Full Judgment
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MAY, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 76 OF 2021 BETWEEN: STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY KALASA POLICE, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI.VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP) AND:
1. SOMASHEKHAR S/O. THIMMANNA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MESCOM, KALASA, R/O. MESCOM QUARTERS, KALASA - 577 124.
2. A. PRASHANTHA S/O. KRISHNAPPA POOJARI,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, MECHANIC GRADE II, MESCOM, KALASA, R/O. MESCOM QUARTERS, KALASA - 577 124. Digitally signed by …RESPONDENTS MALATESH KC (BY SRI.H.V.DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2) Location: HIGH THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING COURT OF TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 28.07.2020 PASSED IN KARNATAKA
SPL.C.NO.105/2018 PASSED BY THE LEARNED II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT CHIKKAMAGALURU ALLOWING THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER SEC.227 OF CR.PC AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER SEC.227 OF CR.PC IN SPL.C.NO.105/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT CHIKKAMAGALURU.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: -2- Heard learned High Court Government Pleader for the petitioner-State. None present on behalf of the respondents.
2. The present revision petition is filed praying to set
aside the order dated 28.07.2020 in Spl.C.No.105/2018 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru, and consequently, dismiss the application filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C.
3. The facts in brief, which are utmost necessary for
disposal of the revision petition are as under: The Tarikere Police filed a charge sheet against the accused-respondents for the offences punishable under Section 429 of IPC read with Section 146 of the Indian Electricity Act,
2003. When the matter was being tried before the Special
Court, an application came to be filed by the accused under Section 227 of Cr.P.C., and contended that taking cognizance is incorrect and filing charge sheet has resulted in miscarriage of justice, for want of sanction to prosecute the accused persons, who were admittedly employees of MESCOM. -3-
4. Learned Sessions Judge after considering rival
contentions of the parties, agreed with the contentions urged on behalf of the accused persons that there is no prior sanction to prosecute and therefore, discharged the accused persons.
5. Being aggrieved by the same, the State has preferred the present revision petition.
6. Learned HCGP, reiterating the grounds urged in the
revision petition, submits that the action attributable to the accused persons would not fall within the scope of discharging of official duty and therefore, want of sanction did not cause any serious dent to the case of the prosecution prosecuting the respondents.
7. However, on perusal of the materials on record,
it is crystal clear that the allegations leveled against the accused persons are in their official capacity in as much as they were required to inspect the electrical lines while discharging their official duty.
8. It is suffice to say that discharging of an accused in
a criminal case would not amount to acquittal. It is always -4- open for the Investigation Agency to obtain necessary sanction before prosecuting the respondents and file supplementary charge sheet or additional charge sheet so as to prosecute the accused persons, who have committed any offence.
9. Reserving such liberty, the following:
(i) Admission is declined; and
(ii) Revision Petition stands dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE SMJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39