- 1 - CRL.P No.9398 of 2018 C/W CRL.P No.9399 of 2018 CRL.P No.9430 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU R DATED THIS THE21T DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ CRIMINAL PETITION No.9398 OF2018C/W CRIMINAL PETITION No.9399 OF2018CRIMINAL PETITION No.9430 OF2018BETWEEN: IN CRL.P. NO.9398/2018 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MANGALURU EAST (KADRI) POLICE STATION, MANGALURU CITY REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU - 01. …PETITIONER (BY SRI.KIRAN S JAVALI, SPP) AND1 RAJENDRA KUMAR @ BANNANJE RAJ @ KUMARA RAJ @ HEMANTH HEGDE S/O M SUNDARA SHETTIGAR AGED ABOUT49YEARS, R/AT RADHAKRISHNA VILLA BAPUTHOTA, MALPE, UDUPI DISTRICT - 2 - CRL.P No.9398 of 2018 C/W CRL.P No.9399 of 2018 CRL.P No.9430 of 2018 574 118. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. P.P.HEGDE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI.VENKATESH SOMAREDDI, ADVOCATE) THIS PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING THIS HON'BLE COURT TO QUASH THE ORDER
DATED1411.2018 IN S.C.NO.105/2016 PENDING ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K., MANGALURU THEREBY DISMISSING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE POLICE INSPECTOR, MANGALURU EAST POLICE STATION, U/S10OF THE KARNATAKA CONTROL OF ORGANIZED CRIME ACT, 2000. IN CRL.P. NO.9399/2018 BETWEEN1 STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MANGALURU EAST (KADRI) POLICE STATION, MANGALURU CITY REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BENGALURU – 01 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. KIRAN S JAVALI, SPP) AND1 RAJENDRA KUMAR @ BANNANJE RAJ @ KUMARA RAJ @ HEMANTH HEGDE S/O M SUNDARA SHETTIGAR, AGED ABOUT49YEARS, R/AT RADHAKRISHNA VILLAGE, BAPUTHOTA MALPE, UDUPI DISTRICT57411 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. P.P.HEGDE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI.VENKATESH SOMAREDDI, ADVOCATE) THIS PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING THIS HON'BLE COURT TO QUASH THE ORDER
DATED1411.2018 IN S.C.NO.114/2016 PENDING ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL - 3 - CRL.P No.9398 of 2018 C/W CRL.P No.9399 of 2018 CRL.P No.9430 of 2018 DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K., MANGALURU THEREBY DISMISSING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE POLICE INSPECTOR, MANGALURU EAST POLICE STATION, U/S10OF THE KARNATAKA CONTROL OF ORGANIZED CRIME ACT, 2000. IN CRL.P. NO.9430/2018 BETWEEN1 STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MANGALURU SOUTH POLICE STATION, PANDESHWARA, MANGALURU CITY. REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU. 01 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. KIRAN S JAVALI, SPP) AND1 RAJENDRA KUMAR @ BANNANJE RAJ @ KUMARA RAJ @ HEMANTH HEGDE, S/O M SUNDARA SHETTIGAR, AGED ABOUT49YEARS, R/AT RADHAKRISHNA VILLA, BAPUTHOTA, MALPE, UDUPI DISTRICT. 574118 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. P.P.HEGDE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI.VENKATESH SOMAREDDI, ADVOCATE) THIS PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING THIS HON'BLE COURT TO QUASH THE ORDER
DATED1411.2018 IN S.C.NO.110/2016 PENDING ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K., MANGALURU THEREBY DISMISSING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE POLICE INSPECTOR, MANGALURU EAST POLICE STATION, U/S10OF THE KARNATAKA CONTROL OF ORGANIZED CRIME ACT, 2000. THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDER
S, COMING ON FOR ‘PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER
, THIS DAY, SURAJ GOVINDARAJ J., MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 4 - CRL.P No.9398 of 2018 C/W CRL.P No.9399 of 2018 CRL.P No.9430 of 2018 ORDER
1 The state in all the above matters is before this Court aggrieved by the dismissal of application filed under Section 10 of the Karnataka Control of Organized Crime Act, 2000 (for short, ‘KCOCA’).
