Karnataka High Court
Giddappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 17 February, 2021
Author: H.P.Sandesh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 504 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
Giddappa,
S/o Mahadevappa,
Aged about 43 years,
R/o. Channakeshavanagara,
7th Cross,
Shikaripura Town,
Shivamogga District - 577 115.
...Petitioner
(By Sri.Jaya Prakash K.N, Advocate)
AND:
The State of Karnataka,
By Shikaripura Town Police,
Shivamogga,
Rep. by its SPP,
High Court Building,
Bengaluru - 560 001.
...Respondent
(By Sri.K.S.Abhijith, Advocate)
This Criminal Petition is filed under section 482 of
Cr.P.C praying to quash the entire proceedings in C.C. No.
776/2020 pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and
JMFC, Shikaripura, for the offence p/u/s 78(3) of
Karnataka Police Act arising out of Cr.No.14/2020
registered by the Shikaripura Town Police.
-2-
This Criminal Petition coming on for orders this day,
the Court made the following:
ORDER
This petition is filed under section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure praying this court to quash the entire
proceedings in C.C. No.776/2020 for the offence
punishable under section 78(3) of the Karnataka Police Act
arising out of Crime No. 14/2020.
2. The factual matrix of the case is that the
respondent police after complying section 155 and 155(2)
of Cr.P.C. conducted raid and apprehended accused No.1
at the spot and seized an amount of Rs.520/- from him. It
is also the allegation against this petitioner that accused
No.1 has revealed that he used to collect the amount and
in turn he used to pay the amount in favour of this
petitioner. Based on the statement of accused No.1, this
petitioner has been implicated as accused No.2 and hence
this present petition is filed before this court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
this petitioner was not present at the spot, only based on
the co-accused statement, this petitioner has been arrayed
as accused No.2. There is no any recovery against the
petitioner and hence such being the case there cannot be
any criminal proceedings against the petitioner and if it is
continued it amounts to abuse of process of law and it
leads to miscarriage of justice.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for State submits that
accused No.1 has revealed the name of the petitioner, that
he used to collect the amount and handover the same to
this petitioner. The police have also investigated the
matter and filed the charge sheet.
5. Having heard the counsel for the petitioner and
the counsel for the State, except the co-accused
statement, there is no other material and no recovery at
the instance of this petitioner. The co-accused statement
is hit by section 25 of the Evidence Act and unless there is
recovery under section 27 of the Evidence Act, there
cannot be any proceedings against this petitioner. The
Apex Court in Surinder Kumar Khanna vs Intelligence
Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence [(2018)
8 SCC 271] in para 13 has held that, apart from the
statements of co-accused there is no material suggesting
involvement of the appellant in the crime in question. It is
further observed that, left with only one piece of material
that is the confessional statements of the co-accused,
there is no any material. On the touchstone of law laid
down by the court, such a confessional statement of a co-
accused cannot by itself be taken as a substantive piece of
evidence against another co-accused and can at best be
used or utilized in order to lend assurance to the court.
6. Having perused the principles laid down in the
aforesaid judgment, the continuation of the proceedings
against this petitioner based only on the statement of the
co-accused, there cannot be any criminal proceedings
against the petitioner.
7. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following order : -
Petition is allowed. Proceedings against the petitioner
is quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
ckl
