Bengaluru: In a significant setback to several retired engineers and officers and contractors of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP), the high court recently set aside various orders passed by the trial court that discharged them from the criminal case registered by the Bangalore Metropolitan Task Force (BMTF).
Allowing a batch of 115 criminal revision petitions filed by the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) which took up the investigation and filed chargesheets in many cases, Justice HP Sandesh directed fresh consideration of the matter by the trial court.
The cases pertain to irregularities and illegalities primarily in Malleswaram, Gandhinagar, and Rajarajeshwari Nagar engineering divisions in the works entrusted during 2005-06 to 2011-12, causing a huge loss to the civic body. Offences such as criminal conspiracy, criminal breach of trust, forgery, fabrication of accounts, and also under Section 13(1)(c)(d) and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act were invoked against the accused.
However, between July and Dec 2023, the trial court suo motu discharged the accused without any application, mainly on the ground that the prosecution failed to produce the original technical vigilance committee cell (TVCC) report, which was deemed necessary to prove the prosecution’s as the complaint was registered only on the basis of the report.
Challenging the orders, the CID argued that the trial court erred in the matter and ought to have given the opportunity to lead secondary evidence by following the procedure prescribed under the Evidence Act.
The trial court volunteered at the initial stages of the evidence itself to summon the BBMP chief engineer and check with him the availability of the original TVCC report in his office, the CID said. On the basis of his statement, it concluded that the original TVCC report is not available and hence, the chargesheet is not sustainable against the accused, the CID claimed.
Justice Sandesh noted that the trial court committed an error in interdicting the proceedings without allowing the prosecution to lead further evidence, including secondary evidence.
“The trial court judge interdicted the proceedings considering the grounds urged by the accused in the absence of any application for discharge. The procedure adopted by the trial court is unknown to law,” the judge added.
The law is well settled that defence cannot be taken note of while discharging the accused. Only the material collected by the investigating officer should be taken note of while invoking discharge jurisdiction, the judge pointed out.
