Bengaluru, Dec 30 (PTI) Judges must only evaluate the evidence collected by the investigating officer (IO) to assess its sufficiency, the Karnataka High Court has said.
In a judgment delivered by Justice H P Sandesh recently, the court emphasised the limited scope for revising discharge applications. It noted that conducting a “mini-trial” during such proceedings is not permissible, and arguments from the defense cannot be taken into account.
This ruling came while dismissing a revision petition filed by Dr Mohankumar M, who faced allegations of abetting an offense under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Dr Mohankumar was accused of facilitating a payment of Rs 25 lakh to secure an MD (Pediatrics) admission for the daughter of accused No 1, Dr C Anisha Roy, at M S Ramaiah Medical College.
The petitioner contended that the payment was a financial favour to accused No. 1, who had sought assistance for his daughter’s education. He asserted that the funds were his self-earned money, as evidenced by his bank account and income tax returns. The payment was made directly to the institution via RTGS, and he denied receiving any money back from accused No. 1.
The petitioner argued that providing financial help should not be interpreted as abetment. He also noted that accused Nos. 3 and 5 had been discharged by the trial court on similar grounds and sought discharge for himself.
The prosecution opposed the petition, highlighting discrepancies in the evidence, including the petitioner’s bank statements and income tax documents. It was pointed out that Rs 17.5 lakh in cash had been deposited into Dr Mohankumar’s account prior to the Rs 25 lakh payment, which was not reflected in his tax filings.
The High Court observed that the trial court had appropriately denied the discharge application, emphasising that the materials collected during the investigation could not be dismissed as mere defenses.
The court also rejected the petitioner’s argument for parity, stating that the discharge of accused Nos 3 and 5 occurred under different circumstances and could not serve as a benchmark for Dr Mohankumar’s case.
Justice Sandesh remarked, “The argument that accused Nos 3 and 5 have been discharged, while the petitioner has not, cannot be accepted. The criteria applied to others do not benefit the petitioner, as no explanation has been provided for the deposited cash.” In light of these findings, the High Court upheld the lower court’s decision, reiterating that the revision petition lacked merit and dismissed it accordingly. PTI COR JR KH
About the Author
