Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1076 (KAR)

Raigouda v. State of Karnataka

2013-09-10

ANAND BYRAREDDY

body2013
ORDER Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor. The petitioners are accused of offences punishable under the provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereafter referred to as 'the Act', for brevity), apart from the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC', for brevity). 2. It transpires that, a complaint was lodged before the Magistrate in terms of Section 32 of the Act. The jurisdiction to entertain the complaint is now vested with the Court of Sessions and the complaint having been lodged before the Magistrate, the Magistrate had taken cognizance and thereafter, that the matter stands committed to the Sessions Court. It is this procedure that is sought to be questioned as one of the grounds. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that, the Sessions Court, on such committal, had framed the charges, whereas, only the complainant was examined and though witnesses were cited in the complaint, no witnesses were examined. Hence, the learned Counsel would submit that, merely on the basis of the evidence of the complainant, charges having been framed, would be highly irregular and is not in accordance with law. 4. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would bring to the attention of this Court, Section 460 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to 'Cr.P.C.', for brevity), which enumerates irregular proceedings which would not vitiate proceedings. One of which is, when a Court, which is not competent to take cognizance, has taken cognizance. In the present case on hand, the first ground urged, that the Magistrate was not competent to take cognizance and therefore, the proceeding stands vitiated, is saved by Section 460 of the Cr.P.C. Secondly, it is contended that, insofar as framing of charges are concerned, under Section 244 of the Cr.P.C., relates to a complaint otherwise than on a police report. Since the present case is a complaint otherwise than on a police report, the section does not require that, all the witnesses ought to be examined. It is such evidence that may be produced, which is relevant for the Court to frame charges. The complainant having chosen to tender his evidence alone and not having chosen to produce other witnesses, by itself would not vitiate the proceedings nor can it be contended that, no case is made out against the petitioners. It is such evidence that may be produced, which is relevant for the Court to frame charges. The complainant having chosen to tender his evidence alone and not having chosen to produce other witnesses, by itself would not vitiate the proceedings nor can it be contended that, no case is made out against the petitioners. The Court in its discretion having thought it fit to proceed further to frame charges by examining only the complainant and not having examined other witnesses, does not vitiate the proceedings and submits that, there is no substance in the petition and the same may be dismissed. From the above contentions, it is evident that the irregular proceedings, which are apparent, did not vitiate the proceedings. The fact that the Magistrate, who was not competent to take cognizance had taken cognizance and thereafter had committed the case to the Court of sessions, does not result in the proceeding being vitiated in view of the language of Section 460 of Cr.P.C. Secondly, insofar as charges having been framed merely on the evidence of the complainant, also would not vitiate the proceedings. From the reading of the Sections 244, 245 and 246 of Cr.P.C., it is evident that, it is the discretion of the Court, either to discharge or to frame charges on the basis of the evidence, that is produced. This exercise would not be for this Court to re-examine and address the quantum of evidence and the fact whether the Court was in a position to frame charges on that basis. Therefore, the petition lacks merit and is rejected. I.A. No. 1 of 2013 does not survive for consideration and is disposed of.