M K VIJAYALAKSHMI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner being the accused in Spl. C. C. No. 149/1995. pending on the file of learned XXI Addl. City Civil and sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI cases, Bangalore, has prayed for her discharge under Section 239 of Cr. P. C. The said prayer is rejected by the Court below by its order dated 9-3-2007. Hence, this petition is filed against the said order.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that, while the accused-petitioner was working as a Manager of State bank of Mysore, Rajajinagar branch, during the period from August 1982 to June 1983, she had misappropriated an amount of Rs. 40,400/- by making false entries in the S. B. accounts of the customers by name Venkatesh, P. R. Nirmalanand, Smt. Pramila. She has also allegedly made false entries in Ledger Books, Books of Accounts of the Bank pertaining to all these accounts. She has also forged the signatures on the cheques and withdrawal forms. Thus, the charge-sheet is lodged against her alleging offences punishable under Sections 467. 471, 477 of IPC. At the first instance, she was tried in Spl. C. C. No. 22/1985. The said case ended in acquittal on the ground that the sanction order issued is invalid. Subsequently, another charge-sheet is filed by CBI on 18-8-1995 based on same facts. At the time of framing of charge, it was contended by the accused that the taking of cognizance without sanction order is bad in the eye of law etc. The said argument was turned down by the trial court. Thereafter. Criminal Petition No. 4007/2001 was filed before this Court questioning the order of the trial Court. This Court by its order dated 10-4-2002 upheld the contention of the accused and quashed the proceedings. Consequently, the proceedings in Spl. C. C. No. 149/95 stood quashed. Against the said order, CBI went to Apex Court. The Apex court set aside the order of this Court passed in Criminal Petition No. 4007/2001 and directed the trial Court to dispose of the case in accordance with law within six months. The order of the Apex Court was passed on 7-10-2005. This resulted in revival of Spl. C. C. No. 149/95. As aforementioned, the accused argued for her discharge before the trial Court. The same case to be refused by the order impugned in this petition.

(3.) TWO contentions are raised before the trial Court by the petitioner viz. , (a) the accused is not a public servant within the meaning of Section 21 of Indian Penal Code anc therefore, she cannot be tried for the offences under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947; and (b) the orders passed under Sections 5 and 6 of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, are invalid and thereby the CBI does not get jurisdiction to investigate the case in Karnataka State. The very contentions are raised before this Court also in this petition.