2. In all the above matters, the State had filed an application under Section 10 of the KCOCA with a prayer to keep the trial in the said case pending till the disposal of the proceedings which had been initiated under the KCOCA in S.C.Nos.128/2014 and 129/2014 pending on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge (KCOCA) Special Judge, Belagavi.
3. The contention of the State was that the trial in KCOCA matter has paramount importance and until the trial in that matter is completed the trial in all the other regular criminal matters are required to be stayed. The trial Court dismissed the said application - 5 - CRL.P No.9398 of 2018 C/W CRL.P No.9399 of 2018 CRL.P No.9430 of 2018 by holding that what Section 10 of KCOCA provided for is only a precedence over trial of any other case, when trial itself had not commenced in the proceedings under KCOCA, there is no purpose served by staying the trial in the other proceedings. The trial Court further held that there was no requirement of physical production of the accused before it. The accused being lodged in the Belagavi Jail could be easily produced before the KCOCA Court physically and insofar as other Courts are concerned, the accused could be produced through video conference i.e. virtually and as such until the trial in the proceedings under KCOCA commenced, the trial in other matters could continue.
4. It is aggrieved by the same that the State is before this Court.
5. Sri.Kiran S Javali, learned Senior and Special Public Prosecutor-1 submits that: - 6 - CRL.P No.9398 of 2018 C/W CRL.P No.9399 of 2018 CRL.P No.9430 of 2018 5.1. By way of the order passed by the trial Court, serious prejudice is caused to the State and the proceedings in KCOCA matters inasmuch as Section 10 giving a precedence to KCOCA matters in the event of trials being held in other matters the KCOCA trial would get adversely affected and delayed, which is not permissible and it is in that background that he submits that the impugned orders are required to be set aside. 5.2. The application under Section 10 filed in each of the matters is required to be allowed and the trial in matters other than that under KCOCA be suspended and or stayed till the trial in S.C.No.128/2014 and S.C.No.129/2014 pending before the KCOCA Court is completed.-. 7 - CRL.P No.9398 of 2018 C/W CRL.P No.9399 of 2018 CRL.P No.9430 of 2018 6. Per contra, Sri.P.P.Hegde, learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondent accused would submit that:
6. 1. The trial in the KCOCA matter has not even commenced. Merely because the matter is posted for evidence, would not mean that evidence would be led on the date it is posted. It is only if the trial is commenced that Section 10 would come into play. Without the commencement of trial, Section 10 would not apply and as such, the trial Court has rightly rejected the applications. 6.2. The State in order to continue the unnecessary incarceration of the accused has initiated proceedings under the KCOCA and sought for the stay of the trial in other regular criminal matters, which would cause injustice to the accused.-. 8 - CRL.P No.9398 of 2018 C/W CRL.P No.9399 of 2018 CRL.P No.9430 of 2018 6.3. The trial in the KCOCA matter not commencing, the accused is held in judicial custody without the trial in the regular matter commencing. The trial Court has considered this aspect and has rightly rejected the application under Section 10.
7. At this stage, both the counsel submitted that this issue arises in most matters where prosecution is initiated for offences under KCOCA and as such this Court may issue necessary guidelines/directions for the conduct of proceedings in regular criminal matters as also proceedings initiated under the KCOCA so that the interest of both the State and the accused are protected.
8. In this regard, the learned SPP appearing for the State has filed a memo giving his recommendation. A similar memo has also been filed by Sri.P.P.Hegde, learned Senior counsel appearing for the accused.-. 9 - CRL.P No.9398 of 2018 C/W CRL.P No.9399 of 2018 CRL.P No.9430 of 2018 9. Heard Sri.Kiran S Javali, learned Senior and Special Public Prosecutor-1 for the State and Sri.P.P.Hegde, learned Senior counsel for the accused. Perused papers.
10. Section 10 of KCOCA which is in para-materia with that of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act (MCOCA) is reproduced hereunder for easy reference: “10. Trial by Special courts to have precedence.-. The trial of any offence under this Act by special court shall have precedence over the trial of any other case against the accused in any other court (not being a special court) and shall be concluded in preference to the trial of such other case and accordingly the trial of such other case shall remain in abeyance.
