- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4706 CRL.RP No. 100267 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100267 OF 2017 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: CANARA BANK REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, CANARA BANK CIRCLE OFFICE, MANGALURU. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SURESH S. GUNDI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. CBI, ACB, BENGALURU REPRESENTED BY PI CBI, ACB, BENGALURU. OFFICE OF SUPERINENDENT OF POLICE NO.36, BELLARY ROAD, GUNANAGAR, BENGALURU-560032. 2. GOPAL V. JOSHI AGE: MAJOR, OCC. MARKETING OFFICER (RETD) R/O. NO.19, INDIRA COLONY, NAGASHETTIKOPPA, HUBBALLI-580020. 3. M/S. G5 SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD., 2ND FLOOR, MUJAWAR ARCADE, P.B.ROAD, NEHRUNAGAR, BELAGAVI-590001. REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTORS. Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4706 CRL.RP No. 100267 of 2017 4. M/S. TRIBOL VOICE COMMUNICATIONS (P) LTD., 124, 18TH CROSS, 20TH MAIN, J.P.NAGAR, 5TH PHASE, BENGALURU-560078. REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTORS. 5. SRI G.G. DYAVANA GOUDAR AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC. PVT. SERVICE, R/O. H.NO.106, SHET ENCLAVEM I FLOOR, OPP SBM BANK, SHIRUR PARK, VIDYANAGAR, HUBBALLI-580031. 6. SMT.SHASHIKALA W/O. DYAVANA GOUDAR, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC. PVT. WORK, R/O. H.NO.106, SHET ENCLAVEM I FLOOR, OPP SBM BANK, SHIRUR PARK, VIDYANAGAR, HUBBALLI-580031. 7. SRI AJIT S/O. GUNDERAO KULKARNI, AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC. PVT. WORK, R/O LIG 223, 10TH CROSS, NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI-580032. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI NEELENDRA D. GUNDE, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI MRUTYUNJAYA T. BANGAI, ADVOCATE FOR R2; KUMARI SONU SUHEL, ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND R4; R5 TO R7-NOTICE SERVED) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SEC. 401 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26.07.2017 PASSED BY THE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS AND SPECIAL JUDGE FOR LOKAYUKTA AND CBI CASES AT DHARWAD SITTING AT HUBBALLI IN SPL. CBI C.C.NO. 07 OF 2014 AND CONSEQUENTLY ORDER FOR INVESTIGATION AS PRAYED FOR IN THE PROTEST APPLICATION DATED 25.11.2014. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4706 CRL.RP No. 100267 of 2017 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri.Suresh S. Gundi, Advocate for the petitioner, Sri.Neelendra D. Gunde, Advocate for respondent No.1 and Sri.Mruthunjaya T. Bangi, advocate for respondent No.2 and Kumari.Sonu Suhel, Advocate for respondents No.3 and 4. 2. Revision petition is by the defacto-complainant viz., Canara Bank, Circle office, Mangalore. 3. Facts in the nutshell for disposal of the present revision petition are as under: 3.1 A complaint came to be filed by the Canara Bank, before the CBI, ACB, Bengaluru, alleging that six accused persons have conspired together, among them accused No.1 was servicing as Marketing officer in Canara Bank, Circle office, Hubli. During his service, he brought in money to open fixed deposits. Accused No.1 was appointed as Canvassing Officer and during internal investigation and inspection that was carried out, it is - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4706 CRL.RP No. 100267 of 2017 noticed that accused No.1 had opened a current account and proceeds of the fixed deposits were transferred to said current account in the name of accused Nos.2 and 3. In fact, the invested money was belonging to different organizations and necessary letters were taken from them and amount was deposited. Later on, the amounts were withdrawn by cancelling the fixed deposits, after 17 days and proceeds thereof is transferred to current accounts of accused Nos.2 and 3. Thus, there was cheating. 3.2 Based on such complaint, investigation was conducted by CBI. Presence of the accused persons was secured and searches were conducted in the premises of accused No.1 and others. 3.3 Four documents were seized during search and investigation officer recorded the statements of witnesses. 3.4 After completion of the investigation, investigation officer filed a ‘B’ final report recommending the closure of the case. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4706 CRL.RP No. 100267 of 2017 3.5 Learned trial judge accepted the ‘B’ final report without recourse of the complainant. When the same was questioned by the Canara bank, later the said order was recalled suo motu and notice was issued to defacto- complainant. 3.6 Defacto complainant appeared before the Court and filed protest petition. Later on, two witnesses were present and their sworn statement was recorded. Few documents were also marked on behalf of the complainant supporting the protest petition. 3.7 Subsequent thereto, learned Special Judge heard the counsel for the defacto-complainant and by order dated 26.07.2017, the protest petition was dismissed and ‘B’ final report was accepted and matter stood closed. 3.8 It is that order which is under challenge in this revision petition by the Canara Bank on the following grounds.” - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4706 CRL.RP No. 100267 of 2017 “1. The impugned order is highly illegal, opposed to the documentary evidence and hence the same is liable to be setaside. 