Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 241 (KAR)

RAMACHANDRA NARAYAN NAIK v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

2004-03-27

M.S.RAJENDRA PRASAD

body2004
M. S. RAJENDRA PRASAD, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision petition by A-8 filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the cr. P. C. is directed against the order dated 12-1-2004 passed in S. C. No 71 of 2000 on the file of the Fast Track Court, Karwar, wherein the petitioner and others have been facing prosecution for the offences under sections 143, 147, 323, 354, 365, 366, 384, 465, 471 and 395 read with sections 149 and 120-B of the IPC, challenging the legality and propriety of the order impugned. ( 2 ) THE Court has heard the arguments of Sri C. V Nagesh, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner and Sri B. A. Belliappa, learned government Pleader on behalf of the respondent-State. ( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for petitioner strenuously contended that the material on record clearly shows that there is absolutely no prima facie case made out against the petitioner and the evidence collected by the prosecution, even if unrebutted would not lead to conviction of the petitioner for the said offences. The learned Counsel relied upon the following decisions in support of his contentions: (1) State of Karnataka v L. Muniswamy and Others; (2) Union of India v Prafulla Kumar Samal and Another; (3) Satish Mehra v Delhi Administration and Another ; (4) Dilawar Babu Kurane v State of Maharashtra. Placing reliance on the ratio laid down in the said decision, he prayed for allowing the petition. ( 4 ) ON the contrary, the learned Government Pleader strenuously contended that the material on record clearly shows that there has been a prima facie case made out against the petitioner for the said offences. The learned Sessions Judge had considered the material on record in the right prospective and the same is in accordance with law and no grounds have been made out to interfere with the order impugned. Hence, the learned Government Pleader prayed for dismissal of the revision petition. ( 5 ) THE Court has carefully perused the material on record and has given its anxi us thoughts over the rival contentions raised. ( 6 ) FROM the material on record, it is seen that A-l is stated to have married Rum. Rashmi on 27-1-2000 at Kengal Parameshwari Temple and on the next day, the marriage had been registered under the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act before the Registrar of Marriages, kumta. ( 6 ) FROM the material on record, it is seen that A-l is stated to have married Rum. Rashmi on 27-1-2000 at Kengal Parameshwari Temple and on the next day, the marriage had been registered under the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act before the Registrar of Marriages, kumta. Later on, both of them are said to have gone to Goa and other places at Ratnagiri District. It is pertinent to mention that on 31-1-2000, the father of Kum. Rashmi made a written complaint regarding missing of Kum. Rashmi. A-l and Kum. Rashmi are stated to have returned to their place on 2-2-2000. On 3-2-2000, the said Kum. Rashmi is said to have made another written complaint implicating all the accused, including the petitioner, for the said offences. It has to be mentioned that the role stated to have been played by the petitioner is that he had intervened and tried to sort out the dispute between the father of Kum. Rashmi and A-l, and see that both of them live a peaceful married life. In that connection, he is supposed to have demanded the father of Kum. Rashmi to part with some properties to A-l. It is also to be noted that the petitioner is not in any way related to A-l and as a well-wisher, he had attempted to intervene and resolve the dispute. The police, after completing investigation, have submitted charge-sheet against all the accused for the said offences. The learned Sessions Judge, after hearing both sides, had declined to discharge the petitioner for the said offences and, accordingly, the petitioner has come up before this Court with the instant revision petition. ( 7 ) AT the outset, it should be mentioned that the revisional powers of this Court are not only limited in its scope, but also discretionary. ( 8 ) BEFORE proceeding further, it is also necessary to mention that in a judgment of the Apex Court, rendered in the case of L Muniswamy, supra, it has been held as follows:"for the purpose of determining whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against an accused the Court possesses, comparatively wider discretion in the exercise of which it can determine the question whether the material on the record, if unrebutted, is such on the basis of which a conviction can be said reasonably to be possible". ( 9 ) IT is also necessary to refer to another decision of the Apex Court, rendered in the case of Prafulla Kumar, supra, wherein it has been held as follows:"the test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large however if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused. In exercising his jurisdiction under Section 227 the Judge which under the present Court is a senior and experienced Court cannot act merely as a Post Office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This however does not mean that the Judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial". ( 10 ) IN the case of Satish Mehra, supra, the Supreme Court has held as follows: "12. The object of providing such an opportunity as is envisaged in section 227 of the Code is to enable the Court to decide whether it is necessary to proceed to conduct the trial. If the case ends there it gains a lot of time of the Court and saves much human efforts and cost. If the materials produced by the accused even at that early stage would clinch the issue, why should the Court shut it out saying that such documents need be produced only after wasting a lot more time in the name of trial proceedings. Hence, we are of the view that Sessions Judge would be within his powers to consider even material which the accused may produce at the stage contemplated in Section 227 of the Code. 13. But when the Judge is fairly certain that there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction the valuable time of the Court should not be wasted for holding a trial only for the purpose of formally completing the procedure to pronounce the conclusion on a future date. 13. But when the Judge is fairly certain that there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction the valuable time of the Court should not be wasted for holding a trial only for the purpose of formally completing the procedure to pronounce the conclusion on a future date. We are mindful that most of the Sessions Courts in india are under heavy pressure of workload. If the Sessions Judge is almost certain that the trial would only be an exercise in futility or a sheer waste of time it is advisable to truncate or snip the proceedings at the stage of Section 227 of the Code itself. ( 11 ) IN another decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Dilawar babu Kurane, supra, it has been held that a Judge cannot merely act as a Post Office, but has to consider the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court. It is also further held that when there is no prima facie case made out against the accused and there are remote chances of charges ultimately culminating into conviction, the criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed. ( 12 ) THE cumulative effect of these decisions is that, the Sessions court, while considering the material placed on record before it for the purpose of framing charge, will have to consider the evidence and the documents produced before it and cannot merely act as a Post Office and proceed to frame charges against the accused. Having regard to the ratio laid down in the said decisions and applying the same to the facts of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no prima facie case made out against the petitioner for the said offences and there is not even remote chance of the case ending in conviction so far as the petitioner is concerned. It has to be observed that the evidence collected by the prosecution so far as the petitioner is concerned, even if remains unrebutted, would not lead to conviction of the petitioner. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the settled law in this regard, this Court is of the opinion that the order impugned is illegal and improper and this Court will have to interfere with the same to meet the ends of justice. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the settled law in this regard, this Court is of the opinion that the order impugned is illegal and improper and this Court will have to interfere with the same to meet the ends of justice. ( 13 ) IT is also necessary to mention that fourteen other accused have been facing prosecution in respect of these offences and the Trial Court need not be influenced by any of the observations made in the course of this order, while proceeding with the trial of the case against the said other accused. ( 14 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, the revision petition stands allowed. The order impugned is hereby set aside. Consequently, the petitioner is discharged for the said offences and his bail bond stands cancelled. --- *** --- .