A discharge petition requires sufficient prima facie evidence; an absence in FIR or co-accused acquittals alone cannot substantiate discharge claims.

JUDGMENT:

G.SATAPATHY, J.

1. This criminal revision is directed against the impugned order dated 29.08.2024 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ganjam at Berhampur in G.R. Case No. 367 of 2011-(B) refusing to discharge the petitioner from the criminal case for commission of offences punishable U/S.120(B)/420/ 468/471/34 of IPC r/w. Sections 4/5/6 of Prize Chits & Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 (in short, “the Act”).

2. Briefly stated, the allegations against the petitioner are that the petitioner and others by entering into conspiracy allured the informant to deposit/invest money in Right Max Techno Trade Company on the assurance of giving high returns. The said company was manned by the petitioner and others and believing the statement of one V.Lachmeya Reddy of such company to get triple return on investment in just 33 months, the informant deposited Rs.60,000/- in the said company on 31.02.2010/01.03.2010 and in the process, the company also received investment/deposit from the other villagers, who invested certain amounts in the company, but when N.Dinabandhu Reddy, the informant came to know about closure of the company and did not get back any money, he lodged an FIR against the employees of the company which came to be registered in Chamakhandi P.S. case No. 93 of 2011 resulting in commencement of investigation which ultimately ended in submission of charge sheet against the petitioner and others for commission of offence punishable U/S. 120(B)/420/468/471/34 of IPC r/w. Sections 4/5/6 of the Act.

3. On the basis of materials collected in the investigation, cognizance of offences was taken resulting in trial in the original case, but some of the accused persons facing the trial in original case before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ganjam at Berhampur in G.R. Case No. 367 of 2011-(B) got acquitted on conclusion of trial. Since the petitioner and five others did not appear in the original case, the case against them was separated and split up by the learned trial Court in G.R. Case No. 367 of 2011- (B), but subsequently the petitioner and four others appeared in the split up case, however, only the revision petitioner filed a discharge petition to discharge him from this case for commission of offences punishable U/Ss. 120(B)/420/468/471/34 of IPC r/w. Sections 4/5/6 of the Act mainly on two grounds that his name does not find place in the FIR with no overt act being attributed to him and acquittal of co-accused persons in the original trial. The learned trial Court, however, by the impugned order rejected such discharge petition of the revision petitioner giving rise to the present revision.

4. In the course of hearing of the revision, Mr. Ramani. K., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that co-accused standing on similar footing has already been acquitted by the learned trial Court in original case in G.R. Case No. 367 of 2011 and the name of the petitioner being conspicuously absent in the FIR and no overt act having been attributed against him, the petitioner should have been discharged from the case, however, the learned trial Court erroneously applied the law and rejected the discharge petition of the petitioner which can be rectified by allowing this revision. Accordingly, Mr. Ramani. K., learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the revision by setting aside the impugned order and discharging the petitioner from the criminal case.

4.1. On the other hand, Mr. R.B. Mishra, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, however, strongly opposes such prayer of the petitioner by inter alia contending that not only the learned trial Court ha