10. The Court below erred in holding that non- challenging the order dated 4/9/2014 is fatal to the case of complainant. In view of subsequent order dated 11/9/2014 complainant was issued with notice and was given opportunity to file objections 'B' report. Hence there was no occasion to challenge the order dated 4/9/2014 as such the said reasoning of the court below is perverse. In view of protest petition being filed complainant was permitted to produce documents and sworn statement having been recorded the court below erred in holding that protest petition was not maintainable. 11. The Court below erred in not appreciating the contents of protest petition so also the sworn statement of complainant who has clearly stated the role played the 1st accused along with others in causing loss to the Bank, Sworn statement at paragraph No.2, 3 and 4 is self explanatory of the overt acts done by accused No.1 so also the succeeding paragraph No.5 to 12 clearly reveals what is not considered by the Investigating Officer while filed 'B' report. Hence court below ought to have ordered for further investigation. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4706 CRL.RP No. 100267 of 2017 12. The Court below committed serious error in holding that sanction is required to file protest petition. It ought to have seen that as the date of filing protest petition accused No.1 was no more in service and judgments cited by the Court in arriving at such a conclusion is arbitrary. Moreso the judgments cited are by the Court itself after arguments were concluded and complainant had no occasion to make a distinction insofar as law laid down therein are concerned. 13. There was no need to obtain sanction to file protest petition as Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act do not mandate compliance. 14. The Court below ought to have seen that documents produced by the complainant namely F.D receipts there has been manipulation of rate of interest and the same is visible from bare eyes. By changing the said rate of interest financial loss is caused to the Bank for which 1st accused is solely responsible and his acts done in collusion with other accused which attracts offence under Section 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act so also under Indian Penal Code. 4. Sri. Suresh S. Gundi, learned counsel representing the revision petitioner vehemently contended - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4706 CRL.RP No. 100267 of 2017 that the learned trial Judge rejecting the ‘B’ final report has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice. 5. He would further contend that accused No.1 was not a public servant and therefore, sanction to prosecute the accused No.1 was not necessary. The learned trial judge did not take said aspect into consideration while rejecting the protest petition. 6. He further contended that admittedly, the fraud committed by accused No.1 is apparent on record inasmuch as he had opened the current accounts in the name of accused Nos.2 and 3 and proceeds of the fixed deposits which were invested in the Bank of different organisations have been transferred to the current account by creating fraudulent documents. Therefore, the closure of the complaint by the CBI has resulted in miscarriage of justice. 7. Sri.Suresh Gundi would also contend that the investigation officer forming an opinion that the there is no truth in the allegations of the complaint is based on - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4706 CRL.RP No. 100267 of 2017 surmises and conjunctures and did not reflect the real material facts and thus sought for allowing the revision. 8. Per contra, Sri. Neelendra Gunde, counsel representing the first respondent-CBI supports impugned order. 9. He would further contend that the role of the CBI would come to an end by filing the ‘B’ summary report and thereafter CBI has got nothing to do with the matter. 10. According to the investigation officer no case is made out and therefore suitable orders be passed in the revision petition. 11. Sri.Mruthunjaya Tata Bangi, learned counsel representing the second respondent-first accused, Kumari Sonu Suhel, counsel representing Sri.Shartah V. Magadum for respondents No.3 and 4 who are the accused Nos.2 and 3 before the trial court, supports the impugned order. 12. They would further contend that the material placed on record is hardly sufficient to proceed with the case and therefore CBI has rightly filed the ‘B’ final Report. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4706 CRL.RP No. 100267 of 2017 13. It is also their contention that there was no loss of money to the Bank which could be termed as wrongful loss and there is no material on record, collected by the CBI or for that matter, material placed on record along with sworn statement was not sufficient enough to establish that there is a corresponding wrongful gain either to accused No.1 or any other accused. 14. Insofar as the other offences namely Section 467 and 471 of IPC, there is a clear and categorical finding recorded by the investigation officer by filing the ‘B’ final report that accused No.1 had no role insofar as the records of the Canara Bank is concerned and therefore alleged criminal conspiracy was absent. 15. Sri.Mrythunjaya Tata Bangi would also contend that the so called internal investigation was at the instance of Deputy General Manager of Canara Bank, who is not examined as a witness in support of the protest petition. 16. He would further point out that Sri.T.V.Rajan and Sri.B.Parshwanatha had no first hand information about the alleged Commission of the offences and they - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4706 CRL.RP No. 100267 of 2017 sworn to before the learned Special Judge based on the documents. 