11. A perusal of the above Section would indicate that the trial of an offence under the KCOCA by the Special Court shall have precedence over the trial in the other case in another Court (not being a Special Court). It is further made clear that the trial of any - 10 - CRL.P No.9398 of 2018 C/W CRL.P No.9399 of 2018 CRL.P No.9430 of 2018 offence under KCOCA would have to be concluded in preference to the trial of any other case and for that purpose, the trial of such other case shall remain in abeyance.
12. From the above, it is clear that it is not the proceedings in a matter under KCOCA which has preference or precedence but it is the trial of the offence under the KCOCA by the Special Court which will have precedence. It is thus apparent that Section 10 would come into play and be operative only in the event of the trial of an offence under the KCOCA having commenced. If the trial has not yet commenced, there would be no question of Section 10 coming into play.
13. The proceedings under the KCOCA could be initiated as regards continuing unlawful activity, by an accused if a cognizable offence, punishable with imprisonment of three years or more is undertaken - 11 - CRL.P No.9398 of 2018 C/W CRL.P No.9399 of 2018 CRL.P No.9430 of 2018 either singly or jointly as a member of a crime syndicate or on behalf of the crime syndicate. Towards this end, it is required that the same satisfies the requirement of Clause (d) of Sub-section 1 of Section 2 of KCOCA which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference: “2(1)(d) “Continuing unlawful activity” means an activity prohibited by law for the time being in force, which is a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment of three years or more, undertaken either singly or jointly, as a member of an organized crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate in respect of which more than one charge-sheet have been filed before a competent Court within the preceding period of ten years and that Court has taken cognizance of such offence.
14. The fact that there is a proceeding initiated under the KCOCA would therefore presuppose that there are other proceedings initiated as against the accused, where the accused is being proceeded with under the relevant penal law, right to a fair and speedy trial is a fundamental right of any accused recognized under - 12 - CRL.P No.9398 of 2018 C/W CRL.P No.9399 of 2018 CRL.P No.9430 of 2018 Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This right in my considered opinion would extend to all the criminal proceedings against the accused. The right to a fair and speedy trial is equally applicable to an offence under KCOCA as that would be applicable to proceedings under any other criminal enactment. It cannot be said that the right to a speedy trial would only be applicable as regards an offence under KCOCA and not be applicable to proceedings under regular penal law.
15. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the decision of the trial Court which is impugned herein does not require any interference since the trial as regards the offenses under the KCOCA is yet to commence and as such there was no need to stay the trial for offences under regular criminal enactment.-. 13 - CRL.P No.9398 of 2018 C/W CRL.P No.9399 of 2018 CRL.P No.9430 of 2018 16. Since both Sri.Kiran S Javali, learned Senior and Special Public Prosecutor-1 and Sri.P.P.Hegde, learned Senior counsel have stated that necessary guidelines would have to be issued in this matter, the following guidelines are issued:
16. 1. In the event of proceedings being initiated against the accused under KCOCA and an application under Section 10 of KCOCA being filed by the prosecution, the said application shall be accompanied by a statement giving details of 16.1.1. all other criminal proceedings pending against the accused 16.1.2. the stage of the matter, if trial is commenced or not 16.1.3. if trial has commenced how many witnesses have been examined and how many are yet to be examined if - 14 - CRL.P No.9398 of 2018 C/W CRL.P No.9399 of 2018 CRL.P No.9430 of 2018 the accused is in custody, the details of the case in which he/she is in custody, from when and where the accused is detained. 16.1.4. The prosecution shall also furnish the details as regards the availability of video conferencing services in all the Courts where proceedings are pending against the accused including that of KCOCA Courts. 16.1.5. In the event of a calendar of dates having been fixed by the criminal Court for trial, the details thereof to be provided to the KCOCA Court. 16.1.6. In a similar manner the details of the proceedings before the KCOCA Court to be provided to the Court where other - 15 - CRL.P No.9398 of 2018 C/W CRL.P No.9399 of 2018 CRL.P No.9430 of 2018 criminal proceedings are pending against the accused. 16.2. In the event of trial having commenced, the KCOCA Court to complete the trial without any delay preferably by taking up the trial on day- to-day basis. 