- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8452 CRL.P No. 6030 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6030 OF 2018 BETWEEN: SRI ASGHAR KHAN, S/O SRI. AKTHAR KHAN, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.3/224, KHAN BUILDING, VIJAYANAGAR, COLLEGE ROAD, HOSPET BELLARY DISTRICT - 583 201 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MURTHY DAYANAND NAIK, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MAHESHA K.N., ADVOCATE) AND: CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, ECONOMIC OFFENCES WING, CHENNAI - 600 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. P. PRASANNA KUMAR, SPL.P.P. FOR CBI) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO 1. QUASH THE ORDER DATED 31.05.2018, PASSED IN CRL.RP.NO.12/2017 BY THE 46TH ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE FOR CBI CASES (CCH-47) AT BANGALORE, VIDE ANNEXURE'A'. THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8452 CRL.P No. 6030 of 2018 CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL ORDER The petitioner being accused No.2 is seeking to quash the order dated 31.05.2018 passed in Crl.R.P.No.12/2017 on the file of the learned XLVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI Cases (CCH-47), (for short 'Revisional Court') Bengaluru, and to restore the order dated 18.04.2016, discharging the petitioner by allowing the application under Section 239 of Cr.PC passed in C.C.No.6430/2015, on the file of the learned XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru (Special Court for CBI cases) (for short 'the Trial Court') for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 379 and 411 of Indian Penal Code ( for short 'IPC'). 2. Brief facts of the case are that, CBI has filed the final report against accused Nos.1 and 2 alleging commission of the above said offences. The petitioner being one of the partners of the partnership firm M/s Bharath Ores and Minerals (for short, ‘BOM'), filed the application under Section 239 of Cr.PC seeking discharge. The main contention raised by the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8452 CRL.P No. 6030 of 2018 petitioner is that, he being the partner of partnership firm is not liable to be prosecuted while partnership firm is not arrayed as the accused. Considering the said contention mainly, amongst others, the Trial Court allowed the application under Section 239 of Cr.PC and discharged accused Nos.1 and 2. 3. The complainant-CBI, preferred revision in Crl.R.P.No.12/2017. The Revisional Court, on reconsidering the contentious taken by the parties, allowed the revision vide order dated 31-05-2018, and set aside the order passed by the Trial Court and restored the case on file against accused Nos.1 and 2. Being, aggrieved by the same, the petitioner being accused No.2 is before this Court seeking to quash the order passed by the Revisional Court and to restore the order passed by the Trial Court to discharge accused No.2 for the offences as stated above. 4. Heard Sri Murthy Dayanand Naik, learned senior advocate for Sri. Mahesha K.N, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. P. Prasanna Kumar, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent. Perused the materials on records. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8452 CRL.P No. 6030 of 2018 5. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: “Whether the Petitioner has made out any grounds to quash order dated 31.05.2018 and to restore the order dated 18.04.2016?" My answer to the above point is in ‘Negative’ for the following: R E A S O N S 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised only one ground in support of his contention that, BOM being the partnership firm has not been arrayed as an accused. Under such circumstances, the petitioner cannot be prosecuted. The Trial Court was right in discharging the accused by allowing the application under Section 239 of Cr.PC. The Revisional Court misled itself and allowed the revision to set aside the order passed by the Trial Court. 7. This contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is seriously objected by the learned Spl.P.P for the respondent - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8452 CRL.P No. 6030 of 2018 and he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Comptroller & Auditor-General v/s Kamlesh Vadilal Mehta1 wherein it is held that, a partnership concern is a group of individual partners but not a legal entity like company. 8. Learned Spl.P.P also placed reliance on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in K. Janardhana Reddy v/s State by CBI/ACB/Bangalore2 where the Court has referred to various decisions including the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Standard Chartered Bank and Others v/s Directorate of Enforcement and Others3 while considering a similar question as to whether the partnership firm is a juristic person like a company or not and held in paragraph No.12 as under: 12. Insofar as submission made by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner that since the firm has not been made a party, therefore, the petitioner who is a partner of the firm does not deserve consideration as the Supreme Court in the case of Standard Chartered(supra), supra was dealing with the question whether a company or a corporate body could be prosecuted for offences for which 1 (2003) 2 SCC 349 2 Crl.P.No.7847/2018 DD 03.06.2019 3 (2005) 4 SCC 530 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:8452 CRL.P No. 6030 of 2018 sentence of imprisonment is a mandatory punishment, which is evident from para 4 of the report. Therefore, the aforesaid decision, by no stretch of imagination can be considered to be an authority for the proposition that the term corporate body would include even a partnership for. The aforesaid submission is therefore sans substance." 9. Thus, the position of law as to whether the partnership firm is a juristic person or not and whether arraying of the partnership firm as accused is necessary or not is made very clear. Under such circumstances, I do not find any merit in the contention taken by the petitioner to seek discharge solely on the ground that partnership firm i.e., BOM is not arrayed as one of the accused and in its absence the petitioner cannot be prosecuted. 10. I have gone through the impugned order passed by the Revisional Court. The Court has taken into consideration the materials on record and the preposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court to arrive at a right conclusion. I do not find any reason to interfere with the same. 11. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the Negative and proceed to pass the following: - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:8452 CRL.P No. 6030 of 2018 ORDER The petition is dismissed. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE SPV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13