Vali Siddappa and Others, Etc. Vs. State of Karnataka

Vali Siddappa and Others, Etc. vs State of Karnataka

Type Court Judgment Court Karnataka Decided Nov 11, 1997

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/377355

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/377355
Court: Karnataka High Court
Judge: Mohamed Anwar, J.
Decided On: Nov 11, 1997
Case Number: Criminal Petns. Nos. 2443 and 2038 of 1995
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- Section 100: [A.S. Bopanna, J] Second appeal - Suit for declaration and permanent injunction - Plaintiff claimed to be the Donee under the Gift Deed - Finding of the lower Appellate Court that the Gift deed Ex.P1 cannot be accepted as the attesting witness not being examined - Held, That the document marked as Ex....

Key legal issue: Criminal
Acts & sections: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 196 and 196(3)

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Vali Siddappa and Others, Etc.

Advocate Mallikarjuna S. Mylar and ;R.B. Deshpande, Advs.

Respondent

State of Karnataka

Advocate S.S. Guttal, Govt. Pleader

Legal References

Acts: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 196 and 196(3)
Reported In: 1998CriLJ1879; ILR1998KAR1796

Excerpt

- section 100: [a.s. bopanna, j] second appeal - suit for declaration and permanent injunction - plaintiff claimed to be the donee under the gift deed - finding of the lower appellate court that the gift deed ex.p1 cannot be accepted as the attesting witness not being examined - held, that the document marked as ex.p-1 is the certified copy of the gift deed which is marked as secondary evidence as provided under section 65 of the evidence act after laying the foundation vide ex.p-9 stating that the original of the document is deposited with the pld bank. however, the perusal of the records would indicate that the defendants have not raised any objection before the trial court for marking the certified copy of the document at the time of evidence nor is it indicated as a ground in the appeal memo before the lower appellate court. there is no objection raised at the stage of marking the document as secondary evidence though it is contended that the mode of proof is irregular and insufficient. the finding of the lower appellate court that the document at ex.p-1 being inadmissible is not sustainable. that apart, it is noticed that the endorsement (ex.p-9) issued by the bank is of the year 1996 and as such if the loan has been discharged and if the document is available with the plaintiff, it would be open for him to produce the same before the lower appellate court along with an application. matter is remanded to lower appellate court. .....may, before according sanction under sub-section (1) or sub-section (1-a) and the district magistrate may, before according sanction under sub-section (1-a) and the state government or the district magistrate may, before giving consent under sub-section (2), order a preliminary investigation by a police officer not being below the rank of inspector, in which case such police officer shall have the powers referred to in sub-section (3) of section 155.' 6. sub-section (1) of section 196 is in mandatory terms. it leaves no room to doubt that prior sanction of the state government to prosecute an accused for the offences mentioned therein, including section 295-a, i.p.c. is a condition precedent. sub-section (3) visualises a situation for an order by the central or state government, as the case may be, for a preliminary investigation i.e. further investigation by the i.o. not below the rank of inspector before the requisite sanction under section 196(1) was accorded by either of the respective governments. in order to appreciate if the sanction in question of the state government accorded by its order dated 24-7-1994 is a valid sanction, that sanction order is reproduced below : 'preamble :- the police sub-inspector tambrahalli police station of hagari bommanahalli taluk in his letter 1st cited above has reported that there is one sanga formed by 'banajaljanangadvaru (lambani) named as sree sevalal yuvaka sangha at no. 2 hampsagar village of hagaribommanahali taluk said to be lambani vidya samstha. it is further reported that on 21-2-1994 one sri. basavaraja s/o erajjappa of number 2 of hampasagara village and his supporters (31 members) have insulted the banajar community (lambanis) by throwing cowdung on the banner sevalli vidya samsta' with chappali hara. hence the police have registered case as per section 153-a and 295-aof ipc. the circle police inspector hagaribommanahalli has requested to accord permission to prosecute the accused under section 196(2) of.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

1. Heard.

2. The petitioners in both these petitions are the accused in C.C. 554/94 facing trial for Section 295A, I.P.C. before the learned Magistrate, on being charge-sheeted by the Thambrahalli P.S. Crime No. 16/92, H. B. Halli Taluk of Bellary District.

