The Karnataka High Court.
Credit: DH File Photo
Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), challenging the trial court order discharging police sub-inspector Gowri Shankar in the I Monitory Advisory (IMA) scam case. The trial court had discharged Gowri Shankar noticing that there is no evidence to hold him prima facie guilty of the offences.
The CBI contended that there was abundant material to pin the SI down The allegation against Gowri Shankar was that he demanded and accepted illegal gratification on various occasions from Mohammed Mansoor Khan, main accused in the case, through one Vaseem for not taking any action on the various complaints registered against IMA. The CBI argued that the special court had acted beyond its jurisdiction and held a mini trial, before discharging Gowri Shankar.
On the other hand, it was submitted on behalf of Gowri Shankar that the trial court does not perform the role of a postman to the prosecution and added that the order discharging him, running into 100 pages, has considered the entire spectrum of the law.
Justice M Nagaprasanna cited Apex Court judgements in Sanjay Kumar Rai and Kanchan Kumar cases, wherein the top court has clearly considered the role of the trial court in answering an application seeking discharge of the accused.
The apex court had said that the trial court has a duty to entertain the petition and examine all the materials, though not by conducting a rowing enquiry and it is more imperative for the trial court to consider at the stage of discharge, whether sufficient grounds are available to frame the charge against the accused and not act as a mere post office to the prosecution.
“The concerned Court, exercising its jurisdiction, has passed an order of discharge by considering the entire spectrum of allegations against the respondent (Gowri Shankar) and holds that except a diary noting in which entry was made reading ‘GowriVaseem Bhai’ in an excel sheet, nothing else was found against the respondent,” the court said.