Full Judgment
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 645 OF 2016 BETWEEN: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY VIDYARANYAPURA POLICE STATION BENGALURU CITY REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE-560001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI.VINAY MAHADEVAIAH., HCGP) AND:
1. CHELLAKUMAR @ CHELLA
S/O LATE NATARAJ AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS NO.265, 7TH CROSS, A BLOCK, Digitally signed by JANAKIRAM LAYOUT, MARUTHI SEVANAGAR DHARMALINGAM BANGALORE CITY Location: HIGH
COURT OF PRESENTLY R/A KHANSIRAM NAGARA KARNATAKA VIDYARANYAPURA, BANGALORE-560097 2. MANJUANTH @ MANJAS/O MAHENDRAN AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/ NEAR MUNESWARA TEMPLE 2ND CROSS, PERRIYARNAGAR TANNERY ROAD, BANGALORE-45 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M R C MANOHAR., ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI. S.NAGARAJA., ADVOCATE FOR R2) -2- THIS CRL.R.P. IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE SPP FOR THE STATE PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY
BE PLEASED TO SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER
DATED 25.02.2016 IN S.C.NO.306/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE LXIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND S.J., BANGALORE CITY PASSED IN RESPECT OF OFFENCES P/U/S 399,402 OF IPC REGISTERED IN CR.NO.160/2012 OF VIDYARANYAPURA P.S., AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL ORDER
Heard Sri Vinay Mahadevaiah, learned High Court Government Pleader for the petitioner-State. None appears for the respondents-accused.
2. The respondents were required to face the
criminal proceedings in S.C.No.306/2014 on the basis of the split-up charge sheet came to be filed for the offence punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of IPC arising out of Crime No.160/2012 of Vidyaranyapura Police Station, Bengaluru.
3. The brief facts of the case in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under: -3- Based on the complaint of the police personnel, who
had the credible information that some people had gathered and they were prepared to committing docoity, Vidyaranayapura Police have registered a criminal case in Crime No.160/2012. In the raid, accused No.4 was apprehended by the police and accused No.1, 2 and 3 escaped from the clutches of the raid parties and they are absconded.
4. From the custody of accused No.4, incriminating materials were seized and panchanama was drawn and complaint came to be lodged by Sri. Sudarshan Singh, PSI of Vidyaranayapura Police Station.
5. The Station House Officer after registering the
case, investigated the case and filed charge sheet against accused No.4 showing accused Nos.1 to 3 were absconded and hence spilt-up charge sheet came to be filed.
6. Accused No.4 contested the matter and after due trial, the prosecution was unable to prove the panchanama as well as the incriminating material having been seized -4-
from the custody of accused No.4. Admittedly, the names of accused Nos.1 to 3 were revealed by accused No.4 and thereafter, they have been shown as absconding accused.
7. In this split-up charge sheet, which was registered
as S.C.No.306/2014, the presence of accused No.1 and 2 were secured. They filed an application for discharge on the basis of the judgment of this Court in the case of Hyder Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in ILR 2015 KAR 970. Learned trial Magistrate after hearing the parties allowed the request of the accused and disposed of the case as against accused Nos.1 and 2 by order dated 25.02.2016.
8. Validity of the said order is called in question in this revision petition by the state.
9. Sri.Vinay Mahadevaiah, learned High Court
Government Pleader reiterated the grounds urged in the revision petition and contended that mere fact of accused No.4 being acquitted from the case would not ipso facto make out a case for disposal of the case as against the -5- remaining accused persons inasmuch as admittedly they got absconded from the seen of offence and split-up charge sheet is filed and therefore, sought for allowing the revision petition.
10. No representation on behalf of the respondents- accused No.1 and 2 though they have engaged the services of an Advocate.
11. Having heard the learned High Court Government
Pleader, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. On such perusal of the material on record, it is clear that learned trial Magistrate not only placed reliance on the principles of law enunciated in the case of Hyder Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in ILR 2015
KAR 970, but also taken into consideration the judgment
of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Deepak Razak VS. State of West Bengal, 2007 (15) SCC 305 and found that the material evidence on record is not sufficient against accused No.1 and 2, who are the respondents No.1 and 2 in this revision petition. -6-
12. Since the main case as against accused No.4 in
S.C.No.407/2013 got acquitted on merits, this Court is of the considered opinion that the grounds urged in the revision petition is always sufficient to allow the revision petition.
13. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by holding a trial against the remaining accused as panchanama is not proved.
14. Accordingly, the following order is passed:
ORDER
The revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE DL CT: JL