Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (crl.) 155-156 of 2000
PETITIONER:
STATE BY C.B.I. NEW DELHI
RESPONDENT:
R. SURI BABU AND ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17/10/2000
BENCH:
K.T. THOMAS & R.P. SETHI
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
2000 Supp(4) SCR 41
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
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 as Mr. Bangrappa 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.
They and four others were chargesheeted by the Central Bureau of
Investigation for the offences under Sec. 13(2) read with Sec. 13(l)(d) and
Sec. 7,12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 read with Sec. 120-B 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.
The trial court heard the accused in the matter of framing charge and
passed a detailed order on 8.1.1999 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.
The appellant - C.B.I. had raised various grounds assailing the reasoning
advanced by the learned single judge for discharging 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 contentious issues. At the said stage, learned counsel for the
respondent 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 appropriate stage. Mr. Altaf Ahmad, learned Additional
Solicitor General appearing 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.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
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 alongwith the other accused and proceed to take
evidence in accordance with law and conclude the trial and dispose It of as
expeditiously as possible.
Appeals are disposed of accordingly.