ORDER : 1. Even though the matter is listed for Admission, same is taken for final hearing with the consent of both parties. This revision petition is filed by accused No.16, who is arraigned as accused while filing additional charge-sheet by the Investigating Officer. 2. The revision petitioner/accused No.16 is assailing the impugned order dated 17.07.2018 passed in S.C.No.129/2014 on the file of learned Principal District and Sessions Judge and (KCOCA) of Special Court, Belagavi (for short ‘the Trial Court’) dismissing the application filed by the revision petitioner under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. seeking his discharge. 3. Brief facts of the case are that, Ankola Police registered Crime No.245/2013 on the basis of first information lodged by the informant-Shri Ramesh, initially against 12 accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 353, 120(B), 212,384, 419, 468, 471, 18, 201 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’ for the sake of brevity) and under Sections 3, 25(c), 27(c)(b)(a), (1-B) of Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Arms Act’ for the sake of brevity) and under Sections 3(1)(i), 3(1)(ii), 3(2)(3)(4) of the Karnataka Control of Organized Crime Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the KCOC Act’ for the sake of brevity). 4. After filing of the charge sheet against 12 accused, it is stated that further statement of other witnesses were recorded. On the basis of such statement, the present petitioner was subjected to investigation and his voluntary statement is said to have been recorded. On the basis of the materials collected by the Investigating Officer during further investigation, petitioner was arraigned as accused No.16 and additional charge sheet came to be filed. 5. The petitioner/accused No.16 filed the application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. before the Trial Court seeking his discharge. The same came to be rejected vide order dated 17/7/2018. Being aggrieved by the impugned Judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court, the accused is before this Court. 6. Heard Sri. S.B.Doddagoudar, learned Amicus Curie, for the revision petitioner and Sri. Ramesh B.Chigari, learned HCGP for respondent-State and perused the materials including the Trial Court records. 7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the Investigating Officer has not followed the procedure as contemplated under Section 19(3) of the KCOC Act. 6. Heard Sri. S.B.Doddagoudar, learned Amicus Curie, for the revision petitioner and Sri. Ramesh B.Chigari, learned HCGP for respondent-State and perused the materials including the Trial Court records. 7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the Investigating Officer has not followed the procedure as contemplated under Section 19(3) of the KCOC Act. He submitted that as per Section 19(3) of the KCOC Act, the Investigating Officer is required to explain to the accused that the voluntary statement given by him will be used against him during trial. The Investigating Officer has to certify at the end of the statement regarding his satisfaction that the accused has given statement voluntarily. In the present case, no such procedures were followed by the Investigating Officer and therefore, the voluntary statement cannot be relied on. The learned counsel also submitted that Charge Sheet Witness-Mayur had given statement before the Investigating Officer and his further statement were also recorded from time to time. But, he had not referred the name of the present petitioner in those statements and further statement. It was only on 20/11/2015, the further statement of one Mayur was recorded, wherein he has referred the name of the present petitioner, after lapse of so many years, which cannot be believed. Similarly, the statement of Charge Sheet Witness-Prasanna Nayak was recorded on 20/11/2015, wherein he again refers to the role played by the present petitioner. The further statement of Mayur and statement of Prasanna Nayak recorded on 20/11/2015 could not be believed even for a moment. Therefore, there is absolutely no material against the present petitioner to proceed for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 120B of IPC and also under the provision of KCOC Act. Hence, he prays for allowing the revision petition by setting aside the impugned order passed by the Trial Court and to discharge him from the above said charges. 8. Per contra, the learned HCGP opposing the submission of the learned counsel submitted that strong prima facie materials are placed before the Court by the Investigating Officer. The provisions of the KCOC Act are attracted, looking to the seriousness of the offence. Accused No.9 was operating from the foreign country and other accused were assisting him in collecting the details of the rich and influential persons for the purpose of extracting money from them. The provisions of the KCOC Act are attracted, looking to the seriousness of the offence. Accused No.9 was operating from the foreign country and other accused were assisting him in collecting the details of the rich and influential persons for the purpose of extracting money from them. These accused were collecting huge amount from those persons after accused No.9 used to threaten them over phone. Clinching materials are placed by the Investigating Officer to show that accused No.9 collected phone number, address, car Number and other details relating to the deceased in the present case through the present petitioner and managed to kill him. Mr.Mayur and Mr.Prasanna Nayak being the charge sheet witnesses have specifically stated regarding the role played by the present petitioner in furtherance of commission of the offence by accused No.9. The statement of CW6 is also recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. by the learned Magistrate. All these materials constitute sufficient materials to proceed against the petitioner. Therefore, the Trial Court rightly rejected the application. There is no illegality or perversity in the order passed by the Court below. Hence, there is no merit in the revision petition and prays for dismissal of the same. 9. In view of the rival contentions, the point that arises for my consideration is: “Whether the revision petition is entitled to be allowed?” 10. My answer to the above point is in the Negative for the following: REASONS It is the contention of the complainant that the revision petitioner has arraigned as accused No.16 only at the time of filing of additional charge sheet. There are no sufficient grounds to proceed against accused No.16 and therefore, he has to be discharged under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. The Trial Court rejected the application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. without taking into consideration the statement on behalf of the petitioner. 11. On perusal of the materials produced along with the petition, it is clear that the present petitioner was apprehended on 21/11/2016. On the same day, his voluntary statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer. The officer has endorsed at the end of the statement that the statement was recorded as stated by the accused. Whether the statement is in accordance with law or not is to be considered by the Court at the time of trial. Even for any reason, the voluntary statement of the accused has to be ignored. The officer has endorsed at the end of the statement that the statement was recorded as stated by the accused. Whether the statement is in accordance with law or not is to be considered by the Court at the time of trial. Even for any reason, the voluntary statement of the accused has to be ignored. We have further statement of the witness-Sri. Mayur, the son of the deceased. This further statement of the witness was recorded on 20/11/2015. The witness has given explanation as to why he had not named the present petitioner earlier. At this stage, there are no grounds to reject the further statement of witness. Moreover, we have the statement of one Sri.Prasanna Nayak. Statement of this witness was also recorded by the learned Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. In these statements, there is specific reference to the present petitioner and the role played by him in the commission of the offence. There is absolutely no reason as to why all these incriminating materials are to be ignored at this stage. 12. At the time of considering the application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C., these prima facie materials cannot be ignored. It is the settled position of law that even after taking into consideration the materials that are placed before the Court by the Investigating Officer, the materials are not sufficient to proceed against the accused then only the accused will be entitled for the benefit of discharge under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. In the present case, it cannot be said that these materials are not sufficient to proceed against the present petitioner. Therefore, I do not find any merits in the contention taken by the petitioner. Hence, I answer the above point in the Negative. 13. In view of the discussion held above, revision petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. Registry is directed to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/-to Sri.S.B.Doddagoudar, learned counsel who assisted the Court as Amicus Curiae on behalf of the revision petitioner.