RITA LEENA D'SOUZA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE . Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner/original accused No. 2. Also heard learned Prosecutor for the State.

(2.) THIS criminal revision is filed by original accused No. 2 challenging the order dated 12/03/2014 passed by Special Judge, CBI Court at Mapusa in Special Case No. 2/13/D. The said impugned order was passed by the Special Judge, CBI Court on the arguments advanced on behalf of present petitioner/accused No. 2. The said arguments were advanced before framing of charge. Certain factual position leading to the filing of the present criminal revision is narrated as under:

(3.) LEARNED Senior Counsel for the petitioner/accused No. 2 argued at length taking this Court to the statements of witnesses and mainly the statement of one Branch Manager of Bank of India, one T. Ravindran and submitted that the statement of said bank officials do indicate that whatever amounts given from the account of the petitioner/accused No. 2 for purchase of immovable property, were the amounts raised by way of taking loans from the Bank and said loan amounts were obtained on the security of fixed deposit receipts which were in the name of both the accused and also few receipts were in the names of children of the accused and present petitioner, jointly. In short, it is submitted that the written submissions put forth before the investigating agency during investigating stage were not properly appreciated by the CBI Officers and that they have arrived at the conclusion that present petitioner/accused No. 2 is abettor to the main crime allegedly committed by her husband accused No. 1.