set aside the order dtd. 17/12/2015 passed in Crl.RP.No.189/2011 by IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as per their rankings before the trial Court. The revision petitioner is the 'complainant- State' and the respondent is 'accused No.3'.

4. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:-

The COD police, Bengaluru filed a charge sheet against accused No.3 and others for the offences punishable under Sec. 409, 468, 477(A), 420 r/w 120 IPC, on the allegation that the accused were working in the Audit Sec. of RTO office, Mangaluru at the relevant point of time i.e., for the period from 1990 to 1999 and during that period, accused No.3 and other accused persons conspired together and caused loss to the Government to the tune of Rs.58, 69, 767.00 and failed to discharge their duties properly. Hence, it led to registration of FIR and investigation. The Investigating Officer filed charge sheet against accused No.3 and others for the aforesaid offences.

5. Later, the IO secured sanction from the Government against accused No.3 on 19/1/2004. During the pendency of the case, accused No.3 filed an application under Sec. 239 Cr.P.C, seeking for his discharge for the offences alleged. The Trial court rejected the same. Hence, accused No.3 filed Crl.RP.No.189/2011 before the learned IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru and the revisional court set-aside the order dtd. 6/11/2015 passed by the trial court in C.C.No.177/2006 and thereby accused No.3 was discharged of the alleged offences.

6. Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant State has preferred this petition contending that the order passed by the revisional court is not in accordance with law; the trial court has not applied its mind to the provisions of Sec. 227 and 239 Cr.P.C. There is sufficient ground for proceeding against accused No.3 and others to frame charge in order to adequately punish him. Further, accused No.3 and others conspired together and caused loss to the Government to the tune of Rs.58, 69, 767.00 and thereby accused No.3 and other accused failed to discharge their duty properly.

7. It is further contended that merely because accused Nos.2 and 4 were discharged on the ground of defective sanction accorded by the Government, now accused No.3 on the ground of parity is not entitled for discharge. It is contended that the trial court has not at all considered the contents of the charge sheet while passing the impugned order. Hence, prayed to allow the petition.

8. Learned Senior counsel Sri. B.L. Acharya, appearing for the respondent-accused vehemently argued and contended that accused No.2 was the Treasury officer and accused No.3 was the Accounts Officer and as per the contents of the charge sheet, though it was considered to be dereliction of duty, but dereliction does not amount to criminality. The revisional court considering the defective sanction order granted against accused Nos.2 and 4 has rightly allowed the petition of accused No.3 on the ground of parity. Hence, learned Senior counsel prayed to reject the petition.

9. Perused the material available on record. Initially, the case has been registered against accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offence punishable under Sec. 409, 468, 477(A), 420 r/w 120 IPC on the allegation that the present petitioner and other accused persons were working in the Audit office at the relevant point of time i.e., during 1990 to 1999 and they conspired together and caused loss to the State exchequer i.e., Government to the tune of Rs.58, 69, 767.00. On perusal of the order passed by the Revisional Court, the Revisional court at para 10 obser