Narendra S/O Punya Naik Rathod vs State Of Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 3696 Kant

                             1




         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                KALABURAGI BENCH

    DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021

                           BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

        CRIMINAL PETITION No.200539/2016

BETWEEN:

NARENDRA S/O PUNYA NAIK RATHOD
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS
R/AT GURMITKAL
TQ. & DIST. YADGIR-585201
                                        ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI B.C.JAKA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY CHITTAPURA POLICE STATION
KALABURAGI DISTRICT-585211
                                    ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI SHARANABASAPPA M. PATIL, HCGP)

    THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE
PETITION AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET
FILED AGAINST THE PETITIONER (CRIME NO.115/2014) IN
C.C.NO.187/2015 PENDING ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC COURT AT CHITTAPUR, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 406, 409, 420 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3 AND
4 OF THE E.C. ACT, 1955.
                                2




      THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:


                        ORDER

This petition is filed by accused No.3 under Section

482 of Cr.P.C., praying this Court to quash the charge

sheet filed against him in C.C.No.187/2015 (Crime

No.115/2014) pending on the file of Civil Judge and

JMFC Court at Chittapur, for the offence punishable

under Sections 406, 409 and 420 of IPC and under

sections 3 and 4 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

2. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and

the learned High Court Government Pleader for

respondent-State.

3. The factual matrix of the case is that on

09.09.2014 on receipt of credible information, the Police

Sub-Inspector along with his staff went to Bhimanalli

Gate near Barigida and stopped the lorry and on search

of lorry, the police found 200 gunny bags each bag

weighing 50Kgs., of rice (100 quintal rice) and 38 gunny

bangs each weighing 50 Kgs., of wheat (19 quintal) and

on enquiry, it was found that the accused were illegally

transporting the same. Hence, apprehended accused

No.1/driver and seized the same by securing the panch

witnesses and apart from that, Hero Honda motorcycle

and lorry in which the rice and wheat were transporting

illegally were also seized.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would

vehemently contend that this accused has been

implicated falsely on the statement of co-accused. The

vehicle does not belong to the petitioner and accused

Nos.1 and 2 are not employees of this petitioner and

there are no documents either in the vehicle or with the

other accused that this petitioner has ordered for the

said goods. Except the statement of co-accused no iota

of material is collected against this petitioner and hence,

it requires interference by this Court.

5. Per contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader would submit that accused Nos.1 and 2 were

carrying wheat and rice bags in order to sell the same to

this petitioner and hence, he has been implicated as

accused No.3. Learned High Court Government Pleader

would submit that this petitioner has indulged in

committing similar offence and total ten cases are

pending against this petitioner.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the

petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader

for the State and on perusal of the records, it is evident

that FIR discloses that accused No.1 and 2 were carrying

the rice and wheat bags in the vehicle and also on

perusal of the charge sheet, allegation is made against

accused Nos.1 and 2 that they were carrying the same

in the vehicle. On perusal of charge sheet in column

No.17 nothing is mentioned against accused No.3. No

doubt, there are number of cases registered against this

petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied

upon the judgment of this Court in Criminal petition

No.200152/2015 wherein discussing the similar set of

circumstances, under section 114 of the Indian Evidence

Act and in terms of the said section an accomplice is

unworthy of credit, unless he is corroborated in material

particulars. Hence, quashing the proceedings against the

petitioner on the ground that mere statement of co-

accused without anything more would not amount to

constitution of any offence against the petitioner.

7. This Court also would like to rely upon the

judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Surinder Kumar Khanna vs. Intelligence Officer,

Directorate of Revenue Intelligence in Criminal

Appeal No.949 of 2018, dated 31.07.2018 wherein

in paragraph No.14 of the judgment, it is held that on

the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, such

confessional statement of a co-accused cannot by itself

be taken as a substantive piece of evidence against

another co-accused and can be at best be used or

utilized in order to lead assurance to the Court.

8. Having considered the principles laid down in

the judgments of this Court and also the Hon'ble Apex

Court and this Court in similar circumstances quashed

the proceedings against the petitioner and in the case on

hand also except the statement of co-accused, no other

material is collected by the Investigating Officer arraying

this petitioner as accused No.3. I have already pointed

out either in the FIR or in the chargesheet nothing is

alleged against this petitioner and hence, it is a fit case

to exercise power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to quash

the proceedings against the petitioner.

9. In view of the discussion made above, I pass

the following:

ORDER

The petition is allowed.

The chargesheet filed against the petitioner in

C.C.No.187/2015 pending on the file of Civil Judge and

JMFC Court at Chittapur, for the offences punishable

under Sections 406, 409 and 420 of IPC and under

sections 3 and 4 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955

is hereby quashed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

NB*