JAIKESHAN VIRWANI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is preferred by accused No.2 seeking to set aside the order dtd. 28/3/2015 passed by the learned Presiding Officer and Additional Sessions Judge, (F.T.C-III), Mayo hall, Bengaluru in Crl.R.P.No.25045/2014 and to restore the order dtd. 26/4/2014 passed by the learned X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru in C.C.No.22370/2009.

(2.) Charge-sheet was filed against accused Nos.1 and 2 for offences punishable under Ss. 471, 468, 420, 120B read with 34 of IPC . Vide order dated supra the trial Court was pleased to allow the application filed by the petitioner/accused No.2 under Sec. 239 of Cr.P.C. and discharged him, while rejecting the application filed by accused No.1. The said order was assailed by the complainant by way of revision before the Sessions Court. The learned Sessions Judge vide impugned order has set aside the order passed by the trial Court and directed the trial Court to frame charges against the petitioner.

(3.) The trial Court while discharging the petitioner and rejecting the prayer of Accused No.1 has taken into consideration that even after revocation of power of attorney, Accused No.1 has entered into development agreement with accused No.2 and sold the properties and cheated the complainant. Further, during the course of investigation the I.O. has collected various documents which discloses that accused No.1 has proceeded with execution of sale deeds in respect of the share fallen to them in the partition deed and there are sale deeds executed even after revocation of Power of Attorney. It is observed that whether the revocation of Power of Attorney was proper or not and that whether the complainant had executed revocation of Power of Attorney and whether it was conveyed to accused No.1 or not is a matter to be adjudicated at the time of trial. Hence, holding that there is a prima facie allegation against accused No.1, his prayer for discharge was rejected.