The Karnataka High Court has stated that the scope for revision in discharge applications is highly restricted, with the Court being required to assess only the material on record gathered by the Investigating Officer to determine its sufficiency.

The bench held by Justice H. P. Sandesh held thus while dismissing the petition filed by Dr Mohankumar M. Referring to judgments of the Supreme Court It said, “The Court cannot conduct a mini trial and defence cannot be considered in a discharge application and the Court has to only look into the material collected by the Investigating Officer whether sufficient material is there or not.”

The petitioner was named as accused No. 4 in the case, with allegations stating that he was a friend of accused No. 1 and played a role in abetting the offence. Specifically, it was claimed that the petitioner helped accused No. 1 legalize an illegal amount by making a payment of Rs. 25 lakhs to facilitate the pursuit of an M.D. (Pediatric) degree for accused No. 1's daughter, Dr. C. Anisha Roy. He was charged under Section 109 of the IPC and relevant provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Previously, the petitioner filed a petition seeking the quashing of the proceedings, which was rejected by the High Court. Subsequently, he sought discharge before the trial court, but that request was also denied.

The petitioner’s main contention was that he is a doctor and that accused No. 1 approached him for financial assistance for his daughter to pursue an M.D. (Pediatric) at M.S. Ramaiah Medical College, Bengaluru. The petitioner deposited the amount of Rs. 25 lakhs on 22.03.2012 via RTGS. He argued that merely extending financial help to the daughter of accused No. 1 for her higher education cannot, by any reasonable inference, be construed as abetting the offence.

Furthermore, the payment was made directly to the institution through their bank account. The petitioner clarified that the amount in question was his self-earned money, which is reflected in his bank accounts and income tax returns. He emphasized that he never received any money from accused No. 1, and therefore, the charges under Section 109 of the IPC do not apply to him.

The prosecution opposed the petitioner's plea, arguing that the material on record clearly shows that the petitioner made the payment of Rs. 25 lakhs. The prosecution presented documents, including the statement of account, Income Tax Returns Form, and the petitioner's statement, which indicate that the amount was deposited suddenly into the petitioner's account and was not disclosed in his income tax returns as payment made for this purpose.

Upon reviewing the records, the bench noted that in this case, the investigation had already been completed, and a charge sheet had been filed. The petitioner had previously sought the quashing of the proceedings, which was rejected. Subsequently, he filed an application for discharge, which was also denied.

The court said that “In the case on hand, no doubt, the revision petitioner also does not dispute that he made payment of Rs.25 lakhs in favour of daughter of accused No.1 for getting admission to the M.D. (Pediatric) and also material is collected by the Investigating Officer that a cash amount of Rs.17,50,000/- was deposited to his individual account.”

The court said, “The Trial Court took note of the fact that she is a house wife. The income tax returns do not disclose the same (amount deposited) and all these contentions which have been raised are nothing but a defence and the same cannot be considered while considering the discharge application.”

It added “Admittedly, the amount was transferred and before transferring the amount of Rs.25 lakhs, an amount of Rs.17,50,000/- and Rs.9,95,000/- cash was deposited to his account and the same is also collected by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation and the same also cannot be considered as a defence, which is not permissible.”

The petitioner also highlighted that accused no 3 and 5 were discharged by the trial court and sought discharge on grounds of parity. Rejecting the same the court said “No explanation was given for having deposited the cash and hence the very contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that accused Nos.3 and 5 have been discharged, but not discharged this petitioner cannot be accepted.”

It added “The yardstick applied to accused Nos.3 and 5 will not come to the aid of the petitioner and hence I do not find any ground to allow the revision petition and set aside the order.”

Accordingly it dismissed the petition.

Appearance: Senior Counsel M.T Nanaiah for Advocate T M Venkata Reddy for Petitioner.

Advocate Lethif B for Respondent.

Case Title: Dr Mohankumar M AND State of Karnataka

Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.118/2024