CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Vs. MULANGI KRISHNASWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two Applications can be disposed off by a common Order. Both the Applications are identical. By these Applications, the Applicants seek directions that in the event of this Court revising or amending the Charges then this Court should also join (1) Mr. D. G. Vernekar and (2) Mr. A. P. Rao as Accused in this case. Court has already altered and/or amended the Charges. Hence these Applications are pressed.

(2.) MR . Thakkar submits that this is an Application under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Section 319 reads as follows:

(3.) MR . Thakkar relied upon Exhibit-U (Colly.) which is a copy of Misc. Petition No. 13 of 1993. This is a Petition filed by Canfina claiming title to the CANCIGO UNITS. Mr. Thakkar points out paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Petition and submits that these paragraphs make it clear that it was Canfina who had accepted the proposal made by Accused No. 4 herein. He submits that it is clear that the person in Canfina who accepted this proposal was Mr.A.P.Rao. He submits that this is clear from the Evidence of Mr. Kamath at page 404 of the Notes of Evidence. Mr. Kamath has deposed that Mr.A.P. Rao was removed from the service for the role he played in the security transactions. Mr. Thakkar points out that Mr. Kamath has also admitted on page No. 402 of the Notes of Evidence that the contents of Exhibit-U (Colly.) are correct. Mr. Thakkar states that this necessarily means that Mr. A. P. Rao has been removed because of his role in the purchase of these CANCIGO UNITS. Mr.Thakkar submits that Mr.A.P. Rao should also be arraigned as an Accused in this case.