State by C.B.I., New Delhi Vs. R. Suri Babu and Anr.
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal Nos. 155-156 of 2000
(From the Judgment and Order dated 6.9.99 of the Karnataka High Court in Crl.R.P. Nos. 112 and 174 of 1999)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 6.9.99 of the Karnataka High Court in Crl.R.P. Nos. 112 and 174 of 1999)
Petitioner: State by C.B.I., New Delhi
Respondent: R. Suri Babu and Anr.
Apeal: Criminal Appeal Nos. 155-156 of 2000
(From the Judgment and Order dated 6.9.99 of the Karnataka High Court in Crl.R.P. Nos. 112 and 174 of 1999)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 6.9.99 of the Karnataka High Court in Crl.R.P. Nos. 112 and 174 of 1999)
Judges: K.T. THOMAS & R.P. SETHI, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Oct 17, 2000
Appearances:
Mr. Altaf Ahmad, Additional Solicitor General, Mr. A.D.N.Rao, Mr. K.N. Nagpal, (Mr. P. Parmeswaran) for Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocates with him for the Appellant.
Mr. Kapil Sibal, Senior Advocate, Mr. D.K. Garg, Advocate with him for the Respondent no. 2.
Mr. D. Mahesh Babu and Mr. L. Nageswara Rao, Advocates for the Respondent no. 1.
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947
Sections 7, 12 and 13 read with Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 120B – Prevention of corruption – Corruption charges against Chairman and Principal of Dental College, University Officials as well as State Health Minister with regard to illegal admissions to Dental College – Trial court directing framing of charges against all the six accused on the ground of sufficiency of material – On appeal Single Judge of High Court discharging two of the accused ~4~ CBI assailing the discharge by filing criminal appeal before Supreme Court – Undischarged ac-cused filing a revision seeking discharge. Held; however, revision petition having been withdrawn by the accused respondents with-out prejudice to their rights to raise appropriate contentions before the trial court at appropriate stage, trial court direct-ed to frame charges against respondents along with other accused persons and proceed in accordance with law.
Held:
In the light of the said submission that revision petitions filed before the High Court are withdrawn, we do not think it necessary to go into the contentions or grounds raised in these appeals for assailing the reasoning adopted by the learned Single Judge. We order that the revision petitions filed in the High Court by the respondents would stand withdrawn and consequently the impugned order will stand erased. If the trial court is to decide any question which had been dealt with in the impugned judgment the same shall be decided as though the High Court has not pronounced any opinion on such questions thus far. The trial court will now frame charge against the respondents along with the other accused and proceed to take evidence in accordance with law and conclude the trial and dispose it of as expeditiously as possible.
(Para 6)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. These appeals have been preferred by the Central Bureau of Investigation challenging the order of a Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court by which two out of six accused were discharged from trial proceedings. The third accused was Mr. Bangarappa a former Chief Minister of the State of Karnataka and sixth accused Mr. Suri Babu was his Private Secretary while he was holding office as Chief Minister. Those two accused were discharged by the impugned order.
2. They and four others were charge-sheeted by the Central Bureau of Investigation for the offences under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) and Sections 7, 12 of the Prevention of Cor-ruption Act 1988 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The first accused is shown as Principal of one P.C. Dental and Nursing College, Bangalore, second accused was shown as the Minister for Health in the Ministry headed by the third accused Bangarappa and the fourth accused was the Chairman of the said P.C. Dental and Nursing College, (apart from being a sitting M.L.A.) and accused no. 5 was Chairman of the Local Enquiry Committee appointed by the Bangalore University.
3. The trial court heard the accused in the matter of framing charge and passed a detailed order on 8.1.99 holding that the evidence produced by the prosecution is sufficient to frame charge against the accused persons. The said order of the Special Judge was challenged by the respondents in these appeals before the High Court in Criminal Revision Petition Nos. 112/99 and 174/99. Both were heard together and by a common order (which is under challenge in these appeals) learned Single Judge discharged those accused, but at the same time directed the case to be proceeded as against the remaining accused.
