IMPORTANT POINT
Discharge of accused – Court is only to confined as to whether a prima facie case is made out or not – No defence on merits is to be considered at the time of framing charge and / or at stage of deciding discharge application.

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

By way of filing the captioned revision application under Section 438 read with Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short BNSS, 2023), the petitioner seeks to challenge order dated 24.10.2024 passed below Exhibit-20 in ACB Special Case No.2 of 2024 by the Court of learned Special Judge (ACB) and Principle Session Judge, Junagadh whereby the said application filed under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short seeking to discharge from the alleged charges came to be rejected.

Factual Matrix:

2. The case of the petitioner as emerging from the FIR are that on 19.01.2024, when original complainant was on duty, he received a letter dated 19.01.2024 from one Mr.Kartik Bhanderi that his account was freeze by Cyber Crime Cell Junagadh and when he requested to defreeze his account to accused no.1 and 3 as named in the FIR, they refused get his account defreeze and demanded Rs.25 Lacs in lieu of getting the account defreeze and thus complaint was registered followed by the inquiry. It is further alleged in the FIR that said Mr.Kartik Bhanderi tried to get defreeze his bank account and therefore, he called Cyber Crime Cell, Junagadh in the first week of January, 2024 who in turn was informed by the concerned officer that he was required to visit Junagadh. It is also alleged that said Mr.Kartik Bhanderi came to Junagadh from Bangalore on 14.01.2024 and visited office of Cyber Crime Cell on 16.01.2024 and met accused no. 3 as per FIR. It is further alleged that accused no. 3 met Mr.Kartik Bhanderi and informed him that there are transaction in Crores of Rupees from your account and he has to inform about the same to E.D. It is alleged that said Mr.Kartik Bhanderi also informed accused no. 3 that he is ready to give Rs.4.00 to Rs.5.00 Lakhs to defreeze his account; but accused no. 3 denied and thereafter accused no. 3 informed Mr.Kartik Bhanderi that accused No.1 is here and he wants to meet him. Accused No.1 asked Mr.Kartik Bhanderi to follow the instructions given by accused no. 3. It is further alleged that accused no. 1 has demanded Rs.25 lakhs to defreeze his account; but Mr.Bhanderi denied and sent a letter to the superior authority and upon which inquiry stood started by the complainant.

2.2 It is also alleged in the FIR that preliminary inquiry was going on and statements were also recorded of different persons and accused no.3 informed that on 17.11.2023, accused no.1 called him and informed him that he has sent 3 Excel Sheets on his WhatsApp, which includes the details of different Bank Accounts which is given by the present petitioner to him and he followed the instructions given by the accused no.1. It is also alleged that after inquiry the complainant came to conclusion that present accused no.1 and 3 misused their post and freeze total 335 accounts as per the secret information given by the applicant and on the basis of aforesaid allegations, the FIR in question was registered with the B-Division Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 167, 465, 467, 471, 385, 389, 114 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2.3 The investigation culminated by submission of charge-sheet came to be filed for the offences punishable under Sections 385, 389, 114 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. where the present petitioner alongwith coaccused came to be arrayed as accused in the Special ACB Case No.2 of 2024.

3. In the above factual background, the petitioner–org. accused preferred an application under Section 239 of the Code seeking to discharge from the array of the accused, the learned Special Judge, alleged offence which after hearing the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, rejected the said application. Hence, this revision.

Submissions of the Petitioner:—

4. Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner Mr.Kansara