Karnataka High Court
V.R.S.Natarajan vs State Of Cbi on 15 May, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:18246
CRL.RP No. 301 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF MAY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 301 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
V.R.S. NATARAJAN
S/O. V.S. RANGASWAMY THEVAR,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
R/O FLAT NO.1
MEENAKSHI APARTMENTS,
NO.35, CENOTAPH ROAD
1ST STREET, TEYNAMPET,
CHENNAI - 600 018.
ALSO RESIDING AT NO. 1A
VINAYGAR KOIL STREET
KRISHNASAMY NAGAR
COIMBATORE SOUTH
RAMANATHAPURAM
Digitally signed
by
COMIBATORE
SREEDHARAN
BANGALORE
TAMIL NADU - 641 045.
SUSHMA
LAKSHMI
Location: High ...PETITIONER
Court of
Karnataka
(BY SRI. B V ACHARYA AND
SRI. SANDESH J CHOUTA, SR. ADVOCATES FOR
SRI. V.G. BHANU PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF CBI
REP. BY THE
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:18246
CRL.RP No. 301 of 2022
NO. 36, BELLARY ROAD
GANGANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 032.
REPRESENTED BY
ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI P. PRASANNA KUMAR, SPL. PP FOR
SRI K N NITHIN GOWDA AND
SMT. RAMULA, ADVOCATES)
---
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C
PRAYING SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 07/01/2022 PASSED
IN SPL.C.C.NO.332/2020, PASSED BY THE XXI ADDITIONAL
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND PRINCIPAL SPECIAL
JUDGE FOR CBI CASES AT BENGALURU (CCH-4) AND ETC.,
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN
HEARD AND RESERVED ON 01.02.2025, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
CAV ORDER
1. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the
petitioner/accused seeking to set aside the order dated
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:18246
CRL.RP No. 301 of 2022
07.01.2022 in Spl.C.C.No.332/2020 on the file of the
learned XXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and
Principal Special Judge for CBI cases at Bengaluru
(CCH-4).
2. For the purpose of convenience, the ranks of the parties
will be considered henceforth as per their rankings before
the Trial Court.
Brief facts of the case are as under:
3. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused was
working as the Chairman and Managing Director at M/s.
Bharat Earth Movers Ltd., (for short "M/s. BEML). The
complainant based on reliable source of information
opined that the accused had amassed wealth
disproportionate to his known sources of income in a sum
of Rs.1,52,63,155/- during the check period from
01.12.2002 to 19.04.2012 as against an income of
Rs.2,57,56,227/-. Based on the said information, they
conducted a search and seizure and thereafter registered
FIR. After conducting investigation, charge sheet has
been submitted. Being aggrieved by filing of the charge
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:18246
CRL.RP No. 301 of 2022
sheet, the accused had preferred an application for
discharge and the same came to be rejected by the Trial
Court.
4. Heard Sri B.V.Acharya and Sri Sandesh J. Chouta, learned
Senior Advocates for Sri V.G. Bhanuprakash, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri P. Prasanna Kumar,
learned Spl.P.P. for Sri K.N. Nithin Gowda and
Smt. Ramula, learned counsel for the respondent.
5. It is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel that
the order of the Trial Court in rejecting the application is
contrary to the established principles of law and also the
material available on record. Therefore, the order is
erroneous and improper.
6. It is further submitted that Section 13(1)(e) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is omitted by the
Legislature, by substituting Section 13 by Amendment Act
of 2018, which came into effect on 26.07.2018. The said
omission has resulted in abrogation or obliteration of
omitted rule in the same way as would have been in the
case of repeal of the Statute, as if such a Statute had
never been enacted, consequently, the cases or
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:18246
CRL.RP No. 301 of 2022
proceedings, the prosecution cannot commence, continue
or punish after the omission.
7. Learned Senior Counsel, in this context, relied on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills v. Commissioner
of Central Excise and another1.
