The State of Mysore Vs. Nagappa Sannigappa Sannakki and ors.

The State of Mysore vs Nagappa Sannigappa Sannakki and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Karnataka Decided Aug 09, 1972

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/378047

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/378047
Court: Karnataka High Court
Judge: C. Honniah, J.
Decided On: Aug 09, 1972
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

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

- KARNATAKA LAND REFORMS ACT, 1961.[K.A. No. 10/1962]. Section 126: [H.V.G. Ramesh, J] Applicability of the provisions of Section 126 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 to the tenants holding lands in inam and other alienated villages or lands including the tenants referred to in Section 8 of Karnataka Village ...

Key legal issue: Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

The State of Mysore

Respondent

Nagappa Sannigappa Sannakki and ors.

Legal References

Reported In: 1973CriLJ1570

Excerpt

.....126 of the karnataka land reforms act, 1961 to the tenants holding lands in inam and other alienated villages or lands including the tenants referred to in section 8 of karnataka village offices abolition act, 1961 - held, irrespective of the fact that the land is a inamthi land and once it is said to be a tenanted land, the land tribunal has got jurisdiction to consider the same in accordance with law and there cannot be any exception by virtue of the special act like the village offices abolition act, 1961. though the land tribunal originally rejected the application of the husband of the petitioner for grant of occupancy rights, it was for want of clarification. but, in view of the clarification inserted by the amendment act of 1979, irrespective of the fact that the land is a inam land or in the regular course is a tenanted land over which there is tenancy claimed, the land tribunal has got jurisdiction to deal with the same. -- karnataka village offices abolition act, 1961.[k.a. no. 14/1961]. section 8: applicability of the provisions of section 126 of the karnataka land reforms act, 1961 to the tenants holding lands in inam and other alienated villages or lands including the tenants referred to in section 8 of karnataka village offices abolition act, 1961 - held, irrespective of the fact that the land is a inamthi land and once it is said to be a tenanted land, the land tribunal has got jurisdiction to consider the same in accordance with law and there cannot be any exception by virtue of the special act like the village offices abolition act, 1961. though the land tribunal originally rejected the application of the husband of the petitioner for grant of occupancy rights, it was for want of clarification. but, in view of the clarification inserted by the amendment act of 1979, irrespective of the fact that the land is a inam land or in the regular course is a tenanted land over which there is tenancy claimed, the land tribunal has got.....orderc. honniah, j.1. the facts which have given rise to this revision case briefly stated arc thus: the complainant instituted a complaint before the judicial magistrate, first class and additional munsiff, ranebennur, on february 12, 1970 against one ninganagouda shivanagouda patil and another alleging that they had committed theft of a pair of bullocks. the learned magistrate, referred the matter for investigation to the police to satisfy himself about the truth, or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint. the police sent a 'b' report on june 1st, 1970, stating that the allegations made by the complainant were false. the learned magistrate did not accept the 'b' report the complainant examined himself and one witness in support of his case. the learned magistrate at that stage looked into the papers relating to the investigation made by the police and on the basis of the information tion contained therein, observed:consideration of the case paper goes to show that the complainant and his vendor channabasappa kolli have falsely created, the sale patti of the bullocks and this complaint has been falsely filed. the complaint is maliciously false. the complainant has also tried to use the sale patti of hansbhavi panchayat as genuine knowing fully well that it was falsely created by collusion of his self and the vendor chanabasappa.having so observed, he proceeded to pass the impugned order thus:court complaint be filed against the complainant for the offences punishable under sections 196 and 211, indian penal code.2. it is clear from the facts stated above that the learned magistrate without considering the evidence adduced on behalf of the complainant has proceeded to pass the impugned order merely on the basis of the report of the police. this is clearly illegal. no order has been passed on the complaint petition filed by the complainant. section 476, criminal procedure code lays down that the court may after such preliminary enquiry, if any, record a.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

C. Honniah, J.

1. The facts which have given rise to this revision case briefly stated arc thus: The complainant instituted a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class and Additional Munsiff, Ranebennur, on February 12, 1970 against one Ninganagouda Shivanagouda Patil and another alleging that they had committed theft of a pair of bullocks. The learned Magistrate, referred the matter for investigation to the Police to satisfy himself about the truth, or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint. The police sent a 'B' report on June 1st, 1970, stating that the allegations made by the complainant were false. The learned Magistrate did not accept the 'B' report The complainant examined himself and one witness in support of his case. The learned Magistrate at that stage looked into the papers relating to the investigation made by the police and on the basis of the information tion contained therein, observed:

Consideration of the case paper goes to show that the complainant and his vendor Channabasappa Kolli have falsely created, the sale patti of the bullocks and this complaint has been falsely filed. The complaint is maliciously false. The complainant has also tried to use the sale patti of Hansbhavi Panchayat as genuine knowing fully well that it was falsely created by collusion of his self and the vendor Chanabasappa.

Having so observed, he proceeded to pass the impugned order thus:

Court complaint be filed against the complainant for the offences punishable under Sections 196 and 211, Indian Penal Code.

2. It is clear from the facts stated above that the learned Magistrate without considering the evidence adduced on behalf of the complainant has proceeded to pass the impugned order merely on the basis of the report of the police. This is clearly illegal. No order has been passed on the complaint petition filed by the complainant. Section 476, Criminal Procedure Code lays down that the Court may after such preliminary enquiry, if any, record a finding to that effect and make a complaint thereof in writing signed by the Presiding Officer of the Court etc. In other words, the Court has got to satisfy whether it is expedient in the interest of justice that an enquiry should be made into the offences referred to in Sub-section (1), Clause (b) or Clause (c) of Section 195, Criminal Procedure Code which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court. The power given by the Section, should be used with care and after due consideration. It is by no means in every instance in which a party fails to prove his case that the Judge who has decided against the said party, is justified in exercising the powers given to him by this Section.

The prosecution should not be lightly granted merely because there is room for suspicion that the offences may have been committed; the Court is bound to satisfy itself that there is at least a prima facie case that if a sanction is granted, there is a reasonable probability of a successful termination of title prosecution about to be instituted. Before exercising its discretion to lay a complaint, the Court should find first that it is in the interest of public justice that a complaint should be made and secondly that when there is reasonable probability of a conviction resulting on the complaint.

3. The complainant in this case had no opportunity of impugning what had been recorded by the police during the course of the investigation. The learned Magistrate was not justified in making use of the material collected during the course of investigation against the complainant without giving him an opportunity to challenge the same. Ordinarily a person ought to be given an opportunity to show cause before he is ordered to be prosecuted under Sections 196 and 211, Indian Penal Code. In the present case that opportunity was not given to the complainant. That apart, the complainant examined himself and one witness on his behalf in support of the allegations made by him in the complaint petition. The learned Magistrate, without considering that evidence and without passing any order on the merits of the case of the complainant, was not justified in taking action under Section 476, Criminal Procedure Code.

4. Having regard therefore, to the facts of the case, I am of opinion that this is a case in which I ought to interfere. I accordingly quash the proceedings that have been started against the complainant.

Same Court & Year Karnataka · 1972 Same Parties The State of Mysore vs Nagappa Sannigappa Sannakki and ors. Same Subject Criminal Same Judge C. Honniah, J.

Criminal