Karnataka High Court
Sri Lakshmi Narayana vs The State Of Karnataka on 31 May, 2022
Bench: Dr.H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MAY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B. PRABHAKARA SASTRY
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.571 OF 2013
BETWEEN:
Sri. Lakshmi Narayana,
S/o. Sri.M.V. Radha Krishna,
Aged about 47 years,
R/o. No.52/3, Chikkamavalli,
P.K. Lane, Bangalore - 560 004.
..Petitioner
(By Sri. Nagaraja M., Advocate)
AND:
The State of Karnataka,
Rep. by Vijayanagara Traffic
Police Station, Vijayanagara,
Bangalore - 560 040.
.. Respondent
(By Sri. K. Rahul Rai, High Court Govt. Pleader)
****
This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to call for the
records from the file of the Fast Track Court-XII, Bangalore, in
Crl.A.No.482/2011 dated 24-04-2013 and the Metropolitan
Magistrate Traffic Court II, Bangalore, in C.C.No.2292/2008 dated
Crl.R.P.No.571/2013
2
23-06-2011; set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence
passed by the Fast Track Court-XII, Bangalore, in
Crl.A.No.482/2011 dated 24-04-2013 in confirming the judgment
passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court-II, Bangalore,
in C.C.No.2292/2008 dated 23-06-2011 and consequently acquit
the accused/petitioner for the alleged offence; pass any other order
or direction as this Court deems fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case in the ends of justice and equity.
This Criminal Revision Petition coming on for Final Hearing,
through Physical Hearing/Video Conferencing Hearing this day, the
Court made the following:
ORDER
The present petitioner was accused in C.C.No.2292/2008
in the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate
Traffic Court-II, Bangalore, (hereinafter for brevity
referred to as "the Trial Court"), who, by the judgment
of conviction and order on sentence dated 23-06-2011
of the trial Court, was convicted for the offences
punishable under Sections 279, 304-A of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "the IPC"),Section
134 (a & b) read with Section 187 of the Motor
Crl.R.P.No.571/2013
Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the
"the M.V. Act") and Section 146 read with Section 196 of the
M.V. Act and was sentenced accordingly.
Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred an appeal
in Criminal Appeal No.482/2011, in the Court of the Fast
Track-XII, Bangalore City, (hereinafter for brevity referred to
as the "the first appellate Court"), which after hearing both
side, dismissed the appeal, confirming the impugned
judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the
Trial Court. It is challenging the judgments passed by both
the Trial Court as well the first appellate Court, the accused
has preferred the present revision petition.
2. The respondent - State is being represented by the
learned High Court Government Pleader.
3. The Trial Court and the first appellate Court's records
were called for and the same are placed before this Court.
Crl.R.P.No.571/2013
4. Perused the materials placed before this Court
including the memorandum of revision petition, impugned
judgments, the Trial Court records and also the first appellate
Court's records.
5. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be
henceforth referred to as per their rankings before the Trial
Court.
6. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties, the
only point that arise for my consideration in this revision
petition is:
Whether the impugned judgment passed by the
Court of the Fast Track-XII, Bangalore City dated
24-04-2013 in Criminal Appeal No.482/2011, warrants
interference at the hands of this Court?
7. The summary of the case of the prosecution in the
Trial Court was that, on the date 09-05-2008 at around 10:30
a.m., within the jurisdiction of the complainant Police Station,
Crl.R.P.No.571/2013
the accused being the rider of a Scooter bearing Registration
No.KA-02/Y-4810 rode the same in a rash and negligent
manner near 7th Cross, 2nd Main at the junction of
Govindarajanagar, endangering to human life and dashed
against the motorcycle Active Honda bearing Registration
No.KA-02/EU-5697, resulting into a road traffic accident, in
which the rider of the Active Honda, namely Smt. B.B. Chaitra
sustained injuries and while under treatment, succumbed to
the injuries.
8. The accused failed to inform the Police about the
accident and to get the treatment to the injured and also did
not possess any insurance coverage to his vehicle and
thereby has committed the offences punishable under Sections
279 and 304-A of the IPC and under Sections 134 (a) and (b)
read with Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act and Section
146 read with Section 196 of the M.V. Act.
