The

revision

petitioner/accused

No.1

feeling

aggrieved by order passed by IV Addl. District and Sessions

Judge and Special Judge (PCA), Belagavi in Spl.Case.

No.188/2018, preferred this revision petition.

2.

Parties to the petition are referred with their ranks

as assigned in the trial Court for the sake of convenience.

3.

The

factual

matrix

leading

to

the

case

of

prosecution can be stated in nutshell to the effect that accused

No.1 is a contractor in water supply business and accused No.2

was serving as RTO in RTO office, Chikkodi. Accused Nos. 1 and

2 in collusion with each other got transferred water tanker

bearing No. MEI-7850 in the name of accused No.1 without

there being any document, requisite fee or application for

- 3 -

transfer of vehicle for unlawful gain. Accused No.2 has used his

separate I.D for the purpose of transferring the said vehicle. On

these allegations, private complaint No.2/2017 was filed before

the trial Court and the same was referred to investigation under

Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. to Anti Corruption Bureau police

station, Belagavi. The case was registered under Anti

Corruption Bureau police station Crime No.6/2017. The

investigation officer after completion of investigation filed

charge sheet against accused Nos. 1 and 2.

4.

Accused Nos. 1 and 2 filed application under section

227 of Cr.P.C. for discharge. The trial Court, after hearing both

sides, by order dated 27.11.2020 dismissed the application.

5.

The correctness and legality of the dismissal of

discharge

application

is

challenged

by

revision

petitioner/accused No.1 contending that accused Nos.2 to 4

named in the FIR were dropped from charge sheet. The name

of accused No.1 is recorded as owner of vehicle bearing MEI-

7850 in the RTO records though he is no way concerned to the

said vehicle. On the application of complainant, enquiry was

conducted and it was found that name of accused No.1 has

been wrongly entered in the computer records through

- 4 -

oversight. However, in B file, the name of complainant is in

existence. Accused No.1 was distributing water in and around

Chikkodi, Raibag and Hukkeri by taking various vehicles on hire

basis including the complainant upto the year 2013 only. The

trial Court without considering the charge sheet materials has

erroneously proceeded to dismiss the discharge application.

Therefore, prayed for allowing the revision petition and to set

aside order of trial Court dated 27.11.2020. Consequently, to

discharge revision petitioner-accused No.1 for the offences

alleged against him.

6.

In response to notice, learned counsel-Sri.Santosh

B Malagaoudar has appeared for respondent.

7.

Heard the arguments of both sides.

8.

On careful perusal of the charge sheet material, it

would go to show that complainant has purchased TATA heavy

Goods vehicle bearing No. MEI 7850 from it's erstwhile owner

Smt.Srimati W/o Appasab Wadikar, on 6.8.1995. The name of

complainant is recorded in the records of vehicle maintained by

RTO, Chikkodi. The complainant got fitted steal water tank to

the said vehicle for his business and he has never sold the said

vehicle to anybody.

- 5 -

9.

Indisputably,

the

name

of

accused

No.1

is

appearing in the records of RTO, Chikkodi with respect to

vehicle bearing No. MEI-7850 which belongs to complainant. It

is contended that accused No.1 is no way concerned to vehicle

bearing No.MEI-7850. The name of accused No.1 has been

wrongly entered in computer records through oversight.

However, in the B register maintained by RTO office, still the

name of complainant is in existence as owner of the vehicle.

The enquiry was conducted and order came to be passed by

RTO, Chikkodi dated 27.1.2017 and ordered to correct the

mistake while transferring the particulars of the vehicle in

computer records.

10. The charge sheet material would go to show that it

is not mere mistake of entering the name of accused No.1 in

the records of vehicle maintained by RTO, Chikkodi. On the

other hand, vehicle bea