DATTATREYA A SURYAVANSHI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Public Prosecutor.

(2.) The petitioner is before this Court on a limited aspect, namely that, while the Court below in exercising its jurisdiction under Section 227 read with Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to 'Cr.P.C.', for brevity), has proceeded to dismiss the application filed by the petitioner, seeking discharge.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that, there are long list of documents produced by the petitioner to establish that, the properties, which are said to have been acquired by the petitioner and that the same belongs to the petitioner, though acquired in the name of others, was acquired with worth that was beyond known sources of income of the petitioner. Though there was a serious endeavour on the part of the petitioner to draw attention of the Court to the material, that was produced by the prosecution itself, to demonstrate that the properties could not be attributed to the petitioner, the Court below has not taken note of the same. The order rejecting the application for discharge does not even refer to such documents.