16.3. In the event of any adjournment being granted and there being a gap of number of days in holding of the trial, the prosecution shall make known the said gap and the number of days to the other Courts. 16.4. Towards this end, the police IT, Government of Karnataka, Director of Prosecutions and the Registrar (Computers) of this Court are directed to work with each other to provide for a dashboard which would indicate the status of the matters pending under KCOCA against a particular accused and the matters pending - 16 - CRL.P No.9398 of 2018 C/W CRL.P No.9399 of 2018 CRL.P No.9430 of 2018 against that particular accused before the regular criminal Courts. 16.5. Since the proceeding before the KCOCA and regular Courts are initiated against the same accused, it is necessary to ascertain and verify the identity of the accused. The accused could file an affidavit admitting his identity in both the matters. If the identity is disputed, the police authorities to place before the concerned Court necessary details and documentary evidence as regards the identity of the accused. 16.6. In the event of the trial Court coming to a conclusion that the proceedings before it have to be stayed under Section 10 of the KCOCA the trial Court shall adjourn the matter and fix a schedule for recordal of evidence in terms of Section 309 of Cr.P.C., strictly adhering to the said schedule and the schedule to be informed - 17 - CRL.P No.9398 of 2018 C/W CRL.P No.9399 of 2018 CRL.P No.9430 of 2018 and made available to KCOCA Court. While fixing the schedule, the trial Court shall ascertain if a similar schedule has been fixed by the KCOCA Court and if so fixed, shall schedule the trial before it in such a manner that the trial before the KCOCA Court is not adversely effected. 16.7. The KCOCA Court, regular criminal Court as also the Investigating Officer and the prosecutor shall ensure that the trial in KCOCA case and regular case shall not overlap each other. 16.8. It is made clear that Section 10 of KCOCA will apply only when the trial in a proceeding under KCOCA has commenced. 16.9. The KCOCA Court as also the regular criminal Court shall take advantage of the technological innovation in terms of video conferencing - 18 - CRL.P No.9398 of 2018 C/W CRL.P No.9399 of 2018 CRL.P No.9430 of 2018 facilities. Witnesses could also be examined through video conferencing. The experts from Forensic Science Labs or such who are Government servants are as far as possible to be examined only through video conferencing instead of insisting on their personal presence. The presence through video conferencing to be recorded as physical presence under Section 273 of Cr.P.C. 16.10. The accused to be also produced through video conferencing wherever permissible except when remand applications are filed. 16.11. In the event of the accused being in custody, the accused to be retained in custody in a Court as close to the KCOCA Court as possible. 16.12. In respect of trial, the trial Court should follow the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2013) 7 SCC125in the case of - 19 - CRL.P No.9398 of 2018 C/W CRL.P No.9399 of 2018 CRL.P No.9430 of 2018 AKIL ALIAS JAVED VS. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) more particularly para Nos.43 and 44 thereof which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference: “43. It is unfortunate that in spite of the specific directions issued by this Court and reminded once again in Shambhu Nath (supra) such recalcitrant approach was being made by the trial Court unmindful of the adverse serious consequences affecting the society at large flowing therefrom. Therefore, even while disposing of this appeal by confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by the learned trial Judge, as confirmed by the impugned judgment of the High Court, we direct the Registry to forward a copy of this decision to all the High Courts to specifically follow the instructions issued by this Court in the decision reported in Rajdeo Sharma (supra) and reiterated in Shambhu Nath (supra) by issuing appropriate circular, if already not issued. If such circular has already been issued, as directed, ensure that such directions are scrupulously followed by the trial Courts without providing scope for any deviation in following the procedure prescribed in the matter of a trial of sessions cases as well as other cases as provided under Section 309 of Cr.P.C. In this respect, the High Courts will also be well advised to use their machinery in the respective State Judicial Academy to achieve the desired result. We hope and trust that the respective High Courts would take serious note of the above directions issued in the decisions reported in Rajdeo Sharma (supra) which has been - 20 - CRL.P No.9398 of 2018 C/W CRL.P No.9399 of 2018 CRL.P No.9430 of 2018 extensively quoted and reiterated in the subsequent decision of this Court reported in Shambhu Nath (supra) and comply with the directions at least in the future years.
