O R D E R

Petitioner-accused No.2 in Special CC No.41/2012 on the file of Special Judge for CBI cases (CCH No.4), Bengaluru City has filed this revision petition being aggrieved by the order dated 6.12.2013 passed by the XXI Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge and Spl.Judge for CBI Cases, Bangalore City in Spl.C.C.No.41/2012 produced at Annexure-A insofar as it relates to the petitioner herein and consequently discharge the petitioner as an accused in Spl.C.C.No.41/2012 produced at Annexure-A in so far as it relates to the petitioner herein and consequently discharge the petitioner as an accused in Special CC No.41/2012 pending on the file of the XXI Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge and Spl. Judge for CBI cases (CCH-4), Bangalore City rejecting the plea of his discharge, has filed this revision petition.

2. The facts leading to this revision petition in brief are as follows:

That the complainant, the Chief Vigilance Officer, State Bank of Mysore (Now SBI), Vigilance Dept. Head Office, KG Road, Bengaluru submitted complaint on 31.8.2008 alleging certain offences against accused persons for the offences punishable under SEc.120-B, 409, 419, 420, 467 and 471of IPC and Sec.13(2) read with sec.13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988. It is alleged in the complaint that these accused persons nos. 2 to 5 in collusion and in conspiracy with each other, got the Housing Loans sanctioned to various individuals through M/s. Sri Balaji Krupa Enterprises by submitting fabricated salary certificates of ITI, BEML, BMTC, BESCOM, KSRTC. Etc…and accused no.1 as was the then Branch Manager conspired with those individuals and sanctioned loan to the extent of 7.17 crores. It is alleged that, by accepting such a false and fabricated documents, loans were got sanctioned. The outstanding loan amount was to the tune of Rs.3.53 crores. This has caused unlawful loss to the Bank and correspondingly unlawful gain to the accused persons.

3. After investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the accused persons. They were enlarged on bail after their appearance before the trial court. Accused nos. 2 to 5, filed an application under Sec.227 of Cr.PC seeking their discharge stating that, they are innocent and have not committed any offence. They have been falsely implicated with dishonest intention. No allegations are made with regard to their dishonest or fraudulent act to induce or deceive any person in getting the loan. There is no nexus between them and alleged offences. False offences are alleged against them. Though the loans have been granted to the extent of 7.17 crores, but, there is no loss as the loans have been repaid by the borrowers. The allegations prima facie do not disclose the existence of any offence or its ingredients which constitute offences against accused persons so alleged in the charge.

4. Accused nos. 2 to 5 filed application for their discharge by invoking the provisions of Sec.227 of the Cr.PC. The learned Special Judge, on filing of the objections by the prosecution, after hearing the arguments have rejected the application of all accused nos. 2 to 5. This is how now present accused no.2 is in revision before this Court challenging the said order of rejection of his application on the following grounds.

5. A perusal of material produced along with the charge sheet leads to an irrefutable conclusion that a false case is registered against the accused persons to harass him with ulterior motive. The revision petitioner-accused no.2 has not committed any of the offences under the provisions of SEc.13(1)© and (d) r/w. Sec.32 of Prevention of Corruption Act r/w.Sec.120-B of IPC. From the materials on record, they would not remotely connect him in the commission of the crime. He being an MLA at relevant time, under the provisions of prevention of corruption Act, a sanction is necessary to prosecute him. If no sanction from the competent authority to prosecute him, he has to be discharged. Conspiracy is an agreement to commit some offence and the