Karnataka High Court
K Srinivasa Murthy vs State Represented By on 2 January, 2023
Bench: R. Nataraj
-1-
CRL.RP No. 1218 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1218 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
1. K. SRINIVASA MURTHY
S/O. LATE KONDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
R/AT NO.31/2,
VANIVILAS MAIN ROAD,
BASAVANAGUDI,
BANGALORE-560 004.
2. SMT. NAGAVENI
W/O. K.SRINIVASAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
R/AT NO.31/2,
VANIVILAS MAIN ROAD,
BASAVANAGUDI,
BANGALORE-560 004.
3. SRI. VIVEK
S/O. K.SRINIVASA MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
Digitally R/AT NO.79, 18TH CROSS,
signed by
SUMA H.S.R. LAYOUT IV SECTOR,
Location: BANGALORE-560 102.
HIGH
COURT OF ...PETITIONERS
KARNATAKA (BY SRI. SHANKARAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE REPRESENTED BY
BASAVANAGUDI POLICE
BANGALORE- 560 102.
2. G. PRABHAKAR,
S/O. LATE B.M.GOVINDASWAMY
-2-
CRL.RP No. 1218 of 2018
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/AT NO.14/1, 1ST FLOOR,
RATHAN VILASA ROAD,
BASAVANAGUDI
BANGALORE- 560 004.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.KRISHNA KUMAR K.K, HCGP FOR R1,
R2-SERVED)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE
PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED
TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 01.10.2018, PASSED BY THE
LXIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-65) AT
BANGALORE IN CRL.A.NO.147/2015 AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners have assailed the correctness of the order
dated 01.10.2018 passed by LXIV Additional City Civil and
Sessions Judge (CCH-65), Bangalore in Crl.A.No.147/2015 by
which the appellate Court set aside the judgment of acquittal
passed in CC.No.18709/2010 dated 19.12.2014.
2. The petitioners were tried for the offences
punishable under Section 403, 405, 406, 415, 418, 420, 503,
504 R/w Section 34 of IPC. The petitioners filed Crl. Petition
No.7195/2013 challenging the cognizance of the offences taken
against them. The said criminal petition was disposed on
CRL.RP No. 1218 of 2018
11.09.2014 directing the trial Court to conclude the trial within
a period of three months. The trial Court thereafter issued
notice to the charge sheeted witnesses and noticing that the
prosecution had failed to secure the witnesses, acquitted the
petitioners of the offence punishable under Section 504, 506,
420 R/w Section 34 of IPC.
3. Being aggrieved by the same, the
complainant/respondent No.2 herein filed an appeal before the
appellate Court. The appellate Court after perusing the records
held as:
"12. In view of the directions issued by the
Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru in
Crl.Petition No.7195/2013 dated 11.9.20147, case was
expediated. However, in the order sheet, it is not
disclosed about proper service of process to the
witnesses. It is also not disclosed that, application filed
by the complainant U/s.301 of Cr.P.C., to engage
counsel to assist the prosecution as per Section 301 of
Cr.P.C., has not disposed off. Entire order sheets
discloses that, without providing proper opportunity to
the complainant to establish his case, trial Court
disposed off the matter in a hurried manner to get the
case disposed off within the time limit of three months
prescribed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka,
Bengaluru in Crl.Petition No.7195/2013 dated
11.9.2014.
CRL.RP No. 1218 of 2018
13. It is the duty of the court to get the
witnesses secured by invoking compelling process to do
complete justice in the criminal trial. Reasons assigned
in trial court to arrive for the conclusion of acquittal of
the accused is not justified. Trial court had not made
any effort to get the time extended from the Hon'ble
High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru to dispose off the
criminal case after proper adjudication. Complaint filed
by the complainant relating to monitory and transaction
of civil nature. This court is of the opinion that, disposal
of the criminal case without providing fair opportunity to
the complainant to lead evidence to prove his case is not
justified. Hence, interference of this court is
necessitated. According point No.1 is answered in the
Negative and point No.2 in the affirmative."
4. Consequently, the appellate Court allowed the
appeal and set aside the judgment of acquittal and reverted the
case back to the trial Court to re-register to its original number
and proceed with the further trial.
5. Being aggrieved by the same the present revision
petition is filed.
6. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the
charge sheeted witnesses were served through the Deputy
Commissioner of Police but the witnesses failed to appear
before the Court and therefore the Court was justified in
acquitting the accused/petitioners.
CRL.RP No. 1218 of 2018
7. Per contra the learned High Court Government
Pleader submitted that their is no material to establish with the
charge sheeted witnesses who served and therefore, the
appellate Court was justified in remitting the case to the trial
Court to conduct a re-trial. He contended that the interest of
the complainant has to taken into consideration and the trial
Court disposed of the case hurriedly, perhaps to comply the
order passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.7195/2013.
8. I have considered the submission made by the
learned counsel for petitioners as well as learned High Court
Government Pleader.
9. A perusal of the impugned judgment of the trial
Court discloses that the prosecution failed to lead evidence of
any of the witnesses and that it had dropped CW-1 to CW-6.
Therefore there was no evidence adduced against accused
persons for the offences. The appellate Court after perusing the
records held that the order sheet did not disclose that sufficient
opportunity was given to the complainant to establish his case
and the trial Court disposed off the case hurriedly.
CRL.RP No. 1218 of 2018
10. In that view of the matter, their is no error or
irregularity committed by the appellate Court warranting
interference by this Court.
Hence, this revision petition lacks merits and the same is
hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
PK
