The court must exercise caution in discharging accused at the framing stage unless a clear miscarriage of justice is evident from the proceedings.

CAV ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 14-02-2024 passed by the LXXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge & Special Judge for trying the offences under the PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT , Bengaluru, rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. seeking his discharge from the array of accused in Special C.C.No.159 of 2023, registered for offences punishable under Sections 8 , 13(1)(c) and (e) of the PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT , 1988 (‘the Act’ for short).

2. Heard Sri Parameshwar N.Hegde, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri B.B.Patil, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent.

3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:

The petitioner was an employee of the Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited. He was sent on deputation as Executive Engineer to the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (‘BBMP’) and was posted to work at Byatarayanapura Sub-Division. When he was so working, a suo motu complaint comes to be registered by the Police wing of the Karnataka Lokayukta alleging that the petitioner in his capacity as an Executive Engineer was alleged of accepting bribes or illegal gratifications from the contractors through a middleman one Murali Mohan, accused No.2, who is also a Contractor for issuance of work orders pursuant to tenders, clearing the work bills in respect of works executed within Byatarayanapura Division of the BBMP. The complaint comes to be registered on 06-05-2015 for the afore- quoted offences and investigation would commence on registration of the crime in Crime No.29 of 2015.

4. The petitioner is accused No.1 and the middle man - Murali Mohan is accused No.2. After the investigation, a final report is filed before the concerned Court and sanction is sought for prosecuting the petitioner in terms of Section 19 of the Act. The competent authority accords sanction to prosecute the petitioner. Charge sheet then comes to be filed before the concerned Court on 19.01.2023 for offences punishable as afore-quoted. The charge sheet that is filed is for the offences punishable under Sections 13 (1)(a), 13(1)(d), 13(2) and 12 of the Act. On filing of the charge sheet, the petitioner files an application seeking his discharge from the array of accused on 30-06-2023. The concerned Court in terms of its order dated 14-02-2024, rejects the application seeking his discharge and directs framing of charges against the petitioner. It is at that stage, the petitioner is before this Court in the subject petition.

5. The learned counsel Sri Parameshwar N. Hegde, appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the concerned Court on the application for discharge has acted as a mouthpiece of the prosecution without looking into any of the material placed by the petitioner in the application. The learned counsel would submit that the case worker Channarayudu was given the files to make photo copies and he had left one file on the table. At that point in time, the car of accused No.2 was searched and many files were seized. The petitioner was also found in possession of cash of ₹7,000/-, which he adequately explained. All these factors are ignored by the Court while answering the application. He would, therefore, submit that the order dated 14-02-2024 be quashed and the application filed seeking discharge be allowed.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Sri B.B.Patil, would vehemently refute the submissions to contend that the petitioner was working in Byatarayanapura Sub- Division for a long time. He had engaged the services of accused No.2, another contractor for collection of documents and money.