3. Certified copy of the order sheet in said C.C. 554/94 filed along with the petition discloses that the said crime No. 16/92 was booked by the police under section 295-A against these petitioners on complaint dated 22-2-1992 of CW 1 Rama Naik. On Investigation of the crime, the charge-sheet was laid for the said offence by the Investigating Officer ('I.O.' for short) on 30-7-1994, on the basis of the sanction under section 196, Cr.P.C. purported to have been granted by the competent authority for prosecution of the petitioners accused. The criminal prosecution of the accused in C.C. No. 554 of 1994 stands challenged by them in this revision on the ground that obtaining of requisite sanction under section 196, Cr.P.C. for the offence under section 295-A, I.P.C. from the State Government is a condition precedent, and that the so-called sanction that was obtained by the I.O. and was filed along with the charge-sheet in the court below is an invalid sanction since it does not conform to the legal requirements of Section 196, Cr.P.C.

4. So the short point for consideration in this revision is :

Whether obtaining of sanction contemplated under section 196, Cr.P.C. for prosecution of the accused for the offence under Section 295-A, I.P.C. is a condition precedent, and, if so, whether or not the said sanction order bearing No. MAG/LAW/194/94-95 dated 24th July, 1994 is a valid sanction order.

5. The material portions of Section 196, Cr.P.C. are as extracted below :-

'196. Prosecution for offences against the State for criminal conspiracy to commit such offence (1) No Court shall take cognizance of -

(a) any offence punishable under Chapter VI or under Section 153-A, Section 295-A or sub-section (1) of Section 505 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, or

(b) ...... ....... ...... ........

except with the previous sanction of the Central Government or of the State Government.

(2) ..... ....... ........ .........

(3) The Central Government or the State Government may, before according sanction under sub-section (1) or sub-section (1-A) and the District Magistrate may, before according sanction under sub-section (1-A) and the State Government or the District Magistrate may, before giving consent under sub-section (2), order a preliminary investigation by a Police officer not being below the rank of Inspector, in which case such police officer shall have the powers referred to in sub-section (3) of Section 155.'

6. Sub-section (1) of Section 196 is in mandatory terms. It leaves no room to doubt that prior sanction of the State Government to prosecute an accused for the offences mentioned therein, including Section 295-A, I.P.C. is a condition precedent. Sub-section (3) visualises a situation for an order by the Central or State Government, as the case may be, for a preliminary investigation i.e. further investigation by the I.O. not below the rank of Inspector before the requisite sanction under Section 196(1) was accorded by either of the respective Governments.

In order to appreciate if the sanction in question of the State Government accorded by its order dated 24-7-1994 is a valid sanction, that sanction order is reproduced below :

'Preamble :-

The Police Sub-Inspector Tambrahalli Police Station of Hagari Bommanahalli Taluk in his letter 1st cited above has reported that there is one sanga formed by 'Banajaljanangadvaru (Lambani) named as Sree Sevalal Yuvaka Sangha at No. 2 Hampsagar village of Hagaribommanahali Taluk said to be Lambani Vidya Samstha. It is further reported that on 21-2-1994 one Sri. Basavaraja S/o Erajjappa of Number 2 of Hampasagara Village and his supporters (31 members) have insulted the Banajar community (Lambanis) by throwing cowdung on the Banner Sevalli Vidya Samsta' with Chappali hara. Hence the police have registered case as per Section 153-A and 295-Aof IPC. The Circle Police Inspector Hagaribommanahalli has requested to accord permission to prosecute the accused under section 196(2) of the Cr.P.C.

Hence the following :-

Same Court & Year Karnataka · 1997 Same Parties Vali Siddappa and Others, Etc. vs State of Karnataka Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Mohamed Anwar, J. Acts & Sections Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 196 and 1...

Criminal