44. In the result, while we upheld the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant, we issue directions in the light of the provisions contained in Section 231 read along with Section 309 of Cr.P.C. for the trial Court to strictly adhere to the procedure prescribed therein in order to ensure speedy trial of cases and also rule out the possibility of any maneuvering taking place by granting undue long adjournment for mere asking. The appeal stands dismissed.
16.13. The principles laid down in (2001) 4 SCC667in the case of STATE OF U.P. VS. SHAMBHU NATH SINGH AND OTHERS more particularly para NoS.12, 13, 14 thereof which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference: “12. Thus, the legal position is that once examination of witnesses started the court has to continue the trial from day to day until all witnesses in attendance have been examined (except those whom the party has given up). The court has to record reasons for deviating from the said course. Even that is forbidden when witnesses are present in court, as the requirement then is that the court has to examine them. Only if there are special reasons, which - 21 - CRL.P No.9398 of 2018 C/W CRL.P No.9399 of 2018 CRL.P No.9430 of 2018 reasons should find a place in the order for adjournment, that alone can confer jurisdiction on the court to adjourn the case without examination of witnesses who are present in court.
13. Now, we are distressed to note that it is almost a common practice and regular occurrence that trial courts flout the said command with immunity. Even when witnesses are present cases are adjourned on far less serious reasons or even on flippant grounds. Adjournments are granted even in such situations on the mere asking for it. Quite often such adjournments are granted to suit the convenience of the advocate concerned. We make it clear that the legislature has frowned at granting adjournments on that ground. At any rate inconvenience of an advocate is not a special reason for bypassing the mandate of Section 309 of the Code.
14. If any court finds that the day to day examination of witnesses mandated by the legislature cannot be complied with due to the non co-operation of accused or his counsel the court can adopt any of the measures indicated in the sub-section i.e. remanding the accused to custody or imposing cost on the party who wants such adjournments (the cost must be commensurate with the loss suffered by the witnesses, including the expenses to attend the court). Another option is, when the accused is absent and the witness is present to be examined, the court can cancel his bail, if he is on bail (unless an application is made on his behalf seeking permission for his counsel to proceed to examine the witnesses present even in his absence provided the accused gives an undertaking in writing that he would not dispute - 22 - CRL.P No.9398 of 2018 C/W CRL.P No.9399 of 2018 CRL.P No.9430 of 2018 his identity as the particular accused in the case.).
16.14. The principles laid down in (2003) 4 SCC601in the case of STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. DR. PRAFUL B DESAI more particularly para No.17 thereof which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference: “17. These principles have also been applied by this Court whilst considering an analogous provision of the Criminal Procedure Code. In the case of Basavaraj R. Patil v. State of Karnataka [(2000) 8 SCC740 the question was whether an Accused needs to be physically present in Court to answer the questions put to him by Court whilst recording his statement under Section 313. To be remembered that under Section 313 the words are "for the purpose of enabling the accused personally to explain" (emphasis supplied). The term "personally" if given a strict and restrictive interpretation would mean that the Accused had to be physically present in Court. In fact the minority Judgment in this case so holds. It has however been held by the majority that the Section had to be considered in the light of the revolutionary changes in technology of communication and transmission and the marked improvement in facilities for legal aid in the country. It was held, by the majority, that it was not necessary that in - 23 - CRL.P No.9398 of 2018 C/W CRL.P No.9399 of 2018 CRL.P No.9430 of 2018 all cases the Accused must answer by personally remaining present in Court.