17. Sri.Mruthungaya Tata Bangi would further contend that assuming for a moment that accused No.1 had contravened the rules of the Bank in getting the fixed deposits, it is the duty of the manager to ascertain before opening the fixed deposit in the names of the beneficiaries which has not been done. Therefore no offence has taken place. 18. He further points out that the duty that was assigned to the accused No.1 as a Marketing officer was only to bring in money for opening the fixed deposits from the prospective customers which he has done it. If the papers were not in order, Manager of the Canara Bank, Circle office, who is incharge of opening the fixed deposit had every right to reject the proposal for fixed deposit and having opened the fixed deposit by the Manager and in the absence of Manager being proceeded for the alleged act, Marketing officer alone being proceeded shows that it is with ulterior motive, complaint has been rightly - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4706 CRL.RP No. 100267 of 2017 investigated by the CBI and filed the ‘B’ final report which is in order and rightly accepted by the learned Special Judge. As such, this Court in the revisional jurisdiction cannot revisit into the said aspect of the matter and sought for dismissal of the revision petition. 19. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 20. On such perusal of the material available on record, the sole point that would arise for consideration are as under:- i) Whether the impugned order accepting the ‘B’ final report by rejecting the protest petition is Just and proper? 21. In the light of rival contentions. This Court perused the material on record meticulously. On such perusal of the material on record, it is seen that a complaint came to be lodged by PW1 with CBI. CBI registered the case and thereafter investigated the matter. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4706 CRL.RP No. 100267 of 2017 22. After thorough investigation, including obtaining search warrant and collection of the documents, CBI found that there is no truth in the allegations levelled against the accused No.1 and other accused persons for the alleged offences, filed ‘B’ final report. 23. Learned trial judge on receipt of the ‘B’ final report, at the first instance, closed the case without notifying the defacto-complainant who is the revision petitioner. 24. Later on suo motu, Court recalled that order based on the office note and issued notice to the revision petitioner. 25. Pursuant to the notice, revision petitioner appeared before the Special Judge and filed the protest petition. 26. Thereafter, learned trial judge proceeded to record the sworn statement of defacto-complainant Mr. T.V.Rajan and sworn statement of another witness viz., D.Parshwanath. - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4706 CRL.RP No. 100267 of 2017 27. The relevant portions of the sworn statements are culled out hereunder for ready reference. Sworn statement of the complainant: Sri.T.V.B.Rajan “01. I am the complainant in this case. I know the accused. The accused was working as a marketing Manager in Canara Bank, Traffic Island Hubli. The accused was entrusted with the work of canvassing the marketing and collecting the deposits in favour of the bank. I worked as a A.G.M Canara Bank, Circle office Hubli from June 2013 to June 2014. Our vigilance office has conducted internal investigation in our bank. They found some irregularities in canvassing bulk deposits for the bank. Our inspection Department conducted detailed inquiry and gave a detailed report notice the irregularities. The accused introduced one account holder and got opened current account. The accused has offered more rate of interest than that of permitted rate of interest by the bank. This act of the accused is an unauthorized act. The accused used to deposit the huge amount deposited by organizations in current accounts of some other persons. Then after some days the accused used to take letters from current account holders stating that the said amount was not belonging to them. Then the accused used to deposit the said amount - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4706 CRL.RP No. 100267 of 2017 in the names of organizations like Mysore minerals, BMRDA, Rajeevagandhi Health University, Karnataka State Bevarage Corporation, Hatti gold mines, LIC etc., showing the higher rate of interest than permitted by the bank. The accused has unauthorizly used the bank offer forms. Accused used to show the higher rate of interest to such organizations. After the maturity the organizations used to claim the deposited amount alongwith exorbitant rate of interest which was shown by the accused. Then the accused used to divert the funds of one organizations to another organizations for compensating the claim. The accused used to transfer the funds from the accounts of organizations to the S.B. accounts of some other account holders. He used to collect the amount from such accounts and used to pay excessive interest to the such organizations. Some amounts were also paid towards the higher interests from our bank. After the investigation vigilance department of bank came to know regarding the total loss of more than Rs.1.5 crores. In case of loss of more than 1 crore the matter is to be referred to CBI as per our bank norms. The bank has dismissed the accused and took departmental actions against the officials who are involved in this case. Accordingly I filed the complaint to the CBI as per the instructions of our Head Office. - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4706 CRL.RP No. 100267 of 2017 Sworn statement of the complainant : - B.Parshwanath 01. 