8. It is further submitted that the launching of the
prosecution is barred by time / limitation. Though the
alleged offence of possession of property disproportionate
to the known sources of income is alleged to have been
taken place only between 1.12.2002 to 31.10.2007, to
determine the period of limitation, three years period is
prescribed under Section 468(2)(c) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure at the relevant time has to be
considered.
9. It is further submitted that the prosecution has
suppressed the two earlier preliminary inquiries on the
same subject and also suppressed its results. The
prosecution has indeed earlier registered three FIRs and
also filed three preliminary inquiries on non-DA
1
(2016) 3 SCC 643
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:18246
CRL.RP No. 301 of 2022
complaints against the accused and all six were closed as
no verification / preliminary enquiry was done to make
out a prima facie case.
10. It is further submitted that even though the accused had
intimated the authority regarding the purchase of
property and construction of the house, the income of the
family has not been considered. In other words, the
properties possessed by the other family members having
independent sources of income have been clubbed in
violation of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
11. It is further submitted that filing of the charge sheet on
DA without any investigation including collection of
documents and recording oral evidence of witnesses is
not proper.
12. It is further submitted that the Trial Court ought to have
considered the material available on record along with the
submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner
properly while considering the application for discharge.
In fact, the Trial Court has failed to take note of the
settled principles of law. Making such submissions,
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:18246
CRL.RP No. 301 of 2022
learned Senior Counsel prays to set aside the impugned
order and allow this revision petition.
13. Per contra, learned Spl.PP for CBI has vehemently
submitted that the charge sheet has been filed on the
basis of information and on the result of the preliminary
enquiry. The source of information and enquiry would
reveal that the accused, during the check period from
01.12.2002 to 19.04.2012, had disproportionate assets to
the tune of Rs.1,52,63,155/- which is 59.26% of his
known source of income. Thus, the accused had
committed an offence.
14. It is further submitted that there are materials to
establish that the accused had committed an offence. At
the time of considering the discharge application, the
Court has to consider whether the materials brought on
record would constitute a prima facie case against the
accused or not. At that stage, the roving enquiry on
materials available on record may not be necessary and
not required.
15. It is further submitted that the respondent collected a
huge number of records and also documents relating to
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:18246
CRL.RP No. 301 of 2022
the disproportionate assets of the accused. Those
documents have to be tested through a proper trial. At
this stage, this Court cannot come to the conclusion that
the documents are sufficient to hold that he had not
committed any offence. Therefore, the order of the Trial
Court in rejecting the discharge application is proper and
appropriate and interference with the said order may not
be necessary. Making such submissions, learned Spl. PP
prays to reject the revision petition.
16. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties
and also perused the findings of the Trial Court in
rejecting the discharge application, it appears from the
record that the Trial Court opined that the check period
even though reduced from 10 years to 5 years, the fact
would remain that the assets which the accused
possessed would be disproportionate to his known source
of income. Therefore, mere changing the check period
would not be sufficient to hold that there is injustice
caused to the accused as the respondent changed the
check period.
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:18246
CRL.RP No. 301 of 2022
17. The Trial Court further opined that there are materials to
show that the accused had possessed disproportionate
assets to his known sources of income. The statements of
CWs.9 to 12 and CWs.15 to 18 reflect the investments
made by the accused in mutual funds and shares. The
accused had also made expenditure of Rs.63,07,240/-
during the check period. The accused even though had
filed his income tax returns, which according to him, have
not been considered by the Investigating Officer, the
Income Tax Returns are filed for a different purpose, that
is for paying the tax liability. Mere payment of Income
Tax neither absolves the criminal liability under the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 nor does it legitimize
the acquisition of illicit wealth.
18. Further, it is held that, at the time of framing the charge,
the Court has to consider the prosecution material
available on record and the documents of defence cannot
be considered at this stage. To summarize all the above
observations, the Trial Court rejected the application.
19. Having considered the said observations, it is appropriate
to have a look upon the findings of the Trial Court for the
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18246
CRL.RP No. 301 of 2022
purpose of arriving at a conclusion as to whether any
illegality or error was committed by the Trial Court.
