The court upheld the rejection of the discharge application, emphasizing that unexplained cash deposits raised suspicion of abetment under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

ORDER :

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This criminal revision petition is filed challenging the order dated 06.12.2023 passed in Spl. C.C. No. 656/2021 rejecting the discharge application filed by the petitioner.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution against this petitioner who has been arraigned as accused No. 4 is that he is the friend of accused No. 1 and he 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 Dr. C.Anisha Roy. It is contended that his father is also a doctor and details are mentioned at page No. 73 Volume 24 of the charge sheet. The petitioner has 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 is that he has 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 Smt. Lalitha, UCO Bank, Banashankari Branch. He made the pre-closure of his fixed deposit for Rs.10,07,192/- and credited the same into his personal account and he made cash deposit of Rs.9,95,000/- to his personal account on 24.02.2012. On 25.02.2012 he 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.25,00,000/- in favour of daughter of accused No. 1, but his contention is that the amount paid by him is 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 IPC nor it amounts to an abetment under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

4. The Trial Court having considered the material available on record comes to the conclusion that the petitioner not disputes the fact that he made the payment and comes to the conclusion that sudden deposit of Rs.17,50,000/- by this accused in cash on 21.03.2012 to his account and further deposit of Rs.9,95,000/- in cash on 24.02.2012, in all a huge sum of Rs.27,45,500/- is not bearing any explanation. He also got transferred an amount of Rs.8,05,000/- to his personal account on 25.02.2012 from the account of his wife which is a huge amount and she is a housewife. In the absence of convincing reasons gives rise to serious suspicion and hence not accepted the contention of the petitioner to discharge and rejected the same. Hence, the present criminal revision petition is filed before this Court.

5. The main contention of the petitioner is that he is a doctor and accused No. 1 approached him for financial assistance for his daughter to pursue M.D. (Pediatric) at M.S. Ramaiah Medical College, Bengaluru and he deposited the amount on 22.03.2012 by way of RTGS. Merely because he extended financial help to the daughter of accused No. 1 for higher education, it cannot be said with any stretch of imagination that the petitioner has abetted the offences under Sections 13(1)(d), 13(1)(e) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 109 of IPC and payment is made directly to the institution through their bank account. The learned counsel contend that the said amount is the self earned money of the petitioner and the same is reflected in the bank accounts and income tax returns. The petitioner never received any money from accused No. 1 and it will not attract Section 109 of IPC. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case and the said amount has been shown by the petitioner in his income tax returns, who is also a doctor by profession. The learned counsel contend that the Trial Court accepted the reasons given by accused Nos. 3 and 5. This petitioner is also placed similarly as that of accused Nos. 3 and 5, but the Trial Court com