The Karnataka High Court, in a significant ruling, reiterated that courts must base their decisions on the material evidence collected by investigating officers and avoid entertaining defenses at the discharge stage. The judgment was delivered by Justice H.P. Sandesh in Criminal Revision Petition No.118/2024, filed by Dr. Mohankumar M., challenging the trial court’s rejection of his application for discharge in a corruption case.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Dr. Mohankumar, a practicing doctor, was accused of facilitating the laundering of illicit money for a public servant, identified as Accused No.1. According to the prosecution, Dr. Mohankumar transferred ₹25 lakh to M.S. Ramaiah Medical College to secure an MD (Pediatrics) seat for Accused No.1’s daughter. This amount, the prosecution alleged, originated from unexplained cash deposits in the petitioner’s account, including ₹17.5 lakh and ₹9.95 lakh, made shortly before the transaction.
The case stems from charges under Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(1)(e) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Section 109 of the IPC. The petitioner argued that the funds were his self-earned money and the financial assistance was offered out of goodwill.
Key Legal Issues
1. Prima Facie Evidence for Prosecution: Whether the evidence collected by the investigating officers established sufficient grounds for proceeding with the trial.
2. Scope of Discharge Applications: Whether the petitioner’s claims of legitimate sources of funds could be considered at this stage.
3. Relevance of Quashing Proceedings Against Accused No.1: Whether the discharge of the primary accused affected the allegations against the petitioner.
Detailed Observations by the Court
Justice Sandesh, while delivering the judgment, provided a detailed examination of the legal and factual aspects:
1. Limited Scope of Discharge Applications: The court observed that the discharge stage is limited to evaluating whether there is sufficient evidence for the charges to proceed. The defense’s explanations or alternative theories of the case are irrelevant at this stage. Justice Sandesh remarked, “The court cannot engage in a mini-trial at the stage of discharge. Judges must rely exclusively on the material collected by the investigating officers.”
2. Unexplained Financial Transactions: The court scrutinized the evidence presented by the prosecution, highlighting the sudden cash deposits made by the petitioner in his account shortly before the transfer of ₹25 lakh. The court found these transactions suspicious, especially given that the petitioner’s declared income did not align with the amounts deposited.
3. Comparison with Co-Accused: The petitioner argued that co-accused individuals had been discharged by the trial court. However, the High Court noted critical differences. Accused No.3 was discharged after it was established that the payment was made as an interest-free loan sanctioned by a committee. Similarly, Accused No.5 demonstrated sufficient financial resources to justify the transaction. In contrast, the petitioner could not provide a plausible explanation for the source of the cash deposits.
4. Effect of Quashing Proceedings Against Accused No.1: The petitioner contended that the proceedings against him should not continue since charges against the primary accused were quashed by the High Court. However, Justice Sandesh noted that the quashing order was under challenge before the Supreme Court and could not be relied upon to discharge the petitioner. The court clarified that, regardless of the primary accused’s status, the petitioner’s actions independently attracted scrutiny under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
5. Judicial Precedents: The court referred to multiple judgments, emphasizing that at the discharge stage, courts must refrain from considering defenses or evaluating evidence in detail. The focus should remain on whether the prosecution’s material makes out a prima facie case.
Final Decision
The court upheld the trial court’s decision, stating, “The prosecution’s evidence demonstrates sufficient grounds to proceed with the charges against the petitioner. The unexplained cash deposits and the timing of the transactions establish a prima facie case of abetment.”
Justice Sandesh concluded that the petitioner’s explanations could only be tested during the trial and could not serve as grounds for discharge. The petition was dismissed, and the case will now proceed to trial.