16.15. The principles laid down in the judgement of this Court in the case of SRI.NAVEEN KUMAR S/O BOJACHAR VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER (CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7019/2020) more particularly para Nos.13.25, 13.26, 13.27 thereof which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference: “13.25. From the data provided, it is also seen that many of these scarce human resources spend unproductive man-days in travelling to the courts in far-flung places in Karnataka to depose in the matter. Thus bringing about one more inefficiency in the system. In the year 2018, 1135 man-days were lost, and in 2019, 1222 man-days were lost. This being so, even though in terms of Section 293 of Cr.P.C. the report submitted by the Forensic Science Laboratory ought to be considered as evidence without the author being examined as held by Andhra Pradesh High Court in case of M/s Visakha Agro Chemicals (P) Ltd., and others Vs. Fertiliser Inspector-cum-Assistant Director of Agriculture (Regular) Visakhapatnam and another reported in 1997(2) Crimes 648 and the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in Saravanan Vs. State and others in Crl.A.Nos.226, - 24 - CRL.P No.9398 of 2018 C/W CRL.P No.9399 of 2018 CRL.P No.9430 of 2018 246 and 324 of 2016 dated 20.02.2019 and several other cases. 13.26. Even if the said officer of the FSl is required to appear and depose in a particular manner, it will also be advisable to permit the said evidence to be led through video conference facilitating. It is immediately required to connect the FSL's with the Courts in a similar manner as the jails are connected to the Court. This would save a large number of man-days lost on account of such unnecessary travel by the FSL officers. 13.27. The trial Courts to permit the examination and or cross-examination of the FSL officers through video conferencing.
16.16. The principles laid down in the judgement of this Court in the case of HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA (WRIT PETITION NO.2739/2021) more particularly para Nos.34.29, 34.30, 34.31 thereof which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference: “Recording of Evidence 34.29. The District Judiciary and the trial Courts in the State of Karnataka are directed to apply the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Thana Singh vs. Central Bureau of Narcotics reported in (2013) 2 SCC590permitting the officers of the Forensic Science - 25 - CRL.P No.9398 of 2018 C/W CRL.P No.9399 of 2018 CRL.P No.9430 of 2018 Laboratory to furnish the reports in terms of Section 293 of Code of Criminal Procedure and where required to appear in person to permit their appearance through video conferencing. 34.30. We direct the Director of Public prosecution to sensitise and provide adequate training to Public Prosecutors, Senior Asst. Public Prosecutors, Asst. Public Prosecutors etc, in respect of the laws and procedure applicable to Forensic reports, evidence to be submitted in relation thereto including the requirement under Section 293 of Cr.P.C. 16.17. In the event of the trial Court not having any of the technological requirement to conduct trial by using video conferencing, the trial Court to communicate the same to the Registrar (Computers) of this Court to enable the Registrar (Computers) to make available the same, Government of Karnataka to make available necessary funds to provide such facilities at the earliest to the Courts. 16.18. In the event of the FSL not having any of the technological requirement to appear before - 26 - CRL.P No.9398 of 2018 C/W CRL.P No.9399 of 2018 CRL.P No.9430 of 2018 court using video conferencing, the FSL to communicate the same to the Principal Secretary, Home Department to enable the Government of Karnataka to make available necessary funds to provide such facilities at the earliest to the FSL’s. 16.19. Registrar (Computers) to make available a dashboard for the courts concerned to indicate the status of matters pending against that accused under KCOCA as also other criminal enactments. 16.20. Police IT to make available a dashboard indicating the status of matters pending against that accused under KCOCA as also other criminal enactments to the Investigating officers. 16.21. Government of Karnataka through the e- governance department to make available a - 27 - CRL.P No.9398 of 2018 C/W CRL.P No.9399 of 2018 CRL.P No.9430 of 2018 dashboard indicating the status of matters pending against that accused under KCOCA as also other criminal enactments to the Public prosecutors. 16.22. Inter-operable criminal justice system to be harnessed to provide details of all proceedings against a particular accused on the basis of the prisoner identification number to all stake holders. 16.23. The Director General of Police is directed to issue necessary Standard Operative Procedure (SOP) to the concerned Investigating Officer in terms of the above and any other requirement that he deems fit. 16.24. The Director Prosecution to issue necessary Standard Operative Procedure (SOP) to all prosecutors in respect of the above as also in other matters he deems fit.-. 28 - CRL.P No.9398 of 2018 C/W CRL.P No.9399 of 2018 CRL.P No.9430 of 2018 16.25. The Standard Operative Procedure (SOP) to be placed before this Court within a period of four weeks from today i.e. on or before 14.12.2022.
17. In view of the above, I pass the following: ORDER
i. The criminal petitions stand dismissed by confirming the orders passed by the trial Court. ii. Though the above criminal petitions are dismissed, to report compliance relist on 14.12.2022. Sd/- JUDGE sh List No.:
19. Sl No.: 1