Crl.R.P.No.571/2013
9. The accused pleaded not guilty. As such, in order to
prove the guilt against the accused, the prosecution got
examined in all seven (7) witnesses from PW-1 to PW-7 and
got marked documents from Exs.P-1 to P-16. However,
neither any witness was examined nor any documents were
got marked on behalf of the accused.
10. After hearing both side, the Trial Court by its
impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated
23-06-2011, convicted and sentenced the accused for the
alleged offences, which was further confirmed by the first
appellate Court.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused in his
arguments submitted that, even according to the complainant
who had written a letter to the Presiding Officer of the Trial
Court, the accused who committed the alleged accident was
not the present accused/petitioner but it was one Sri. Uday
S/o. Suresh. In that regard, there was very much necessity
Crl.R.P.No.571/2013
for the present accused (petitioner herein) to subject both the
complainant and the Investigating Officer for their further
cross-examination. As such, he filed an application, i.e.
I.A.No.II under Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "the Cr.P.C."),
seeking recalling of PW-2 (complainant) and PW-7
(Investigating Officer) for their further cross-examination.
However, the said interlocutory application (I.A.No.II), after
getting invited with the objections from the prosecution side,
was not disposed of by the learned first appellate Court. Thus,
without disposing of the important and vital interlocutory
application, since the first appellate Court has proceeded to
pronounce the impugned judgment, the said judgment stands
vitiated and the matter deserves to be remanded to the first
appellate Court.
12. The learned High Court Government Pleader
appearing for the respondent - State also admits that such an
Crl.R.P.No.571/2013
application under Section 391 of the Cr.P.C. was filed by the
accused in the appeal before the first appellate Court on the
date 21-11-2011, for which the prosecution also has filed its
objections. However, the first appellate Court for the reasons
best known to it has not passed any orders on the said
interlocutory application, but proceeded to pass the impugned
judgment.
13. No doubt by analysing both the oral and
documentary evidences, though this Court could have
proceeded further in disposing of the present revision petition
on its merit, but it cannot be ignored of the fact that during
the pendency of the appeal in the first appellate Court, the
present petitioner as an appellant had filed I.A.No.II under
Section 391 of the Cr.P.C. seeking to recall PW-2
(complainant) and PW-7 (Investigating Officer) for their
further cross-examination. The said application as well the
objections filed to it by the prosecution finds a place in the
Crl.R.P.No.571/2013
records placed before the Court. The order sheets maintained
by the first appellate Court in the said Criminal Appeal
No.482/2011 which in their original are before this Court also
shows that, on the date 21-11-2011, the accused had filed
I.A. under Section 391 of the Cr.P.C. A judicial recording of
filing of the said application has been made in the order sheet.
On the next date of hearing, that was on the date
28-11-2011, filing of the objections to the said application by
the prosecution has also been recorded in the order sheet.
Further, the order sheet details would go to show that, the
arguments in chief on the said application was also heard
from both side by the first appellate Court, however, showing
that the said I.A.No.II was slated for hearing the reply
arguments on the date 03-02-2012. The order sheet does not
speak about either the pendency or of the disposal of the said
I.A.No.II from the date 09-02-2012. From the date 09-02-2012,
the first appellate Court has concentrated on the main matter
and after hearing the arguments on various dates of hearing,
Crl.R.P.No.571/2013
it proceeded further ultimately resulting in pronouncement of
the judgment on the main appeal which is in the form of the
present impugned judgment under this revision.
14. Needless to say that when an interlocutory
application is filed in any Court of law, the said Court before
finally disposing of the matter is required to dispose of the
pending I.A. In some cases, the interlocutory application
may also be disposed of along with the main appeal or main
matter. However, disposing of the pending interlocutory
application is a necessary requirement.
15. In the instant case, the very contention of the
petitioner (accused), in his memorandum of revision petition
as well the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner
is that, the disposal of the I.A.No.II filed under Section 391 of
the Cr.P.C. in the first appellate Court in
Crl.A.No.482/2011 was very much necessary. Learned
counsel for the petitioner further submits that, by non-disposal
Crl.R.P.No.571/2013
of the said I.A. filed under Section 391 of the Cr.P.C. in one
way or the other, the appellant therein who is the petitioner
herein (accused) has been deprived and denied of an
opportunity of further cross-examining PW-2 (complainant)
and PW-7 (investigating Officer) and he has been deprived of
an opportunity to elicit the truth from them about the actual
culprit who was involved in the commission of the alleged road
traffic accident.
