Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 460 (KAR)

STATE OF KARNATAKA v. ABDULSAB IMAMSAB MAKANDAR

2003-06-12

M.F.SALDANHA, M.S.RAJENDRA PRASAD

body2003
M. F. SALDANHA, J. ( 1 ) WE have heard the learned Addi SPP on merits. As we are duty bound to do out of a sense of responsibility also, we have carefully perused the judgment and the records for two reasons, the first being that if on the face of the offences serious or otherwise the acquittal order is wrongly recorded for whatever reason, we consider ourselves duty bound to rectify that situation as otherwise absolutely wrong signals will be sent out with regard to the working of the justice disposal machinery. Also, this Court owes a responsibility to ensure that no appeals are wrongly entertained. In those of the cases were, after the entire trauma of a trial the accused have been acquitted and where the record does not justify any interference with that order merely because the state has presented an appeal against the acquittal, if that appeal is thoughtlessly admitted, it involves one more round of litigation and apart from the load it imposes on the judiciary the respondent-accused has to undergo the ordeal right through the pendency of that appeal till its disposal. We have to be very circumspect in exercising the option of admitting the appeals against acquittal orders and prune those cases which are hopeless and where no interference is called for the appeals are being disposed of strictly at the admission stage itself. While in those of the orders which require correction. We have to corrected there at this stage itself. ( 2 ) WE have come across one disturbing phenomena which is that there are a number of cases in which there is absolutely no justification for, even recommending the appeal against an order of acquittal the reason being that there is not even a semblance of a case made out by the prosecution which can justify a conviction. Even in the border line cases because the state genuinely feels that a reconsideration is necessary and we have to apply our minds filing of an appeal may be pardonable. This principal will not hold good in those of the instances where there is virtually Zero evidence, in those of the cases where the record is in total shambles and irresponsible or mechanical resolutions are passed by the Law Department for filing of the appeals. This principal will not hold good in those of the instances where there is virtually Zero evidence, in those of the cases where the record is in total shambles and irresponsible or mechanical resolutions are passed by the Law Department for filing of the appeals. We do understand that once such a direction comes from the Law Department that the officer of the Advocate General is absolutely helpless and is required to file an appeal because of this wrong attitude of the Law Department. ( 3 ) THERE are procedures prescribed for the Law Department to examine each and every case carefully and on merits. There are judicial officers who are entrusted for this purpose and we assume that those officers are of sufficient competence and are being assigned for purpose of doing this scrutiny. It is important to record that as far as criminal proceedings are concerned the majority of them particularly sessions cases are disposed of by Senior and experienced judicial officers and the question arises as to whether the reappraisal of this judgment and orders is being done by the persons of sufficient seniority and competence or whether in fact the position is otherwise. ( 4 ) THE point before us, so far as this criminal appeal is concerned, wherein all the 13 witnesses have turned hostile or otherwise have not supported the case of the prosecution. what the reason for this is, we are not aware of but the position that emerges is that there is virtually zero evidence on record and despite this, the appeal is preferred. It appears to be a classic instance of total non-application of mind. The learned Addi SPP brought it to our notice that one of the charges is under Section 376 IPC and it was his submission that since there was an allegation of rape that the appeal has been filed. The original charge may be a serious one it may even be a charge of murder but that is not the point, the real issue is whether there is enough material to justify a conviction and despite this the trial court has wrongly acquitted the accused. The original charge may be a serious one it may even be a charge of murder but that is not the point, the real issue is whether there is enough material to justify a conviction and despite this the trial court has wrongly acquitted the accused. In the present case, there is not even a ghost of a chance of the order of acquittal being disturbed and despite this in all seriousness the Law Department has recommended the appeal and we have to go through the labour of re-examination of the entire record and dismiss it. Once again we need to reiterate that there has to be a full stop to this state of affairs because judicial time and judicial energy are precious commodities and they are required to be utilised only for proper and deserving cases. ( 5 ) WHILE dismissing the appeal on merits we direct the Registrar General to forward a copy of this Judgment to the Secretary to Government. Law Department with a Specific direction that immediate coercive, steps will be taken with regard to the concerned officers and procedures and to report back to the High Court the corrective action that has been taken. Our observations will be specially brought to the notice of the two officers who have recommended and approved the filling of the appeal ( 6 ) WITH these directions, the appeal to stand dismissed on merits. Appeal dismissed.