Karnataka High Court
Sri Chowdaiah vs Sri Omkarmurthy on 21 February, 2023
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
CRL.RP No. 1129 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1129 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
1. SRI CHOWDAIAH
S/O. LATE DODDABERAIAH
AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS
R/AT BASAVARAJAPURA VILLAGE,
BANAVARA HOBLI,
Digitally ARSIKERE TALUK-573 103.
signed by HASSAN DISTRICT.
LAKSHMI T
Location:
...PETITIONER
High Court of (BY SRI. VIJAYKUMAR PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)
Karnataka
AND:
1. SRI OMKARMURTHY
THE SECRETARY,
BENDEKERE GRAMAPANCHAYTH,
BENDEKERE,
BASAVARA HOBLI,
ARSIKERE TALUK-573 103.
...RESPONDENT
(RESPONDENT SERVED)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL
DATED 20.05.2015 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC AT ARSIKERE IN C.C.NO.317/2013 AND
CONFIRMED BY THE V ADDITIONAL AND DISTRICT
-2-
CRL.RP No. 1129 of 2018
JUDGE, AT HASSAN IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.89/2015
VIDE ORDER DATED 02.04.2018 AND CONVICT THE
RESPONDENT FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 448, 506 AND 427 OF IPC AND SENTENCE
ACCORDINGLY OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO REMAND THE
MATTER BACK FOR FURTHER TRIAL.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This Criminal revision petition is filed by the
complainant challenging the judgment and order of the
acquittal passed by the Court of Senior Civil Judge and
JMFC at Arsikere in C.C.No.317/2013 dated 20.05.2015
and order dated 2.4.2018 passed in Criminal Appeal
No.89/2015 by the Court of V Additional District and
Sessions Court, at Hassan.
2. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner,
respondent though served has remained absent.
3. Brief facts of the case as revealed from the
records which would be necessary for the purpose of
disposal of this petition are, the petitioner claims to be the
CRL.RP No. 1129 of 2018
owner of 13 guntas of land in Sy.Nos.31/5E, 31/5A1,
31/5D situated at Basavarajapura Village. He had
constructed residential houses, cow shed, varanda and
toilet in the said agricultural lands. The respondent who
was the secretary of the local Gram Panchayath had issued
a notice to the petitioner alleging that construction of the
toilet and cow shed was on the property belonging to the
Gram Panchayath and he alleged that the petitioner had
encroached the public road for the purpose of said
construction. After issuing the said notice, the respondent
with the help of the police had demolished the alleged
illegal construction put up by the petitioner. It is in this
background, the petitioner had approached the trial Court
by filing a private complaint against the respondent and
another. The learned Magistrate had taken cognizance of
the complaint only as against the respondent herein and
had registered a case against him for offence punishable
under Sections 448, 323, 427, 506 r/w 34 of IPC. Before
the trial Court, the complainant, in order to substantiate
his case, examined himself as PW.1 and three other
CRL.RP No. 1129 of 2018
witnesses were examined as PWs.2 to 4 and got marked
eight documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P8. On behalf of the
respondent, no evidence was led. However, he got
marked eleven documents as Ex.D1 to Ex.D11. The trial
Court, after hearing the arguments on both sides,
dismissed the private complaint of the complainant and
acquitted the respondent of the offences for which he was
charged. Being aggrieved by the same the petitioner had
filed Criminal Appeal No.89/2015 before the V Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Hassan, which was dismissed
by the appellate Court by judgment and order dated
02.04.2018. Under this circumstances, the petitioner is
before this Court.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner has made out a prima facie case,
however the trial Court as well as the appellate Court have
failed to properly appreciate the evidence on record and
have erred in acquitting the respondent. He submits that
petitioner had proved the guilt of the respondent beyond
CRL.RP No. 1129 of 2018
reasonable doubt and therefore, the Courts below were
not justified in acquitting the respondent.
5. I have carefully considered the arguments
addressed on behalf of the petitioner and also perused the
material available on record.
6. From the reading of the evidence of the
witnesses who were examined on behalf of the petitioner,
it is very clear that prior to taking any steps for
demolishing the alleged unauthorized construction, the
respondent had issued a statutory notice to the petitioner
and since the petitioner has failed to comply the same, he
had taken the assistance of the jurisdictional police for
demolishing the alleged illegal construction in accordance
with law. It is only after the alleged illegal constructions
were demolished by the respondent, the petitioner had
filed O.S.No.72/2010 before the jurisdictional Civil Court,
which had granted him an exparte temporary injunction
order restraining the respondent from taking any action
against the illegal constructions. The trial Court as well as
CRL.RP No. 1129 of 2018
the appellate Court, appreciating the oral and
documentary evidence available on record, have rightly
recorded a finding of not guilty, in favour of the
respondent. This Court in exercise of its revisional
jurisdiction cannot re-appreciate the evidence and give a
fresh finding unless it is pointed out that the judgment and
order passed by the Courts below are illegal or perverse.
7. Under the circumstances, I am of the
considered opinion that there is no scope for interference
against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the
Courts below. Accordingly, I decline to entertain this
revision petition and the same stands dismissed.
SD/-
JUDGE
HB