16. I do not find any valid reasons to discard the said
argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner for the
simple reason that, according to him, before the accused could
be served with the summons by the Trial Court, a letter was
said to have been written by the complainant to the
Magistrate, stating that the investigation has not been
conducted properly since the actual culprit by name one
Sri. Uday S/o. Suresh, aged between 16 years and 17 years
has not been enquired by the Investigating Officer. Learned
Crl.R.P.No.571/2013
counsel for the petitioner has further stated that though the
Investigating Officer is said to have inquired into the said
letter written to the Magistrate and submitted his report
stating that the allegation made in that letter was not true,
but the accused ought to have been granted an opportunity to
elicit certain details from the complainant and the
Investigating Officer in their further cross-examination.
Seeking permission for their further cross-examination only,
the said interlocutory application (I.A.No.II) under Section 391
of the Cr.P.C. was filed.
17. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits
that he came to know about the complainant writing such a
letter to the Magistrate and in turn the learned Magistrate
securing a report from the Investigating Officer, only after he
obtained the certified copies of the records maintained by the
Trial Court in C.C.N.2292/2008 from which judgment the
accused was initially convicted by the Trial Court.
Crl.R.P.No.571/2013
18. Learned High Court Government Pleader also after
going through the certified copies of the alleged letter said to
have been written by the complainant (PW-2) to the learned
Magistrate submits that, such a letter finds a place in the Trial
Court records at red ink page No.73 (old page No.64). In
such an event, when according to the complainant, the actual
culprit were to be of some other person and according to the
Investigating Officer, the said alleged letter to the learned
Magistrate is bereft of any truth, then, analysing and
appreciating the evidence of PWs 1 to 7 in this revision
petition and disposing of this revision petition on its merit
would serve no purpose. On the other hand, the said
I.A.No.II, which is filed under Section 391 of the Cr.P.C., and
which has remained un-disposed of by the first appellate
Court, is required to be heard and disposed of and then
subject to the outcome of the order to be passed on the said
interlocutory application, the main appeal, i.e. Criminal Appeal
No.482/2011 is required to be proceeded with. Thus, the
Crl.R.P.No.571/2013
impugned judgment passed by the first appellate Court in
Criminal Appeal No.482/2011 deserves to be set aside and the
matter deserves to be remanded to the first appellate Court
with a direction to hear and dispose of I.A.No.II filed under
Section 391 of the Cr.P.C. by the appellant before it, in
accordance with law and then to proceed further in disposing
of the main appeal in accordance with law. However, in order
to avoid any further delay in the disposal of the matter
wherein the criminal case is of the year 2008, I am of the view
that both parties be directed to appear before the first
appellate Court on a particular day and co-operate with it to
enable it to proceed further in the matter, without any further
delay.
Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
[i] The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed
in part.
Crl.R.P.No.571/2013
[ii] The impugned judgment dated
24-04-2013 passed by the Court of Fast Track-XII,
Bangalore City, in Criminal Appeal No.482/2011, is
set aside;
[iii] The matter stands remanded to the
Court of the Fast Track-XII, Bangalore City, with a
direction to hear both side on I.A.No.II filed by the
appellant before it (accused) under Section 391 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and dispose
of the said interlocutory application and also the
main appeal i.e. Criminal Appeal No.482/2011
before it on its merit and in accordance with law, at
the earliest, however, not later than three months
from today.
[iv] In order to avoid any further delay in the
matter, both parties are directed to appear before
the Court of the Fast Track-XII, Bangalore City,
where the Criminal Appeal No.482/2011 earlier
Crl.R.P.No.571/2013
came to be disposed of, without anticipating any
fresh notice or summons from it, on 16-06-2022
at 11:00 a.m.
Registry to transmit both the Trial Court record as well
as the first Appellate Court record to the Court of the Fast
Track-XII, Bangalore City, along with a copy of this order
immediately by hand through a special messenger.
Sd/-
JUDGE
BMV*