20. It appears from the record that the accused was working
as a Chairman and Managing Director of BEML. The check
period which has been considered to arrive at a
conclusion regarding disproportionate assets is
01.12.2002 to 30.09.2012 when he attained the age of
superannuation. As per the submission of the learned
Senior Counsel, the accused had rendered his service
satisfactorily with devotion and dedication. In fact,
between October 2010 to 18.04.2012, the respondent -
CBI had instituted three criminal cases against the
petitioner namely, in RC.10(A)2010, the first FIR
culminated in a closure report dated 30.09.2013.
Secondly, RC/AC 1/2012 resulted in a closure report
dated 25.08.2014. Thirdly, RC.07(A)/2012 resulted in a
closure report dated 28.08.2013. Though the respondent
had filed these three FIRs and conducted three
preliminary enquiries, nothing has been elicited to
proceed with the case. The respondent itself dropped the
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18246
CRL.RP No. 301 of 2022
investigation as there were no materials to proceed
against the accused.
21. Learned Senior Counsel further stated that, during the
investigation, the petitioner had produced relevant
materials to show that he did not possess any
disproportionate assets and that he had surplus income.
The Investigating Officer totally ignoring the same, filed
the charge sheet. This filing of the charge sheet is after
five years from the registration of the FIR and thirteen
years after the commission of the alleged offence and
also eight years after the superannuation of the
petitioner. These are the lacunae which the Trial Court
ought to have been considered.
22. The said submission of the learned Senior Counsel
appears to be appropriate for the reason that the
respondent - CBI had conducted three preliminary
enquiries by filing three FIRs. The period of filing the
three FIRs would be between 2013 and 2014. However,
the check period commences from 01.12.2002 to
30.09.2012. When the respondent - police itself dropped
the proceedings filed against the petitioner, considering
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18246
CRL.RP No. 301 of 2022
the convenient check period to suit the case on hand and
also reducing the check period for the purpose of filing
the criminal case without assigning any reasons would
amounts to arbitrary and illegal.
23. It is needless to say that the authority while proceeding
with the case has to assign proper reasons not only in
respect of sanction to proceed with the case but also to
reduce the check period. Without assigning proper
reasons on either points causes injustice to the parties.
Therefore, the Courts are required to interfere in such
matters in order to secure the ends of justice.
24. Even though the Trial Court opined that there are
materials to proceed against the accused to frame the
charge, the said view has to be negatived for the reason
that the CBI had conducted three preliminary enquiries by
filing three FIRs and nothing has been found out to
proceed with the case.
25. In fact, the respondent - CBI has not considered the
independent income of the family members, which was
required to be considered as per the settled principles of
law. The check period, of which the respondent had
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18246
CRL.RP No. 301 of 2022
taken into consideration to arrive at a conclusion even
though it appears to be five years, during filing of FIR, it
was ten years. When the Investigating Officer arrived at
a conclusion that the petitioner had possessed
disproportionate assets during ten years, reducing the
same for five years and arrived at a conclusion that the
petitioner had disproportionate assets for the last five
years certainly creates doubt regarding genuineness of
the source report.
26. Conducting preliminary enquiry even though is not
mandatory to arrive at a conclusion about the
disproportionate assets, the fact remains that, the
Investigating Officer has to depend on the source report.
If such source report is not proper, registration of FIR
based on the defect source report is not sufficient to
proceed with the case. In fact, the Investigating Officer
has not conducted a prompt investigation in this matter.
Therefore, the entire investigation has to be vitiated.
However, the Trial Court failed to consider the said aspect
and proceeded to frame the charge would amount to an
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18246
CRL.RP No. 301 of 2022
abuse of process of law. Therefore, the same is liable to
be set aside.
27. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed.
(ii) The order dated 07.01.2022 in
Spl.C.C.No.332/2020 on the file of the learned
XXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and
Principal Special Judge for CBI cases at
Bengaluru (CCH-4) is hereby set aside.
(iii) The petitioner/accused is discharged for the
offences under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
(iv) Bail bonds executed, if any, stand cancelled.
Sd/-
(S RACHAIAH)
JUDGE
Bss
