Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 172 (KAR)

SUBBAIAH v. STATE BY ANEKAL POLICE

2001-02-20

K.SREEDHAR RAO

body2001
( 1 ) PETITION filed against the order of JMFC, Anekal C. C. No. 435/99. The petitioners are the accused and alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 323, I. P. C. on 8-9-94. It is unfortunate to note that the charge-sheet filed smacks ignorance of the rudiments of the criminal law on the part of investigating agency. In particular the P. S. I. of Anekal working as on 30-7-99 who has filed the charge-sheet. The offence under Sections 341, 323, I. P. C. are mentioned without invoking the aid of the provisions regarding sharing of common intention; under Section 34, common knowledge, under Sec. 35, abetment under Sec. 107, sharing of common object envisaged for the offences under Chapter VIII of I. P. C. or for conspiracy under Sec. 120-B by the accused jointly. Unless the said provisions are invoked joint trial of the accused would not (be) permitted in law and it is necessary that specific charge in that regard has to be framed. In the absence of specific charge, the invoking of the aforesaid provisions by inference later on also would not be permissible. Consequently, there could be no conviction and the joint trial held in the absence of charge for the aforesaid provision would vitiate the trial. ( 2 ) OBVIOUSLY, the allegation in the charge-sheet discloses that by sharing the common intention, the offences alleged have been committed by the accused. Therefore, it is appropriate for the investigation agency to file the charge-sheet invoking Section 34, I. P. C. along with other substantial offences in the charge-sheet. ( 3 ) THE another glaring mistake noticeable is that the charge-sheet is filed beyond the period of limitation as envisaged under Section 468, Cr. P. C. The charge-sheet is filed on 30-7-97 almost 13 years after the incident. No application for condonation of delay is filed. Without knowing any of the basic aspects of the provisions relating to limitation for filing of the charge-sheet in an imprudent and mechanical way, the charge-sheet is filed. Ex facie, it discloses that the cognizance of the offence alleged cannot be taken in view of the provisions of Section 468, Cr. P. C. for the offences in question, as the charge-sheet should have been filed within one year. ( 4 ) UNDER the circumstances, the proceedings before the trial Court are quashed. Ex facie, it discloses that the cognizance of the offence alleged cannot be taken in view of the provisions of Section 468, Cr. P. C. for the offences in question, as the charge-sheet should have been filed within one year. ( 4 ) UNDER the circumstances, the proceedings before the trial Court are quashed. ( 5 ) NOT only in this case, I have noticed the aforesaid lapses on the part of the investigating agency, but in general, in my experience I have come across in several cases, the charge-sheets relating to S. C. and S. T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, N. D. P. S. Act, Essential Commodities Act and for the prosecution under I. P. C. , similar mistakes are committed. Without invoking the enabling provisions for joint trial, charge-sheets are filed. The trial Courts also are overlooking these glaring mistakes. Therefore, I deem it proper that mistakes on the part of the investigating agency has to be brought to the notice of the Director General of Police and a copy of the order is directed to be communicated to the Director General of Police to take appropriate action in law and also properly educate all the Station House Officers in the State about the compliance of these basic provisions at the time of filing of charge-sheet and also to direct the Superintendent of Police to have effective supervision over the investigation officer for the proper compliance of these provisions at the time of filing of the charge-sheet. So also copy of the order directed to communicate to the District Prosecution for due compliance of the observations. ( 6 ) THE Registry is directed to communicate the order to the District General of Police, Director of Prosecutions and to all the Judicial Officers in the State. The compliance of the direction to be reported within two weeks from the date of receipt of the order. Order accordingly. --- *** --- .