1 am working as a Asst. G.M., Canara Bank, Regional Office, Hubli. I know the complainant and accused in this case. In the year 2010 I was working as a Chief Manager, Canara Bank at Chennai. At that time the accused was working as a Marketing Manager, Traffic Island Branch, Hubli. Now I see Ex.P-8 SB containing bunch of FD receipts. In the FD receipts the rate of interest is altered quoting high rate of interest manually. FD receipt was issued on 18.05.2010 and it is back dated as 06.05.2010. Likewise under Ex.P-9 in number of FD receipts dates were back dated. Rate of interest were given from back date. Now I see Ex.P-4 letter by G-5 solution Pvt. Ltd., wherein they have stated 30 Crores of amount credited to their account was not pertaining to them. Likewise number of credits were shown without there being any deposits. Likewise number of irregularities were found. Thus the difference of rate of interest amounted to Rs. 1.38 crores. Therefore the bank is put to loss. Therefore I pray for further investigation.” 28. Documents that were placed on record on behalf of day complainant were also marked. Pertinent to - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4706 CRL.RP No. 100267 of 2017 note that along with the sworn statement, no sanction order was placed on record by the complainant. 29. As could be seen from the material on record, the role of accused No.1 was only to bring in the fixed deposit being the Marketing officer. When the money is brought in to the bank, with the necessary application, the role of accused No.1 ended. Later, it is for the Manager to verify and scrutinise the proposal and then open the fixed deposit. If the proposal papers were not in order, necessary objections ought to have been raised by the Manager and thereafter if there is compliance, the fixed deposits ought to have been opened. 30. Accused No.1 being the Marketing officer, brought in huge amount running into several crores and got it transferred into the private account of accused Nos.2 and 3 and from those accounts fixed deposits were made in the names of Government authorities and those FD receipts were manipulated and were withdrawn, is the allegation in complaint. - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4706 CRL.RP No. 100267 of 2017 31. In the case on hand, no such illegality is found and whatever the proposals that has been brought in by the accused No.1 were accepted and fixed deposits were opened. After 17 days of such opening of the fixed deposits, they were closed based on the statement said to have been made by the accused No.1. What happened in the interregnum is to be explained by the Canara bank, especially, when the proposal is accepted by the manager. Manager is not proceeded in the case, though Mr.Suresh Gundi would submit that action has been initiated against the then Manager and other officers. Result of such action is not placed on record. 32. Moreover, as could be seen from the sworn statement and the complaint averments, there is an internal investigation that has taken place. What is the internal investigation report and whether the same was taken note of by the higher officials and if it is so, why there was no sanction order to prosecute accused No.1 is not forthcoming on record. - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4706 CRL.RP No. 100267 of 2017 33. Further, it is noted that the action is initiated at the instructions of Deputy General Manager. The Deputy General Manager is not examined as a witness in support of the protest petition. 34. In other words, the material evidence that is sought to be placed on record is selective in nature. Being the officer of the Canara Bank and being the public servant, role of the complainant should not be one sided. Complainant should have placed on record all material facts which would substantiate the complaint averments and the protest petition. Selectively placing the material documents would only go to show that somehow the bank is interested in continuing the prosecution against the accused Nos.1 to 6. 35. Sri Suresh Gundi, learned counsel tried to impress upon this Court that accused No.1 is compulsorily removed from the post of Marketing officer and therefore sanction order is not necessary. 36. Admittedly, at the time of incident, he was a public servant and for the offences punishable under - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4706 CRL.RP No. 100267 of 2017 section 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, sanction order was very much necessary. 37. Learned trial judge in the impugned order taken note of the principles of law enunciated in the case of M.K. Ayyappa Vs. State of Karnataka1 and in the case of Sri.Renukacharya and others versus State of Karnataka2. The same is discussed at length in paragraph numbers 22 to 26 of the impugned judgement which is called out hereunder for ready reference. “22. In a decision reported in M.K.Aiyappa Vs. The State of Karnataka & Ors. KCCR 2014(2) page No.1412, Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has held as under. PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988-Secs.19, 13(1)(c), (d), (e), (2) and 12-Sanction for prosecution - Special Court in Private complaint, ordered investigation by police without sanction for prosecution Held, requirement of sanction for prosecution is mandatory 1 2014(2) KCR 1412 2 Crl.A.No.200270/2024 - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4706 CRL.RP No. 100267 of 2017 even at pre-cognizance stage- Ordering of investigation without prior sanction for prosecution is not proper- Order of Spl. Judge and complaint quashed - Petition allowed. 