K.V.Srinivas vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 3690 Kant

                                1




                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                        DHARWAD BENCH

             DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH 2022

                            BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

                       CRL.P NO 100464 OF 2020

     BETWEEN
     K.V.SRINIVAS
     AGE : 69 YEARS, OCC : RTD.JUNIOR ENGINEER,
     R/O : RANEBENNUR
                                                     ...PETITIONER
     (BY SRI. N P VIVEKMEHTA, ADV.,)

     AND
     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
     BY PSI RANEBENNUR TOWN P.S.
     RANEBENNUR, DIST. HAVERI,
     REPRESENTED BY ADDL.S.P.P.
     HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
     DHARWAD BENCH,
     H.C. BUILDING, DHARWAD.
                                                     ...RESPONDENT
     (BY SRI.RAMESH CHIGARI, HCGP )

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING
TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSION
JUDGE AT HAVERI (SITTING AT RANEBENNUR) DATED 19/09/2019
PASSED IN CRL.REV.PET.NO.9/13 AND DISCHARGE THE PETITIONER BY
RESTORING THE ORDER OF ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND II ADDL. JMFC,
RANEBENNUR DATED 31/10/2012 PASSED IN C.C.NO.378/04 BY
ALLOWING THIS PETITION

     THIS   PETITION   COMING   ON     FOR   ADMISSION   THIS   DAY,
THECOURTMADE THE FOLLOWING:
                               2




                            ORDER

On the basis of the preliminary inquiry report, the first

information report was lodged against the petitioner alleging

that when he was working as Junior Engineer in the office of

the Zilla Panchayath during the period 1992-1995 he has

misappropriated the stored materials worth Rs.8,47,326/- and

thereby committed offence punishable under Section 409 of

IPC. The learned Magistrate after taking cognizance of the

offence issued process to the petitioner. When the case was

set out for hearing before the charge, the petitioner filed an

application under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. seeking for discharge.

The said application came to be allowed by the learned

Magistrate by taking into account the finding recorded by this

court In RFA.No.1412/2007, wherein it is held that in the suit

for recovery of amount alleged to have been misappropriated

by the petitioner, the complainant has failed to prove that the

Petitioner has misappropriated the said amount.

2. Being aggrieved, the respondent filed the revision

petition under Section 397(1) of Cr.P.C. The revision Court set

aside the order passed by the trial Court stating that the

dismissal of the suit filed against the petitioner will not come

in the way of the trial Court to frame charges and the trial

Court is required to consider whether there are prima facie

grounds to proceed against the petitioner. Taking exception to

the same, this petition is filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

respondent-department having failed to prove that the

petitioner has misappropriated the amount in the suit filed for

recovery, the trial Court has rightly discharged the petitioner

from the offences alleged against him. He further submits that

the issue with regard to the misappropriation has already

been adjudicated by this Court and as such the trial Court has

rightly discharged the petitioner for the offences alleged

against him.

4. Learned HCGP appearing for the respondent-

State would submit that the judgment passed by this Court is

not binding however, it may be relevant piece of evidence in

the trial Court under Sections 41 to 44 of the Indian Evidence

Act and as such the judgment passed by this Court can be

considered only after conducting full fledged trial and the

judgment cannot be considered for the purpose of discharge

of the petitioner for the offences alleged against him.

5. I have considered the submissions made by the

learned counsel for parties.

6. The standard of proof is different in civil and

criminal cases, whereas , in civil cases it is preponderance of

probabilities and in criminal cases it is proof beyond

reasonable doubt. There is no statutory provision or legal

principle that findings recorded in either in criminal or civil

proceedings shall be binding between the same parries .

However the relevancy of previous judgment in subsequent

case may be taken into consideration as specified under

Sections 41 to 44 of the Indian Evidence Act and it cannot be

said that the same would be conclusive except as provided

under Section 41 of the Indian Evidence Act. The criminal case

has to be decided on the basis of evidence adduced therein

and at this stage as to Whether the judgment passed by this

Court in RFA.No.1412/2007 is conclusive or not is the matter

which requires to be considered after full fledged trial . The

Revisional Court considering all these aspects has rightly

passed the impugned order. Hence, I do not find any illegality

or infirmity in the order passed by the Revisional Court and

hence, the following

ORDER

i) The criminal petition stands dismissed.

ii) However the trial Court has passed the order

discharging the petitioner solely on the judgment passed by

this Court in RFA.No.1412/2007 and without considering the

charge sheet material and as such the application of the

petitioner filed under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. requires to be

considered. Accordingly, the trial Court is directed to

reconsider the application filed by the petitioner under Section

239 of Cr.P.C. on the basis of the charge sheet materials and

pass appropriate order in accordance with law.

To this extent the order passed by the Revisional Court

is modified.

Sd/-

JUDGE Vb/-