- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35057 WP No. 23408 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 23408 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. K. ANAND @ KEBBALLI ANANDA S/O LATE K.B. KEMPEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT NO.740, 8TH CROSS CHAMUNDESHWARI NAGARA MANDYA-571401. PERMANENT RESIDENT OF KEBBALLI, KERAGODU HOBLI MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT PIN-571401. 2. SRI. K.B. BOREGOWDA S/O BOREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT NO.132, G. KEBBALLI VILLAGE H. KERAGODU HOBLI, K. GOWDAGERE POST MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT PIN-571401. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. LAKSHMIKANTH .K, ADVOCATE OF UNNATHI LAW CHAMBERS) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CENTAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION POLICE STATION Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35057 WP No. 23408 of 2025 ANTI CORRUPTION BRANCH, BENGALURU REP BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001. 2. M.L. VYSHALI GOVT. OFFICIAL GAZETTED PROJECT DIRECTOR DISTRICT URBAN DEVELOPMENT SHELL, RAMANAGARA (D) RAMANAGARA - PIN - 574141. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR, SPP FOR R1; SRI. RAJESH RAI, HCGP FOR R2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO-SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 01.07.2025 PASSED BY THE 46TH ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SPECIAL JUDGE FOR CBI CASES AT BANGALORE SPL.C.C. NO. 536/2015 PRODUCED THAT ANNEXURE - H AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS UNDER SECTION 173(8) OF CR.PC AND DIRECT TO RESPONDENT POLICE TO FURTHER INVESTIGATION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FRESH MATTERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioners – accused Nos.1 and 4 challenging the order dated 01.07.2025 passed by the Trial Court, whereby their application under - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35057 WP No. 23408 of 2025 Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking a direction to conduct further investigation came to be rejected. The Trial Court, while dismissing the application, placed reliance on the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K. Vadivel v. K. Shanthi & Others1. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners, assailing the impugned order, submitted that the admissions elicited during the cross-examination of C.W.49, the Investigating Officer, disclose glaring deficiencies in the investigation, warranting further probe to ensure a fair trial. It was contended that the right of the accused to seek further investigation, particularly when there are deliberate omissions on the part of the Investigating Officer while filing the charge sheet, is well-recognized. 3. Reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the 1 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2643 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35057 WP No. 23408 of 2025 Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bharati Tamang v. Union of India & Others2. Referring to the cross-examination of P.W.49 (Investigating Officer), learned counsel submitted that tangible lapses in the investigation were clearly brought on record. It was elicited that several bank accounts were opened following the credit of an amount of Rs.9,90,00,000/-. Further, it was revealed that the account allegedly belonging to accused No.3 was linked to subsequent transfers not less than 28 other accounts. These facts, according to the petitioners, demonstrated serious gaps in the final report and justified the filing of an application under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. for further investigation. 4. Per-contra, learned Special Counsel for the CBI, referring to the very same cross-examination, submitted that the testimony of P.W.49 effectively nullifies the petitioners’ plea. Drawing attention to internal page No.61 of the transcript of the cross-examination annexed to the 2 (2013) 15 SCC 578 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35057 WP No. 23408 of 2025 application, it was pointed out that the Investigating Officer had duly adverted to the transfers involving 28 accounts. The further cross-examination, in fact, went against the accused, as the Investigating Officer categorically deposed that he had personally visited the bank, verified the records and was informed by the officials that despite furnishing the details of these account holders, none could be located at the addresses mentioned in the bank records. It was thus argued that a thorough investigation had already been undertaken and the inability to trace the account holders cannot be a ground for reopening the probe. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K. Vadivel v. K. Shanthi & Others (cited supra) to contend that, once the trial has commenced, a prayer for further investigation at the instance of the accused is not maintainable. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Special Counsel appearing for the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35057 WP No. 23408 of 2025 CBI, as well as the learned HCGP. I have also carefully perused the records. 6. The petitioners, along with other co-accused, have been charge-sheeted in respect of serious financial irregularities involving the credit of a substantial amount of Rs.9,90,00,000/- from the account of the Ramanagara– Channapattana Urban Development Authority (RCUDA). It is alleged that the amount was siphoned off by creating a fictitious account in the name of a proprietary concern, M/s. Likith Link Line Services. The prosecution asserts that accused No.1 was the mastermind behind the creation of the fictitious firm, whereas the account in which the misappropriated funds were deposited stands in the name of accused No.3. On these allegations, the petitioners arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 4 along with three others, were charge-sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 120-B read with 204, 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, and also under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c) & (d) of the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35057 WP No. 23408 of 2025 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, besides the substantive offences under Sections 120-B, 420 and 471 IPC. 7. The records reveal that the prosecution, in order to discharge its burden, has examined a number of official witnesses and concluded its evidence. The matter now stands posted for the defence evidence of the accused. At that juncture, the present petitioners moved an application under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C seeking further investigation, primarily on the strength of certain answers elicited from the Investigating Officer during his cross- examination. On a careful consideration of the material on record, this Court finds that the impugned order of the Trial Court rejecting the said application does not warrant interference for two principal reasons; (i) The statutory scheme does not contemplate further investigation at the instance of the accused as a matter of course. Such a prayer can be entertained only in the rarest of cases, where tangible material of sterling quality is shown to - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35057 WP No. 23408 of 2025 have been omitted from the investigation and where such omission, if not rectified, would result in manifest miscarriage of justice. No such exceptional circumstance has been demonstrated in the present case. (ii) The petitioners’ request is, in substance, an attempt to reopen and prolong the proceedings after the prosecution has already closed its evidence. Allowing such an exercise would run counter to the settled principles governing fair and expeditious trials. 8. The legal position on this aspect is no longer res integra. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in K. Vadivel v. K. Shanthi & Others (cited supra), has clearly enunciated that the power of the Court under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C to direct further investigation cannot ordinarily be invoked once the trial has commenced particularly at the behest of an accused. In the case on hand, not only has the trial commenced, but the prosecution has also completed the examination of its witnesses and the matter presently stands at the stage of defence evidence. It is also - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35057 WP No. 23408 of 2025 pertinent that the petitioners – accused Nos.1 and 4 had earlier moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C before the Special Court, which came to be rejected that rejection was subsequently affirmed by this Court in Criminal Revision Petition No.1381/2018 by order dated 29.07.2025. These circumstances further militate against the maintainability of the present plea for further investigation. 9. On an overall appraisal of the charge-sheet materials and the evidence already led, this Court is satisfied that the investigation was conducted in a comprehensive and effective manner and that a detailed final report has been filed against the accused. The burden of proving the charges now lies squarely upon the prosecution, and the petitioners, as accused Nos.1 and 4, are at liberty to lead appropriate rebuttal evidence in accordance with law. However, under the guise of leading such rebuttal evidence, the petitioners cannot invoke Section 173(8) Cr.P.C to re-open the investigation. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35057 WP No. 23408 of 2025 No provision in the Code permits such recourse, and the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K. Vadivel (cited supra) fortify this position. Finding no illegality or perversity in the impugned order of the Trial Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petition is devoid of merits. 10. In view of the above, this Court proceeds to pass the following; ORDER (i) The petition is dismissed. (ii) The Trial Court is directed to ensure that the trial is proceeded with expeditiously and that the case is disposed of at the earliest, in accordance with law. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3