23. In a similar situation in another case of Sri. Renukacharya & Ors. Vs. the State of Karnataka by Karnataka Lokayukta Police, Davangere District, Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka while quashing the proceedings and FIR was pleased to observe at para No.10 of the decision as under. 10. The attempt of the state to distinguish present case from that of Mrs.Priyanka Srivatsava on the ground that, it was a complaint U/s.156 of Cr.P.C, whereas, present one is filed U/s.200 of Cr.P.C, is misconceived. There is no different species in the private complaints. A private complaint is a private complaint whether it quote Sec.156 of Cr.P.C. or Sec.200 of Cr.P.C. While in our State litigants filed private complaint U/s.200 of Cr.P.C, in certain other states we are informed that, they quote Sec. 156 of Cr.P.C. It is obvious that the complaint was not accompanied with the affidavit of the complainant. The - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4706 CRL.RP No. 100267 of 2017 order of investigation sounds that, on mere presentation of complaint, it is referred for police investigation. The judgment of Mrs.Pryanka Apex Court Srivatsava in was pronounced on 19.3.2015 and it was ordered to circulate to all the magistrates of the Nation. Now neither the complainant who is also an advocate nor the court can express ignorance of the dictum of Apex Court. Since the order passed by the learned Spl. Judge which is subsequent to the judgment of Mrs.Priyanka Srivatsava is patently illegal and cannot be sustained the complainant has to abide by the guidelines of the Apex Court and follow the procedure required for presentation of a private complaint before the concerned court. Therefore, it is for the court to act in accordance with the established principles reiterated in the case of Anilkumar and Priyanka Srivatsava and passed necessary orders. 24. As already noticed by me above, the protest petition is nothing but a complaint. A private complaint against the public servant for referring the same to IO needs a sanction from competent authority. No sanction is obtained by the - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4706 CRL.RP No. 100267 of 2017 complainant before filing the protest petition. In a decision reported in CBI through SP Jaipur Vs. State of Rajasthan and another AIR 2001 Supreme Court 668 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held as under; Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974) Ss. 156(3), 2(O), 36-Delhi Police Establishment Act, (25 of 1946), Ss. 5,6,- Investigation by CBI - Cannot be directed by Magistrate - Ss. 5,6 of 1946 Act do not confer any such power on Magistrate 25. The complainant cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this Court to refer the matter to CBI for investigation. When the complainant cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the Court to refer the matter to CBI then he cannot also invoke the jurisdiction of this Court for referring the matter to CBI for further investigation. Therefore, looking to the facts and circumstance of the case, the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the decisions reported in Mrs. Priyanka Srivastav and Anr. Vs. State of UP and Ors. AIR 2015 S.C.1758, State of MP Vs. Sheetla Sahai and Ors. 2009 AIR SCW 5514, Tulasiram Bhimanna and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and Anr, 2016 (2) KCCR 1052, Anilkumar and Ors. Vs. M.K.Aiyappa and Anr, 2014 Cri.L.J. 1) Subramanyam Swami Vs. - 24 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4706 CRL.RP No. 100267 of 2017 Manmohan Singh (2012) 3 SCC 64(para 19) are aptly applicable to the present case on hand. No-where under their sworn statements PWs.1 and 2 have whispered as to why they have not obtained the sanction to prosecute the accused either U/s. 197 Cr.P.C. or U/s.19 of PC Act. 26. In view of Sec. 19 of PC Act, 1988 which is a special Act as well as in view of the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the decisions referred above it is a condition precedent to get the sanction to prosecute the accused before filing complaint. Complainant has not sought for sanction to prosecute the accused in writing till this day. The alleged acts of accused prima facie do not constitute the offences under PC Act, 1988. Despite taking several adjournments, the complainant has failed to produce any valid sanction to prosecute the accused. Therefore on this count, also the complaint is not maintainable before this Court.” 38. From the material placed on record having regard to the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction, in the light of principles of Law enunciated in Amit Kapoor vs. - 25 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4706 CRL.RP No. 100267 of 2017 Ramesh Chander and another3, this Court is of the considered opinion that the grounds urged in the revision petition are hardly sufficient to set aside the impugned order. 39. Accordingly, point is answered in the affirmative and following order is passed: ORDER Revision petition is meritless and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE HMB CT:PA List No.: 2 Sl No.: 35 3 (2012) 9 SCC 460