Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Mahiboobbasha @ Mabasha @ Gurram ... on 24 February, 2022
Bench: Mohammad Nawazpresided Bymnj
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.100255/2018
BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE
POLICE INSPECTOR,
HUNGUND POLICE STATION,
THROUGH THE ADDL
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH. ...PETITIONER
(BY SHRI V.S.KALASURMATH, HCGP)
AND:
MAHIBOOBBASHA @ MABASHA
@ GURRAM S/O MOULA,
AGE: 28 YEARS, R/O: 2-5-442(A),
BEHIND GANDHI NAGAR,
PALAMANERU TOWN,
CHITTOOR DISTRICT,
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH. ...RESPONDENT
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S 397 (3)
R/W 401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN
S.C.NO.102/2017 ON THE FILE OF II PRL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BAGALKOT, DATED 16.07.2018; AND RE-EXAMINE THE RECORDS
AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIAL COURT AND TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE, IN
S.C.NO.102/2017 DATED 16.07.2018 AND DIRECT THE TRIAL COURT
TO PROCEED WITH THE CASE BY FRAMING CHARGE AGAINST THE
RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE CHARGE SHEETED OFFENCES.
2
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR
ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This criminal revision petition is preferred by the
State against the discharge order passed by the
learned Sessions Judge in S.C.No.102/2017,
discharging the respondent/accused of the offences
punishable under Sections 396, 468, 471, 341 and 201
of IPC, arising out of Cr.No.135/2011 of Hungund
police station.
2. Case of the prosecution is that on
25.11.2011 at about 1 a.m., all the accused travelled
in a Tata Indica Car bearing registration No.KA-07/M-
2146 and waylaid a lorry bearing registration No.TN-
28/AB-8049, loaded with copper plates worth
Rs.73,37,700/- which was proceeding from Starlight
Factory in Tamilnadu to Starlight Company of Silvas in
Gujarath and after killing both the drivers, the accused
sold the lorry by changing its registration number etc.,
as well as the copper plates.
3. Totally 7 accused were charge-sheeted for
the offences punishable under Section 396, 468, 471,
341 and 201 of IPC. Accused Nos.5 to 7 were shown
as absconding and therefore, case was split up against
them.
who faced trial were acquitted in original
S.C.No.57/2013 vide judgment and order dated
16.12.2017. The respondent/accused No.5 since
absconded, a split up case was registered. He later
came to be arrested and he filed a petition under
Section 227 of Cr.P.C. seeking discharge, which is
allowed by the learned Sessions Judge.
5. In this appeal, even though notice was
issued to the respondent, so far the notice has not
been served.
6. The learned Sessions Judge has placed
reliance on a decision in the case of MUNEER AHMED
QURESHI VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in
2002 (1) KCCR 1, wherein it is held that when the
entire case of the prosecution is practically
inseparable and indivisible one, and especially when
the judgment of acquittal is passed, then the
reasoning of acquittal would also definitely enure to an
absconding accused. Even if the absconding accused
is tried, there cannot be any other material other than
what is already produced and considered by trial
Court. In such circumstances, it will be an exercise in
futility to make the accused to undergo the ordeal of
crime and then to be acquitted.
7. It is no doubt true that the offence alleged
to have been committed is gruesome. However, after
a full fledged trial, accused Nos.1 to 4 were acquitted.
The allegations and the evidence on record against all
the accused are one and the same. Hence, the
reasonings of acquittal would also definitely enure to
the respondent/accused and even if he is tried, there
cannot be any other material other than what is
produced and considered by the trial Court in the trial
held against the co-accused in S.C.No.57/2013.
Hence, this Court is of the considered view that there
is no illegality committed by the learned Sessions
Judge in allowing the application filed by
respondent/accused No.5 under Section 227 of Cr.P.C.
8. Hence, criminal revision petition is
dismissed.
9. Consequently, IA-1/2019 seeking
condonation of delay is dismissed.
(Sd/-)
JUDGE
Jm/-
