Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1 (KAR)

STATE OF KARNATAKA v. SYED SHABBIR HUSSAINI

2006-01-02

N.S.VEERABHADRAIAH

body2006
( 1 ) THOUGH the matter has come up for admission, it is taken up for final disposal by consent of both sides Counsel. ( 2 ) THIS revision is by the State assailing the order passed in S. C. No. 129/2000 by the District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track court-II, Koppal, dated 13-4-2005 discharging the accused of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 342, 353, 395, 504, and 506 of Indian Penal Code. ( 3 ) BRIEF facts of the case are as follows : the Sub Inspector of Police, Koppal Town, charge sheeted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 342, 353, 395, 504 and 506 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code. It is alleged that on 19-11-1998 at about 11. 45 a. m. in front of the house of accused No. 1 while the complainant Radha Krishna, Branch manager of Syndicate Bank, Koppal, went along with CW 4-Mohammed Moula, the court bailiff for execution of attachment warrant in respect of the recovery of Bank dues, the accused formed themselves into members of unlawful assembly with the common object, picked up a quarrel and abused the complainant with indecent words and at that time they were armed with deadly weapons and confined the complainant by tying him to the window and thereby obstructed him from discharging his lawful duties and further committed dacoity of gold chain and threatened with dire consequences. After the case was committed to the Court of Session, the accused filed an application under S. 227 of Cr. P. C. praying to discharge from the alleged offences. Learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 13-4-2005 discharged the accused for the above offences. It is this order, which is questioned in the present Criminal Revision Petition. ( 4 ) SRI C. Ramakrishna, learned High court Government Pleader submitted that the learned Sessions Judge instead of considering the prima facie case, has gone into the merits in scrutinising the evidence, which is erroneous and not sustainable. He further submitted that learned Sessions judge has lost sight of the principle laid down by the Apex Court wherein the Court should not take into consideration the details of the matter as they have to be considered after the trial is conducted. He further submitted that learned Sessions judge has lost sight of the principle laid down by the Apex Court wherein the Court should not take into consideration the details of the matter as they have to be considered after the trial is conducted. Therefore, he prayed to set aside the impugned order and to direct the Sessions Judge to frame charges and to proceed in accordance with law. ( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for the respondent sri B. V. Pinto submitted that the learned sessions Judge has taken note of the fact that a false case has been implicated against the accused and absolutely there is no material object against them. Therefore, he prayed to dismiss the revision. ( 6 ) IN light of the submissions, the point for consideration that arises : "whether the impugned order discharging the accused does suffer from infirmities? if so, liable to be interfered with? What Orders?" ( 7 ) IT is a well settled principle, time and again that the Apex Court and this Court have consistently held that while framing charges the Court has to take note as to the prima facie case and should not go in detail by considering the statement of witnesses made therein which fact has been lost sight by the learned Sessions Judge who has scrutinised the statement of witnesses and passed the impugned order discharging the accused, which is not sustainable. ( 8 ) AS could be seen from the charge sheet and the investigation papers, it is prima facie clear that the complainant being the manager of Syndicate Bank took a bailiff CW 4-Mohammed Moula for enforcement of attachment warrant, it was then these accused protested and tied the Manager with a rope to the window, which shows that there is a prima facie case for the offences punishable under Ss. 143, 147, 148. 342, 353, 395, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code. Further, it is seen that though the charge alleged is for the offence punishable under S. 395 of Indian Penal Code, there is no recovery of gold chain as such, so as to constitute the ingredients of said Section. Therefore, discharge of the accused persons for the offence under S. 395 of Indian Penal Code does not call for interference. ( 9 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, this Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part. Therefore, discharge of the accused persons for the offence under S. 395 of Indian Penal Code does not call for interference. ( 9 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, this Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part. The discharge of the accused for the offence under S. 395 of Indian Penal Code is confirmed whereas the discharge of the accused for the remaining offences i. e. under Sections 143, 147, 148, 342, 353, 504 and 506 of Indian penal Code is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted to the Sessions Court to transfer to the Court of jurisdictional Magistrate to proceed in accordance with law. Office is directed to transmit the records forthwith. Petition partly allowed. --- *** --- .