4. The appellant – C.B.I. had raised various grounds assailing the reasoning advanced by the learned Single Judge for discharg-ing the respondents. As the arguments were started we expressed the consequence of dealing with a petition filed by the accused for discharging them and pointed out the dangers involved for either side if this Court is to reach any finding on the conten-tious issues. At the said stage, learned Counsel for the respond-ent sought time to get instructions in the matter. Today under instructions from the respondents, it was submitted before us by Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned senior Counsel that those respondents would withdraw the revision petitions filed before the High Court for discharge, without prejudice to their rights to raise appropriate contentions before the trial court at the appro-priate stage.
5. Mr. Altaf Ahmad, learned Additional Solicitor General appear-ing for the C.B.I. submitted that he has no objection to the said course being adopted as it would enable the trial to proceed to its logical end.
6. In the light of the said submission that revision petitions filed before the High Court are withdrawn, we do not think it necessary to go into the contentions or grounds raised in these appeals for assailing the reasoning adopted by the learned Single Judge. We order that the revision petitions filed in the High Court by the respondents would stand withdrawn and consequently the impugned order will stand erased. If the trial court is to decide any question which had been dealt with in the impugned judgment the same shall be decided as though the High Court has not pronounced any opinion on such questions thus far. The trial court will now frame charge against the respondents along with the other accused and
proceed to take evidence in accordance with law and conclude the trial and
dispose it of as expeditiously as possible.
7. Appeals are disposed of accordingly.
1. These appeals have been preferred by the Central Bureau of Investigation challenging the order of a Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court by which two out of six accused were discharged from trial proceedings. The third accused was Mr. Bangarappa a former Chief Minister of the State of Karnataka and sixth accused Mr. Suri Babu was his Private Secretary while he was holding office as Chief Minister. Those two accused were discharged by the impugned order.
2. They and four others were charge-sheeted by the Central Bureau of Investigation for the offences under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) and Sections 7, 12 of the Prevention of Cor-ruption Act 1988 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The first accused is shown as Principal of one P.C. Dental and Nursing College, Bangalore, second accused was shown as the Minister for Health in the Ministry headed by the third accused Bangarappa and the fourth accused was the Chairman of the said P.C. Dental and Nursing College, (apart from being a sitting M.L.A.) and accused no. 5 was Chairman of the Local Enquiry Committee appointed by the Bangalore University.
3. The trial court heard the accused in the matter of framing charge and passed a detailed order on 8.1.99 holding that the evidence produced by the prosecution is sufficient to frame charge against the accused persons. The said order of the Special Judge was challenged by the respondents in these appeals before the High Court in Criminal Revision Petition Nos. 112/99 and 174/99. Both were heard together and by a common order (which is under challenge in these appeals) learned Single Judge discharged those accused, but at the same time directed the case to be proceeded as against the remaining accused.
4. The appellant – C.B.I. had raised various grounds assailing the reasoning advanced by the learned Single Judge for discharg-ing the respondents. As the arguments were started we expressed the consequence of dealing with a petition filed by the accused for discharging them and pointed out the dangers involved for either side if this Court is to reach any finding on the conten-tious issues. At the said stage, learned Counsel for the respond-ent sought time to get instructions in the matter. Today under instructions from the respondents, it was submitted before us by Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned senior Counsel that those respondents would withdraw the revision petitions filed before the High Court for discharge, without prejudice to their rights to raise appropriate contentions before the trial court at the appro-priate stage.
5. Mr. Altaf Ahmad, learned Additional Solicitor General appear-ing for the C.B.I. submitted that he has no objection to the said course being adopted as it would enable the trial to proceed to its logical end.
6. In the light of the said submission that revision petitions filed before the High Court are withdrawn, we do not think it necessary to go into the contentions or grounds raised in these appeals for assailing the reasoning adopted by the learned Single Judge. We order that the revision petitions filed in the High Court by the respondents would stand withdrawn and consequently the impugned order will stand erased. If the trial court is to decide any question which had been dealt with in the impugned judgment the same shall be decided as though the High Court has not pronounced any opinion on such questions thus far. The trial court will now frame charge against the respondents along with the other accused and
proceed to take evidence in accordance with law and conclude the trial and
dispose it of as expeditiously as possible.
7. Appeals are disposed of accordingly.
